If you're curious as to why massive, greedy corporations like Amazon and Walmart try to bust unions,

[Uncle Joe]

Link to tweet

[Recursion]

1. OTOH WalMart employees earn a lot more than the average for retail

It's sort of like how everybody is mad that WalMart destroyed all the mom & pop retail stores, which they did, but it's not like the mom & pop retail stores had high wage jobs with benefits. WalMart has a minimum wage of $11 and Amazon has a minimum wage of $15; that's much much higher than their sectors in general.

[Maggiemayhem]

2. You think Walmart and Amazon did that on their own?

It was pushing from the progressive wing of the democrats. Besides Walmarts is shifting towards robotics.

[Recursion]

4. They certainly weren't forced to do it.

Both of them outlined business reasons for doing it, but I guarantee you no state south of Virginia is going to force them to raise their wages there. They did it because they chose to.

And, yes, WalMart is shifting towards automation, as is every single other business in the world. That's what higher wages does.

[Uncle Joe]

5. They chose to because of public pressure and Bernie has led the way on that issue. n/t

[Recursion]

9. No

That's magical thinking. There has been zero actual pressure on WalMart. People being performatively angry doesn't actually change things.

[betsuni]

10. +1

[Humanist_Activist]

12. Zero pressure? They have been the subject of lawsuits, some of the largest class actions...

in American history over the past 30 years over how they treat their workers. Not to mention Unionization drives, they are fanatically anti-union(I should know, I worked at Wal-Mart before), and this has lead to ancillary benefits, though not enough, obviously.

[LanternWaste]

15. Creative, though thoroughly unsupported allegation.

Post hoc ergo prompter hoc. Again. You seem to enjoy using that particular fallacy to the exclusion of providing data to support your bumper stickers.

You really should try providing objective evidence to support your statements every once in a while. But I understand why you consistently refuse to do so... bumper stickers simply don't have the space or room to allow for that depth or breadth.

[Uncle Joe]

17. There you go again with your "post hoc ergo prompter hoc" usage,

I provided objective evidence on a different thread, different subject which you apparently either didn't read or couldn't/wouldn't connect the dots.


https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=358879

[Humanist_Activist]

11. And how many hours do they get at those rates?

Is it full time or part time.

Targets near me are hiring people starting at 13 dollars an hour, but also don't give you hardly any hours. Oh, and these jobs usually expect you to be "flexible" with your schedule, which makes having second/third jobs next to impossible to get.

[Recursion]

14. Fewer. Again, that's what higher wages mean

But fewer higher paid workers is always better than more lower paid workers.

[Humanist_Activist]

18. Why should there be lower paid workers to begin with?

Why is this acceptable at all?

You say this as if its some immutable law of nature, it is not, its a structure created by people and can be changed by people to be better.

[Recursion]

20. You're saying every single person should make the same amount of money?

It's an intriguing idea but that's going to be a difficult political sell.

[Humanist_Activist]

21. I would say that the floor for earnings should be a living wage,

being able to afford to buy a home, pay bills, etc. on one income. And that's at the very minimum. None of this "entry level" bullshit that pays workers 2 dollars above the well below poverty level minimum wage we have now. Shit, the minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation in 30 fucking years, 15 dollars an hour is still at poverty level, yet because of the short sightedness of the public, that's what we are trying to go for as a new minimum wage. Its pathetic.

[Recursion]

22. Then we'll need lots of two earner couples to have one person quit

That's the "two-income trap" Warren wrote her book about. If couples with two earners are common, there's not a way for a single earner to get by on wages.

[JoeOtterbein]

3. K n R!

[sheshe2]

6. This is what I do not get.

Perhaps you can explain it to me.

Why does he sell his books at Amazon and WalMart? They are massive greedy corporations, yet he gives them his business. Please explain that to me.

If you're curious as to why massive, greedy corporations like Amazon and Walmart try to bust unions, remember that union workers earn 22% more, on average, than non-union workers.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

7. When has he ever called for a boycott?

Besides making them pay their employees and pay their taxes, when has he ever called for a boycott?

Spoiler alert: he hasn’t

[sheshe2]

8. Bwahahaha

Never said he should 'call' for a boycott. Yet out of principle he alone should take his business elsewhere since they are greedy corporatists.

[NurseJackie]

13. Out of principle... yes... indeed.

[sheshe2]

19. ...

[LanternWaste]

16. Why argue against a point no one is making?

Spoiler alert: to throw something irrelevant at the wall hoping it sticks.

Again.