Walmart employee Thanksgiving donations at Canton store cause controversy

  • Thread starter Thread starter seekerz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
qui_est_ce said:
What about my kids who needed after school jobs at the local grocery to help pay their tuitions? Should they get paid $17.40/hour?
Click to expand...
There are no such things as “after school jobs” anymore. You’re not seeing the reality of a market in which grown adults are working these jobs because that’s ALL THEY CAN GET. The market has changed.
 
Lochias said:
A single mother, in order to meet basic requirements for living in Potter County, Texas (where I live), would have to make $17.54 an hour. See here.

livingwage.mit.edu/counties/48375

Kinda scary, isn’t it? Some people do not have the opportunities to get the paying jobs they need, regardless of what they do, and yet they’re expected to “just go out and try harder”.

I call that a load of bollocks.
Click to expand...
It is a load of bloody bollocks. And again we turn to the wisdom of the Popes.
Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno]But if this cannot always be done under existing circumstances, social justice demands that changes be introduced as soon as possible whereby such a wage will be assured to every adult workingman.
Click to expand...
And…
Pope Leo XIII:
And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.
Click to expand...
If a business cannot supply the necessary living wage due to monetary inability, etc., then government assistance is a moral duty imposed on a state.
 
Lochias said:
Who knows? Likely not the Mom’s fault that Dad isn’t around, though.
Click to expand...
WRONG. The state tracks these dads down and makes them pay. I work in payroll. I see it all the time. I’m trying to stay charitable here, but some people around here don’t seem to realize how economics work.
And my point is that “safety nets” aren’t “bootstraps.” They’re often barely even “safety nets.”
Click to expand...
Not really sure what you mean by this? Are we to increase welfare payments?
 
Jon_Paul said:
It is a load of bloody bollocks. And again we turn to the wisdom of the Popes.

And…

If a business cannot supply the necessary living wage due to monetary inability, etc., then government assistance is a moral duty imposed on a state.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes indeed.
 
Rence said:
No successful business can afford to pay their employees according to the numbers of people they support. Businesses pay according to skill level, education, job category, and experience. “Number of dependents” is not one of the criteria. That shouldn’t be a burden on the employer.
Click to expand...
👍
 
qui_est_ce said:
WRONG. The state tracks these dads down and makes them pay. I work in payroll. I see it all the time. I’m trying to stay charitable here, but some people around here don’t seem to realize how economics work.
Click to expand...
I’ve known at least two situations in which what the father was made to pay was absolutely squat. A drop in the bucket of the needs that a child has.
Not really sure what you mean by this? Are we to increase welfare payments?
Click to expand...
I’m saying the system doesn’t work, and that people like my loved ones are being pushed into the dark because nobody but their equally poor relatives are willing to care for them.
 
Jon_Paul said:
It is a load of bloody bollocks. And again we turn to the wisdom of the Popes.

And…

If a business cannot supply the necessary living wage due to monetary inability, etc., then government assistance is a moral duty imposed on a state.
Click to expand...
And where has anyone here on this thread denied that some people need assistance?
 
Rence said:
No successful business can afford to pay their employees according to the numbers of people they support. Businesses pay according to skill level, education, job category, and experience. “Number of dependents” is not one of the criteria. That shouldn’t be a burden on the employer.
Click to expand...
Pius XI:
In the first place, the worker must be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family.
Click to expand...
Leo XIII:
If a workman’s wages be sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself,** his wife, and his children**, he will find it easy, if he be a sensible man, to practice thrift, and he will not fail, by cutting down expenses, to put by some little savings and thus secure a modest source of income.
Click to expand...
A fair and just wage must take into account a man’s dependents.
 
qui_est_ce said:
And where has anyone here on this thread denied that some people need assistance?
Click to expand...
I’m not saying they did. I’m saying that what many people call “assistance” amounts to exactly jack-****.

I swear. Some of you people will never, ever know what some of the rest of us have gone through; it’s highly apparent. I wouldn’t wish it on anybody, but I’ve seen potted plants that display more empathy and concern for their fellow man.
 
Trader said:
2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice.221 In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. “Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural, and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good.”222 Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.

Why have so many people ignored the bolded section of what the catechism says? Some jobs are not worth much and the individual has an obligation to present himself to the employer with skills and the willingness to produce work that is worth a living wage.

The basis of economic activity is to serve the needs of the customer. If you are not willing to do something worth getting paid for, you will always be dependent on the labor of others.
Click to expand...
People conveniently ignore the bolded section because it disproves them. It’s as simple as that.
 
qui_est_ce said:
What about my kids who needed after school jobs at the local grocery to help pay their tuitions? Should they get paid $17.40/hour?
Click to expand...
It is ridiculous to draw comparison between your children and a single mother raising her children.
 
Jon_Paul said:
And of course…

It is government’s responsibility to enforce a living or “fair” wage. The actual amount completely depends on local and individual situations. $18 an hour sounds incredibly fair to me.
Click to expand...
And to me $18 is ridiculous for a job that doesn’t require some sort of skill, knowledge or education. And anyway, it really doesn’t matter if they get $15, $18 or $25. Being that they are on the bottom of the pay totem pole, it will just drive up the salaries of higher level jobs in all fields, and will drive up the cost of goods and services - but they will STILL be at the bottom of the pay totem pole.
 
Rence said:
People conveniently ignore the bolded section because it disproves them. It’s as simple as that.
Click to expand...
They also seem to ignore statement regarding the common good. Pope Leo XIII insisted that a living wage is necessary to the common good.
 
Rence said:
And to me $18 is ridiculous for a job that doesn’t require some sort of skill, knowledge or education. And anyway, it really doesn’t matter if they get $15, $18 or $25. Being that they are on the bottom of the pay totem pole, it will just drive up the salaries of higher level jobs in all fields, and will drive up the cost of goods and services - but they will STILL be at the bottom of the pay totem pole.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter if they’re on the bottom of the pay totem pole. All that matters is that people receive the necessary monetary means to support themselves and their dependents in their situations. That doesn’t mean five-star restaurants every Friday night and a high speed WiFi connection for the kids to play their xBox. It means having food on the table and heating in the house.

Edit: Someone has to stack the shelves in the supermarket. We cannot all have high paying law jobs or spend years in pre-med to go and be a doctor. Unskilled work will always of necessity exist. Are we to deny them a just wage because they are unskilled? No. Simply because one doesn’t have the proper means to obtain a skilled job does not mean they should not receive a just wage to support themselves and their dependents.
 
Rence said:
And to me $18 is ridiculous for a job that doesn’t require some sort of skill, knowledge or education. And anyway, it really doesn’t matter if they get $15, $18 or $25. Being that they are on the bottom of the pay totem pole, it will just drive up the salaries of higher level jobs in all fields, and will drive up the cost of goods and services - but they will STILL be at the bottom of the pay totem pole.
Click to expand...
You go work a 14-hour shift as a fry-cook during the weekend rush and tell me that the job doesn’t require skill, knowledge or education.
 
Jon_Paul said:
A fair and just wage must take into account a man’s dependents.
Click to expand...
Businesses are not required to pay the employee’s dependents a salary as well as the employee. It doesn’t work that way and never will. That burden is on the employee and that’s the way it should be. A business that hires someone at $10/hour pays that person $10/hour, not $10/hour for that employee as well as $10/hour for each of his/her dependents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top