Whilst working for such Temps agencies I often saw young people wearing T-shirts, reading: (translated by me)
"As long as my employer just pretends to pay me, I just pretend to work."

Those rocket scientists are well on their way to becoming the next CEOs. They should all get together and pay themselves $500K a year.

Oh, right. They can't. They must work for the UAW.

To all employers: offer appropriate wages, and you get appropriate labor for it.

To all people who believe in empty-headed sloganeering: Employers offer what the job is worth to them, tempered by the market rate. No more, no less.

They never offer more, and they never have. A few pay a little bit more, but a few pay a little bit less, but overwhelmingly they pay what the market will bear.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

BTW, pay scales don't go down for people who perform well for their employers.

No, they just get fired. The employers then outsource the jobs overseas to countries with cheap labor. This is a well-known practice of the corporate world. And many times, they end up transfering technological know-how to countries that wouldn't have it otherwise.

It's called progress. If you possess 1 single skill and are unable to adapt to the advances of time and technology, you are unprepared to make it in this world and could even be considered sub-human as adaptability is one of our greatest evolutionary achievements.

The world owes you NOTHING, it was here first.

Outsourcing is about companies wanting to save money rather than progress.

Yeah, most Americans understand the concept of not having enough money to pay your bills means you better make some changes in your budget plan. The bottom line is that this is a perfectly legal option and if YOU lack the skills/education/adaptability to get another job, that's YOUR fault.

I was referring to what you said about pay scales not going down for people who perform well. That might be the case, but my point was that even the jobs of people who perform well get outsourced.

Who told you life was fair? Bad S*** happens to good people everyday, but you know what...most of us get over it and move on with our lives rather than cry over spilled milk.

When it comes to tech jobs, progress is made in the tech sectors of those countries. Essentially, over time, we're sacrificing the industrial and technological advantages that we have.

Then maybe you should stop voting democrat and force the parasites of our society to get an education or learn a trade or starve to death....then we'll have the cheap labor force to keep those jobs here.

---

It's called progress.

Hmm... According to you, the 'cheapest labor' is the most 'highly skilled labor' too... Now that is progress! ;)

(Ever hear the phrase: You get what you pay for.)

Ahhh, so the truth comes out. Your not actually worth what you think you should be paid.

Imagine my surprise...

---

Federal Government: Give me your money.

Corporate America: Give me your labor.

And the only thing 'Brain-smasheD' people do about it is criticize those who are rightfully discontent... ;)

(Eventually, we will all be doing the work of a dozen people for a penny an hour.)

Well there are actually so-called Economy experts who state for example: "Everybody who wants to work can find a job. They just have to accept low enough wages." (Hans-Werner Sinn, German professor for Economy & president of the ifo-Institut)
He also said following (I think BrainSmashR and others will like that) :
"Städte und Gemeinden ... sollen die Möglichkeit bieten, für acht Stunden Arbeit täglich die bisherige Sozialhilfe zu verdienen" - "Towns and communities should offer the opportunity to earn the nowadays welfare with eight hours of work per day."

Cool. Letting people work for their welfare instead of offering them real jobs with real wages.
Here in Germany Welfare is €345 a month for a single person. 345/30x7= €80.50 per week. Supposing 5 working days a week, 8 hrs of work per day means 40 hrs a week, means 2 Euros per hour, Assuming 6 working days a week it would be 48 hrs - average salary per hour: €1.67
The official minimum wages according to the tariffs of the lowest-paying employers here (I mean slaveholder companies like Manpower, Adecco, Randstad etc) are €7.50 - 4.5 times the amount Mr Sinn and his fellows suggest.

Yippika-yay! Straight forward into slavery!

Mr Sinn and all of you who think similar: I invite you to try to live one month off my income while I try to live one month off yours. Let's see - if you survive that - whether or not you still say that it's a too high "income".

Strange that only the rich dare to demand that the welfare should be cut or taken away at all - and protest the loudest when the poor only want to get what they deserve: higher wages, a better social security system, better education paid fully by the tax-payers, etc.

