twoshots wrote:
Fnord wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Question though: do you know what it is like to live from paycheck to paycheck?
People are paid what their employers think their labors are worth. If they can get a higher wage elsewhere, then they should do it. Otherwise, they're probably lucky to have
any form of employment at all!
That's not exactly true. An employer can charge whatever they want, but ultimately the employer pretty much has to set the price to the market worth of the labor. They may rather not pay that than get the service, but its no more true that they're in charge than saying that the price of goods is determined by what a person thinks its worth. That will determine the individual's purchasing choices, but the overall price is going to be determined by the market.
Then consider the specific market: An abundant
supply of unskilled labor in a shrinking retail environment. How much should Wal-Mart pay for a plentiful commodity of which it
demands only a small fraction? Note the key words in
bold.
Imho, somewhere between one and one-and-a-half times the minimum wage.
And I have lived from paycheck-to-paycheck, and hand-to-mouth, so I know what Wal-Mart employees are dealing with. But think about it ... those people are being paid the wages that they agreed to receive in exchange for their labors. So what if it isn't enough to buy both champagne
and caviar? Let them drink Coke...
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.