Ralphs, Food 4 Less to close 25% of Long Beach stores over extra $4 per hour

You neglected to address the rest of my post.

 

Please reread my post and explain how yours applies. Thank you.

 

So then you’re of the opinion that businesses should be allowed to pay less than a living wage? Do you believe there are jobs in society that do not warrant a pay level that supports a dignified life?

 

please be very clear with your definition of "dignified life"

for example

1: regardless of where one chooses to live, should be able to pay rent with single-income for an apartment in a safe neighborhood and if children, each child has their own bedroom

2: must have a vehicle no older than x years per x licensed drivers (example, 1 vehicle per driver, 1 vehicle per every 2 drivers please define_)

3: must be able to take at least x vacation(s) per year with a vacation budget of $xxx

4: must have a mobile phone plan for each family member above 12 years of age and must be the most current I phone

you get the idea

please define "dignified life"

 

I’ve already rebuffed your tactics of miring posters down in minute details. I’m no more interested in playing that game now than I was months ago.

 

I suppose but to drop this mandate on a business that was in contract negotiations with the union representing its workers likely played a factor in some of the store closings. The remaining california Ralphs/F4L stores are still working under no contract conditions. Kroger plays hardball when it comes to unions. When the workers unionized in my city, not long after they closed all the Kroger stores as unprofitable. Like a few months after.

 

No detail, just feelings. Not much to go on.

 

I’m not qualified to answer the specifics he’s asking for, and I don’t care to get mired down in extreme minute details. I know that people deserve a living wage at the minimum. That’s not feelings. That’s a pretty basic part of treating people like people.

 

Actually, yes I do.

"Living Wage" is a fantasy, and not required. The problem many have is that the actual number of "skilled careers" has fallen dramatically as we exported most of our manufacturing overseas. Then the expansion of Unions has blocked off even more jobs, especially in the Grocery industry.

Want a "Living Wage", go to a trade school and get a profession. Do not expect McDonalds to pay you a high income just because you are so lazy you can't be bothered to do so.

I began to realize how broken that system was almost 20 years ago, when the grocery workers went on strike in LA. They already had a starting pay of $18 an hour, a favorable benefit package, but they wanted more. The grocery stores wanted them to pay part of the cost of their insurance, and they went on strike.

$18 and free health insurance, for freaking stocking shelves. That was about the income I made as a computer tech, and I had to pay my own insurance. I remember seeing baggers and stock boys with "18 year pins", and realizing how broken that was. 40 years ago, that was the job for a high school or college kid to work part-time, not a freaking career.

But do not expect a "living wage" if you are doing minimal skill work that a monkey can do.

 

I see we have an ideological difference of opinion. I doubt we’ll bridge the gap.

 

I do not agree with most unions.

Do not get me wrong, I do believe that collectivization has a time and place. But most now work to line their own pockets, and I find the very idea that you have to pay them (and even in some cases get their permission first ) before you can get a job to be distasteful. That is almost the same game that the Mafia uses.

Hell, just look back to their own history. At one time, one of the "jobs" of the Union was to provide health insurance and a pension. That was one of the things you paid them for in the first place. But because of the widespread corruption and fraud both of those have fallen right back to the employer.

The President of the AFL-CIO makes just under $300k per year. President of the American Federation of Teachers, over $450k per year. Food & Commercial Workers, over $340k. IBEW, over $475k. UAW, over $440k.

And all of the executives are making well into the 6 digit income. I find it hilarious to be honest, when I see "workers" screaming at how much the people who made and run their multi-million dollar companies make, yet see nothing wrong when their Union bosses make as much or more money.

 

This is where you have the problem.

I really have no "Ideology" at all. I am pretty much the ultimate pragmatist, and in reality have no strong ideology or political leanings. I am in reality about as moderate and neutral as you can get.

And to be honest, I find it hilarious when those on the "Far-Right" tend to consider me some kind of "Radical Socialist", and those on the "Far-Left" generally equate me with being some kind of Fascist. I laugh, because to me it shows how far both of them are from what the mainstream people think. They are in their own little bubbles, and do not even know it.

The problem is that you have an "ideology", and try to fit everything into the world into a place in it. I simply view the world as how it is, without any kind of ideological spin at all.

And no, it is impossible to "bridge the gap" when one is bound and blindered by an ideology. I know that without a doubt.

 

At least we can agree that executive pay ranges are out of control.

 

I think everyone has ideological blind spots, and anyone who says different needs to work on self reflection. But that said, I believe no one who works forty hours a week should make less than a living wage, and you disagree with that. If you don’t want to call that an ideological difference it’s no skin off my back, but it is a gap I don’t expect to bridge.

 

Yet it hurts the poorest and least capable by removing wage competition and reducing job opportunities. It also takes away pressure to improve oneself. It’s a feel good thing that does as much harm as good.

 

Job losses would be temporary. An business unwilling or unable to offer a living wage would go under. No skin off my back. The market, abhorring a vacuum, would rush to meet the new demand for services. Jobs return. I’m am not willing to accept that the wealthiest nation on earth requires the existence of a class of people working and living in poverty.

There are plenty of reasons people seek to improve themselves. Poverty and food insecurity shouldn’t be one of them.

 

You ignore human nature and raising prices to meet costs just restarts the cycle over again.

 

say what?

It is you who wrote the nebulous term "dignified life" and I simply asked you to qualify the term, which you refuse. I'll let others formulate their own opinion as to why you won't. TO me, your leftist partisanship is again visible

 

you got it. When terms like "dignified lifestyle" or "living wage" are tossed out, there are never any details provided

 

If a person can't qualify for a job that pays a living wage they don't deserve a job.

 

I don’t think the data supports this assertion.

 

You misquoted me.

I’ve already provided you with HHS’ definition of a living wage.

A dignified life is a life with dignity. I think that’s pretty fair.

As for your game of breaking everything down into extreme detail; I’m not an economist, and I don’t pretend to be.

 

There shouldn’t be any jobs that pay less than a living wage. Simple.

 

Sorry, I missed this one.

I’m not an economist. Any attempt I would make to answer your question with the detail you were after would be shots in the dark. I see no value in that exercise so I didn’t engage in it.

 

TBH, I think unions in manufacturing plants are okay but to unionize people working as stock shelfers and bag boys I think is inefficient and encourages those people to camp out in those high school jobs for life.