Wage: A wage is a compensation which workers receive in exchange for their labor.

Thus, minimum wage is the minimum compensation one receives in exchange for their labor.

Understand why those on welfare receive less, genius?

Sure - but then, people who work should be PAID for their work.
That means they have to be paid real wages instead of just the welfare amount for their labor.
And even the €7.50 paid by these temp agencies like Manpower etc here in Germany are too low wages to afford a living.

And you'd think the phrase "temp agency" as opposed to the term "career" would have been enough for you to figure it out on your own...

---

Most people make significantly more. For example, Walmart.

This coming from a man who 'claims' to 'do his research'? Are you kidding me???

Walmart is the front runner of low wages and no benefits... They pay slave wages, as most large corporations do... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Most people make significantly more. For example, Walmart.

This coming from a man who 'claims' to 'do his research'? Are you kidding me???

Walmart is the front runner of low wages and no benefits... They pay slave wages, as most large corporations do... ;)

Once again, satisfaction is the death of desire.

Some people are satisfied with employment at Wally World, REAL Americans use those type of jobs as stepping stones.

---

REAL Americans use those type of jobs as stepping stones.

Have you even been to Walmart? At the age of 60, where exactly are they stepping to, their graves?

They are low paying 'retirement jobs'... Just as truck driving and every other 'mass production market' on the planet has become... Trucking companies even advertise 'great retirement job' in their classifieds... What a friggin joke... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Most people make significantly more. For example, Walmart.

This coming from a man who 'claims' to 'do his research'? Are you kidding me???

Walmart is the front runner of low wages and no benefits... They pay slave wages, as most large corporations do... ;)

No, I'm not kidding you, rocket scientist. As usual, what follows is a demonstration of your glaring errors. Can you even read?

What I said was: "So few make that amount [minimum wage] because there are so few jobs paying that amount. Most people make significantly more. For example, Walmart. Their average is significantly higher than the minimum, that's why the corporation supported the minimum wage increase. They know full well that the mom-and-pop type stores can't afford the increase, so they are driven out of business, and that means more business for Walmart."

I said that Walmart pays significantly more than minimum wage. From a brief search of "walmart average wages" on Google:

From Slate: "In the Dec. 16 New York Review of Books, Simon Head, director of the Project on Technology and the Workplace at the Century Foundation, stated, 'the average pay of a sales clerk [italics mine] at Wal-Mart was $8.50 an hour, or about $14,000 a year, $1,000 below the government's definition of the poverty level for a family of three.' That the current minimum wage of $5.15 per hour leaves families even farther below the poverty line is a depressing topic for another day." In other words, Walmart Walmart pays significantly more than minimum wage, about 65 percent more.

From the United Food and Commercial Workers Union: "Wal-Mart pays an average hourly wage of $8.23 an hour, according to independent expert statistical analysis, which falls below basic living wage standards and even below poverty lines. @al-Mart claims an hourly wage of $9.68 an hour is its national average, though that still equals poverty levels for workers. Since 'full time' at Wal-Mart is 34 hours a week according to company policy, full-time workers make a mere $17,114.24 a year—below the federal poverty level for a family of four. The most common Wal-Mart jobs earn less. A sales associate -- the most common job classification -- earns on average $8.23 per hour ($13,861 annually). A cashier—the second most common job—earns about $7.92 per hour ($11,948 annually)." In other words, Walmart Walmart pays significantly more than minimum wage, about 60 percent more.

From Wakeupwalmart: "In 2001, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861. The 2001 poverty line for a family of three was $14,630. ['Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?', Business Week, 10/6/03, US Dept of Health and Human Services 2001 Poverty Guidelines, 2001]. A 2003 wage analysis reported that cashiers, the second most common job, earn approximately $7.92 per hour and work 29 hours a week. This brings in annual wages of only $11,948. ['Statistical Analysis of Gender Patterns in Wal-Mart's Workforce', Dr. Richard Drogin 2003.]" In other words, Walmart pays significantly more than minimum wage, about 60 percent more.

