Raise wages at Wal-Mart and how does Wal-Mart respond?

Posted by moy23 on 2/7/2015 10:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/7/2015 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Raise wages at Wal-Mart and how does Wal-Mart respond?

While I agree with bheid's premise that welfare is more enticing than working and to help get people back to work that needs to be reversed. I disagree with how he suggests to get it done.

Like you say - raising minimum wages has consequences. But more importantly, IMO, is that just putting more money in someone's pocket does not 'teach' them anything. To make lasting change there should be an educational piece.

Posted by moy23 on 2/7/2015 10:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bheid408 on 2/7/2015 10:16:00 AM (view original):
The real problem with welfare isn't welfare itself, it is that by the time the people on welfare go get a job and then they take taxes out of the paychecks, pay for a babysitter, pay for gas to get to work, etc, etc... there is nothing left. Which would you do? Put in 40 hours a week and give your check to the government, the babysitter, the petroleum company etc, etc, or stay at home and collect your welfare check, watch TV, smoke cigarettes, drink booze, and make more babies so you get a bigger welfare check, etc, etc....????

Want to get people off of welfare? Make it more attractive to them to get a job. This could be done a couple of ways just for starters.
1.Raise the minimum wage to at least $12 and hour. Work a full year and you'd make $25,000. Still nothing to brag about but if both mom and dad both do this it's $50,000 and a step in the right direction. This would apply only to corporate companies, like WalMart, McD's, etc... Small Mom & Pop businesses would not have to pay the $12 an hour as that could put a financial burden on their businesses and cause them to go out of business. Excuse me, but the Millionaires and Billionaires like Walmart can afford it. 
2.Stop taking taxes out of paychecks unless you earn more than the minimum wage. Gives the lower working class more money to spend throughout the year and the incentive to keep working. Hey, keep 'em off welfare and it's a win win! Which would cost more, the welfare check or the loss of taxes coming in? I'd bet welfare. 

I don't necessarily disagree. I do think you are forgetting 1 major point. Almost everyone whose someone today started at a low paying minimum wage job, then they work hard, get promoted, and eventually earn a nice living. When someone says "why would I work 40 hours to make the same money I can make from welfare?" I would respond that by staying home you take yourself out of play for job promotions down the road. Its shortsighted, something a career advisor could help with.

Posted by moy23 on 2/7/2015 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bheid408 on 2/7/2015 1:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 2/7/2015 10:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/7/2015 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Raise wages at Wal-Mart and how does Wal-Mart respond?

While I agree with bheid's premise that welfare is more enticing than working and to help get people back to work that needs to be reversed. I disagree with how he suggests to get it done.

Like you say - raising minimum wages has consequences. But more importantly, IMO, is that just putting more money in someone's pocket does not 'teach' them anything. To make lasting change there should be an educational piece.

And if they can't hold a job at WalMart or McD's with a high school education what makes you think more education will help?

I think everyone agrees that there is a sense of pride attained when you have a job and it pays enough for you to be self-sufficient.

Like I said previously, if your choice is to have the same amount of money or more by taking the welfare check verses working and using that money to pay the expenses related to having a job the choice is an easy one for them to make. These people have already LEARNED which is best for them.

High schools don't teach people how to advance their career. Not many managers do either. My old company fortunately put me through an executive leadership program which really opened my eyes to building social capital, influencing, and managing up. Before then no one taught me that stuff so for 10 years I'd constantly wonder why so and so got the promotion and I didn't when my numbers were better than theirs.

Its interesting - I'm coaching an employee to interview candidates for jobs. Last week we had a stack of resumes - maybe 6-7 of them. ALL the resumes had the positions the candidates worked and the bullet points were their job responsibilities. Where are the accomplishments? ****How do these 7 people differentiate themselves on paper to actually GET the interview?***

For example - let's say its a bank teller resume.

They say

Chase Bank - Teller - 2010-2014
* responsible for balancing a cash drawer
* did monthly audits
* referred business to the bankers
* etc

Well no **** - that's what all tellers do. Now with a career advisor, mentor, coach, whatever... they'd suggest you change it up and bullet your successes.

Chase Bank - Teller - 2010-2014
* 98% cash balancing accuracy
* led the region (50 tellers) in sales referrals in 2014
* trained two new tellers to become successful tellers
* etc


The 2nd resume is more likely to get the interview - BUT people need to be taught to do their resume that way. That's why a career coach can help get people working again and off food stamps.