That you, Slate, the UFCW, and Wakeupwalmart, feel that those wages are too low, does not address the fact that, as I said, those jobs aren't meant to afford a living. In fact, they aren't "meant" to be anything. They are offers to work at a wage that the work is worth to the employer, nothing more. The employer offers what the job is worth to them, tempered by the market. A few pay a little bit more, a few pay a little bit less, but overwhelmingly they pay what the market will bear.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

the current minimum wage of $5.15 per hour

A little 'out dated'... eh? ;)

(Your Research!)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

the current minimum wage of $5.15 per hour

A little 'out dated'... eh? ;)

(Your Research!)

No rocket scientist, the point was that even in 2001, nearly SEVEN YEARS before the current increases, Walmart paid far more than the federal minimum wage.

You, of course, are welcome to hire people and pay them as much as you wish. But you won't.

Surprise, surprise.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

No rocket scientist, the point was

Talking to some people is like talking to a child... ;)

Surprise, surprise.

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

BTW, pay scales don't go down for people who perform well for their employers.

No, they just get fired. The employers then outsource the jobs overseas to countries with cheap labor. This is a well-known practice of the corporate world. And many times, they end up transfering technological know-how to countries that wouldn't have it otherwise.

It's called progress. If you possess 1 single skill and are unable to adapt to the advances of time and technology, you are unprepared to make it in this world and could even be considered sub-human as adaptability is one of our greatest evolutionary achievements.

The world owes you NOTHING, it was here first.

Outsourcing is about companies wanting to save money rather than progress.

Yeah, most Americans understand the concept of not having enough money to pay your bills means you better make some changes in your budget plan. The bottom line is that this is a perfectly legal option and if YOU lack the skills/education/adaptability to get another job, that's YOUR fault.

I was referring to what you said about pay scales not going down for people who perform well. That might be the case, but my point was that even the jobs of people who perform well get outsourced.

Who told you life was fair? Bad S*** happens to good people everyday, but you know what...most of us get over it and move on with our lives rather than cry over spilled milk.

When it comes to tech jobs, progress is made in the tech sectors of those countries. Essentially, over time, we're sacrificing the industrial and technological advantages that we have.

Then maybe you should stop voting democrat and force the parasites of our society to get an education or learn a trade or starve to death....then we'll have the cheap labor force to keep those jobs here.

Obviously you don't understand. It IS educated people that are getting axed while jobs are outsourced. And even people that have small businesses or trade skills have to compete with overseas workers that are given an unfair advantage over them. Why should someone "get over it" as you say instead of standing against it? To me that's like doing nothing while someone beats the hell out of me. No thanks.

---

Most people make significantly more. For example, Walmart.

This coming from a man who 'claims' to 'do his research'? Are you kidding me???

Walmart is the front runner of low wages and no benefits... They pay slave wages, as most large corporations do... ;)

No, I'm not kidding you, rocket scientist. As usual, what follows is a demonstration of your glaring errors. Can you even read?

What I said was: "So few make that amount [minimum wage] because there are so few jobs paying that amount. Most people make significantly more. For example, Walmart. Their average is significantly higher than the minimum, that's why the corporation supported the minimum wage increase. They know full well that the mom-and-pop type stores can't afford the increase, so they are driven out of business, and that means more business for Walmart."

I said that Walmart pays significantly more than minimum wage. From a brief search of "walmart average wages" on Google:

From Slate: "In the Dec. 16 New York Review of Books, Simon Head, director of the Project on Technology and the Workplace at the Century Foundation, stated, 'the average pay of a sales clerk [italics mine] at Wal-Mart was $8.50 an hour, or about $14,000 a year, $1,000 below the government's definition of the poverty level for a family of three.' That the current minimum wage of $5.15 per hour leaves families even farther below the poverty line is a depressing topic for another day." In other words, Walmart Walmart pays significantly more than minimum wage, about 65 percent more.

From the United Food and Commercial Workers Union: "Wal-Mart pays an average hourly wage of $8.23 an hour, according to independent expert statistical analysis, which falls below basic living wage standards and even below poverty lines. @al-Mart claims an hourly wage of $9.68 an hour is its national average, though that still equals poverty levels for workers. Since 'full time' at Wal-Mart is 34 hours a week according to company policy, full-time workers make a mere $17,114.24 a year—below the federal poverty level for a family of four. The most common Wal-Mart jobs earn less. A sales associate -- the most common job classification -- earns on average $8.23 per hour ($13,861 annually). A cashier—the second most common job—earns about $7.92 per hour ($11,948 annually)." In other words, Walmart Walmart pays significantly more than minimum wage, about 60 percent more.

From Wakeupwalmart: "In 2001, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861. The 2001 poverty line for a family of three was $14,630. ['Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?', Business Week, 10/6/03, US Dept of Health and Human Services 2001 Poverty Guidelines, 2001]. A 2003 wage analysis reported that cashiers, the second most common job, earn approximately $7.92 per hour and work 29 hours a week. This brings in annual wages of only $11,948. ['Statistical Analysis of Gender Patterns in Wal-Mart's Workforce', Dr. Richard Drogin 2003.]" In other words, Walmart pays significantly more than minimum wage, about 60 percent more.

That you, Slate, the UFCW, and Wakeupwalmart, feel that those wages are too low, does not address the fact that, as I said, those jobs aren't meant to afford a living. In fact, they aren't "meant" to be anything. They are offers to work at a wage that the work is worth to the employer, nothing more. The employer offers what the job is worth to them, tempered by the market. A few pay a little bit more, a few pay a little bit less, but overwhelmingly they pay what the market will bear.

What never ceases to amaze me is that you support this system that clearly lets people down.

The market will bear it..the people bear it because they have no choice and the market is more important than the people.

Me...I would like to see a world where the society we build is structured to take care of the needs of the people...not to take care of the needs of the market.

---

Reality Internet Personality

REAL Americans use those type of jobs as stepping stones.

Have you even been to Walmart? At the age of 60, where exactly are they stepping to, their graves?

They are low paying 'retirement jobs'... Just as truck driving and every other 'mass production market' on the planet has become... Trucking companies even advertise 'great retirement job' in their classifieds... What a friggin joke... ;)

At the age of 60, if they are having to work at Wal-Mart in order to make ends meet, then they obviously have not properly prepared for their golden years.....THEIR fault, not mine.

My father currently works at Wal-Mart after retiring from 2 other jobs. Point? He works there because he's bored, not because he needs the money...get it yet, genius?

BTW, he makes more than minimum wage too...remember me telling you about performing well for your employer?

---

BTW, pay scales don't go down for people who perform well for their employers.

No, they just get fired. The employers then outsource the jobs overseas to countries with cheap labor. This is a well-known practice of the corporate world. And many times, they end up transfering technological know-how to countries that wouldn't have it otherwise.

It's called progress. If you possess 1 single skill and are unable to adapt to the advances of time and technology, you are unprepared to make it in this world and could even be considered sub-human as adaptability is one of our greatest evolutionary achievements.

The world owes you NOTHING, it was here first.

Outsourcing is about companies wanting to save money rather than progress.

Yeah, most Americans understand the concept of not having enough money to pay your bills means you better make some changes in your budget plan. The bottom line is that this is a perfectly legal option and if YOU lack the skills/education/adaptability to get another job, that's YOUR fault.

I was referring to what you said about pay scales not going down for people who perform well. That might be the case, but my point was that even the jobs of people who perform well get outsourced.

Who told you life was fair? Bad S*** happens to good people everyday, but you know what...most of us get over it and move on with our lives rather than cry over spilled milk.

When it comes to tech jobs, progress is made in the tech sectors of those countries. Essentially, over time, we're sacrificing the industrial and technological advantages that we have.

Then maybe you should stop voting democrat and force the parasites of our society to get an education or learn a trade or starve to death....then we'll have the cheap labor force to keep those jobs here.

Obviously you don't understand. It IS educated people that are getting axed while jobs are outsourced. And even people that have small businesses or trade skills have to compete with overseas workers that are given an unfair advantage over them. Why should someone "get over it" as you say instead of standing against it? To me that's like doing nothing while someone beats the hell out of me. No thanks.

If someone is "beating the hell out of you", are you going to fight back, or cry about it on the internet?

There is a SIGNIFICANT difference between doing something about it and thinking you are doing something about it.

---

Most people make significantly more. For example, Walmart.

This coming from a man who 'claims' to 'do his research'? Are you kidding me???

Walmart is the front runner of low wages and no benefits... They pay slave wages, as most large corporations do... ;)

No, I'm not kidding you, rocket scientist. As usual, what follows is a demonstration of your glaring errors. Can you even read?

What I said was: "So few make that amount [minimum wage] because there are so few jobs paying that amount. Most people make significantly more. For example, Walmart. Their average is significantly higher than the minimum, that's why the corporation supported the minimum wage increase. They know full well that the mom-and-pop type stores can't afford the increase, so they are driven out of business, and that means more business for Walmart."

I said that Walmart pays significantly more than minimum wage. From a brief search of "walmart average wages" on Google:

From Slate: "In the Dec. 16 New York Review of Books, Simon Head, director of the Project on Technology and the Workplace at the Century Foundation, stated, 'the average pay of a sales clerk [italics mine] at Wal-Mart was $8.50 an hour, or about $14,000 a year, $1,000 below the government's definition of the poverty level for a family of three.' That the current minimum wage of $5.15 per hour leaves families even farther below the poverty line is a depressing topic for another day." In other words, Walmart Walmart pays significantly more than minimum wage, about 65 percent more.

From the United Food and Commercial Workers Union: "Wal-Mart pays an average hourly wage of $8.23 an hour, according to independent expert statistical analysis, which falls below basic living wage standards and even below poverty lines. @al-Mart claims an hourly wage of $9.68 an hour is its national average, though that still equals poverty levels for workers. Since 'full time' at Wal-Mart is 34 hours a week according to company policy, full-time workers make a mere $17,114.24 a year—below the federal poverty level for a family of four. The most common Wal-Mart jobs earn less. A sales associate -- the most common job classification -- earns on average $8.23 per hour ($13,861 annually). A cashier—the second most common job—earns about $7.92 per hour ($11,948 annually)." In other words, Walmart Walmart pays significantly more than minimum wage, about 60 percent more.

From Wakeupwalmart: "In 2001, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861. The 2001 poverty line for a family of three was $14,630. ['Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?', Business Week, 10/6/03, US Dept of Health and Human Services 2001 Poverty Guidelines, 2001]. A 2003 wage analysis reported that cashiers, the second most common job, earn approximately $7.92 per hour and work 29 hours a week. This brings in annual wages of only $11,948. ['Statistical Analysis of Gender Patterns in Wal-Mart's Workforce', Dr. Richard Drogin 2003.]" In other words, Walmart pays significantly more than minimum wage, about 60 percent more.

That you, Slate, the UFCW, and Wakeupwalmart, feel that those wages are too low, does not address the fact that, as I said, those jobs aren't meant to afford a living. In fact, they aren't "meant" to be anything. They are offers to work at a wage that the work is worth to the employer, nothing more. The employer offers what the job is worth to them, tempered by the market. A few pay a little bit more, a few pay a little bit less, but overwhelmingly they pay what the market will bear.

What never ceases to amaze me is that you support this system that clearly lets people down.

The market will bear it..the people bear it because they have no choice and the market is more important than the people.

Me...I would like to see a world where the society we build is structured to take care of the needs of the people...not to take care of the needs of the market.

Seems to me I recall you work part-time? If that's still the case, then I see why you think "society" should take care of you....it's because you refuse to take care of yourself.

---

Seems to me I recall you work part-time? If that's still the case, then I see why you think "society" should take care of you....it's because you refuse to take care of yourself.

That is a very strange assumption.

...but seeing as you asked..why do I work part time?

1) Because I have children to raise (a full time job in itself) and I think it is more important that I am there to take care of them as much as possible while they are young.

2) I earn enough that I can actually support myself and my children by working part-time.

So run that by me again how I refuse to take care of myself..because not only am I taking care of myself, I am taking care of 2 other people too.

Now..any more assumptions you want to make?

---

Reality Internet Personality

Seems to me I recall you work part-time? If that's still the case, then I see why you think "society" should take care of you....it's because you refuse to take care of yourself.

That is a very strange assumption.

...but seeing as you asked..why do I work part time?

1) Because I have children to raise (a full time job in itself) and I think it is more important that I am there to take care of them as much as possible while they are young.

You're fault, why should society compensate you for having more children than you can support?

2) I earn enough that I can actually support myself and my children by working part-time.

If such is the case, then you don't NEED society to take care of you, right? However, I suspect that's not actually the case, is it?

So run that by me again how I refuse to take care of myself..because not only am I taking care of myself, I am taking care of 2 other people too.

Now..any more assumptions you want to make?

I believe you understood my statement very well, the confusion is why you think society should "take care of the people" when you claim to be able to take care of yourself...

---

You're fault, why should society compensate you for having more children than you can support?

It doesn't. You are rambling.

If such is the case, then you don't NEED society to take care of you, right? However, I suspect that's not actually the case, is it?

Why did you assume I was talking specifically about me when I said society should take care of everyone?

I don't work a minimum wage..I earn a good wage. I work hard...but people who work in WALMART work hard too... they should get paid enough money for their work to actually live on. Anyone who works hard should get enough money to actually live on. The wages Rush cited are not living wages. It's exploitation.

I believe you understood my statement very well, the confusion is why you think society should "take care of the people" when you claim to be able to take care of yourself...

It's something called compassion..or empathy. Not every one is as fortunate as I am. Why should I watch misery and suffering without comment just because I am ok? That would be weird don't you think?

---

Reality Internet Personality

BTW, pay scales don't go down for people who perform well for their employers.

No, they just get fired. The employers then outsource the jobs overseas to countries with cheap labor. This is a well-known practice of the corporate world. And many times, they end up transfering technological know-how to countries that wouldn't have it otherwise.

It's called progress. If you possess 1 single skill and are unable to adapt to the advances of time and technology, you are unprepared to make it in this world and could even be considered sub-human as adaptability is one of our greatest evolutionary achievements.

The world owes you NOTHING, it was here first.

Outsourcing is about companies wanting to save money rather than progress.

Yeah, most Americans understand the concept of not having enough money to pay your bills means you better make some changes in your budget plan. The bottom line is that this is a perfectly legal option and if YOU lack the skills/education/adaptability to get another job, that's YOUR fault.

I was referring to what you said about pay scales not going down for people who perform well. That might be the case, but my point was that even the jobs of people who perform well get outsourced.

Who told you life was fair? Bad S*** happens to good people everyday, but you know what...most of us get over it and move on with our lives rather than cry over spilled milk.

When it comes to tech jobs, progress is made in the tech sectors of those countries. Essentially, over time, we're sacrificing the industrial and technological advantages that we have.

Then maybe you should stop voting democrat and force the parasites of our society to get an education or learn a trade or starve to death....then we'll have the cheap labor force to keep those jobs here.

Obviously you don't understand. It IS educated people that are getting axed while jobs are outsourced. And even people that have small businesses or trade skills have to compete with overseas workers that are given an unfair advantage over them. Why should someone "get over it" as you say instead of standing against it? To me that's like doing nothing while someone beats the hell out of me. No thanks.

If someone is "beating the hell out of you", are you going to fight back, or cry about it on the internet?

There is a SIGNIFICANT difference between doing something about it and thinking you are doing something about it.

Obviously I'd fight back. You too easily assume that I don't know the difference between doing and thinking. Expressing an opinion on an issue isn't "crying". If that's what it is, everyone with an opposing viewpoint about any social or political issues would be crying. Even you.

---