Labor Pains In Colorado

Customer loyalty. I know a few older women who will only go to a certain store because they have good baggers who also take their groceries out to their car for them. Then perhaps they should increase the starting pay by $2 to attract better employees. Many, many people are looking for good customer service nowadays. They will even spend a few extra dollars for good customer service. Then perhaps you could just start taking people's groceries to their car for free in your free time?

The link you posted mentioned a guaranteed income paid to all, regardless of need. That was what I was questioning. If you mean just paying to people who need it, then you're talking welfare, which is even more controversial than a minimum wage. Then why would someone work the job? Why would you say there are any jobs so worthless that they shouldn't pay a subsistence wage, but so worthwhile that someone needs to work them 40 hours every week?I would say that just taking 40 hours of someone's time every week is worth paying them enough to live on.

Try it. It's hard on the back...especially if you're tall (or if you're short). At the grocery store I worked at, the checkers were supposed do keep to a minimum number of items scanned per minute. The faster the checker goes, the faster the bagger needs to go.The baggers are also the ones who have to run back into the store to do a price check if the customer disputes the charge, or if it won't scan. They also have to run to the other end of the store to get a cart if the bagged groceries end up requiring a second cart.And yeah, like Phat said, baggers are also often the pool of people that are chosen among for the cart duties.

I don't know if any of you read Ted Rall's stuff, but it is . . . interesting. I don't endorse everything he says, but I do find his columns worth reading. In one of his recent articles he argued that we should pay people to just stay home due to increases in effeciency.

quote:

---

If productivity increases year after year after year, employers need fewer and fewer employees to sustain or expand the same level of economic activity. But this sets up a conundrum. If only employees have money, only employees can consume goods and services. As unemployment rises, the pool of consumers shrinks. . .

​

Whatever comes next, revolutionary overthrow or reform of the existing system, Americans are going to have to accept a reality that will be hard for a nation of strivers to take: we’re going to have to start paying people to sit at home.

---

You can find the article here:
SYNDICATED COLUMN: You're Not Underemployed. You're Underpaid. | Ted Rall's Rallblog

How much it costs to raise a family has nothing to do with how much a certain amount of work is worth. I posted the link while in a hurry without explaining it. I do not agree with everything written on Wikipedia, but I thought it was a nice starting point. I already mentioned that a workable solution would likely be least acceptable to most of the folk involved.

You sure must spend a lot of time at the library then, what with how often you post on the internet, because I certainly hope you aren't going to tell me you do it while you are at work.... i don't mean to sound condescending or rude, but could you point me to where you provided an alternative? It seems as though all you've said is to just get rid of minimum wage. If you've already addressed it and I missed it, I apologize and ask that you point out the message.But let's, for the sake of argument, see what happens with no minimum wage (it could already be argued that there really isn't, as I've already pointed out that not all states have the same min. wage). What stops businesses from paying a mere pittance? All it takes, I imagine, is for one business to start paying a little less, then all the other businesses in the area do the same until the local "minimum wage" is like $4/hr.. What are people with no viable means of transportation to do? With unions on the decline and the state of our public transit, what are the underpriviledged to do when the only job they can get doesn't even pay rent because the employer doesn't offer benefits because he realizes that if he hires "part-time" employees, he doesn't have to provide benefits? He can get the same work done by 2 people working 20 hour weeks cheaper than he did by having 1 employee working a 40 hour week.I sincerely cannot see how minimum wage is a bad thing.

I gave a link to this article: Guaranteed Minimum Income. Through my various posts before and since, I've somewhat laid out a position advocating a need-based basic income system that doesn't rely on minimum wage.If, as part of such a system, you decide to set a minimum wage, that can be okay, so long as you don't set the minimum so high that it encourages unemployment (which definitely means it cannot be large enough for someone to raise a family on). Obviously allowing businesses to run free and wild, doing what they please to whom they please, is a horrible approach. And that is why I have not suggested going that route at all.JonEdited by Jon, : Major code fail...

Perhaps that's a reasonable argument. I can think of a number of reasons why it wouldn't be, but I want to explore what in your view does determine how much a certain amount of work is worth?If we can establish that, then we can see if the value so determined is worth a person's time, given that he does have to be self supporting in order to make it to work every day.

The first line of this reads as follows: Does sufficient housing not constitute living (going back to RAZD's link about ability to afford housing on mimimum wage)? How, exactly, would this system be implemeted? Is it just as the link states: "Eligibility is typically determined by citizenship, a means test and either availability for the labour market or a willingness to perform community services"?If, as you say, it is based on needs, who determines who needs what? So the minimum would be fine for a single person, but once that person has children, they're fucked? How easy is it for a single parent to a) go back to school or b) learn a new trade that produces a viable income? I am a single parent and I'll tell you right now: it ain't goddamed easy.I'll end by saying I still don't quite understand the system that you are suggesting and it sounds an awful lot like socialism (which I don't think is a bad thing, just saying).

His solution is pretty socialist. It seems to be an expanded welfare system, where people are given money from the government to complement their income (or lack thereof) such that they have enough to raise a family on. This would allow the minimum wage to be lower, allowing businesses to hire people without breaking their banks.I think this solution sounds good, but it would end up costing the businsses anyway, as the revenue would have to come through an increase in taxes or other governmental income.

This is one of safeways strong points...or was before they started cutting labor so drastically.I am a good judge of employee effectiveness. The best employees are self motivated, hard and diligent workers, great with customer service, and punctual at work. They also get along well with management. The union, in contrast, often attracts whiners who believe that life has been unfair to them.

The only factor to consider is how much income the work can generate. Other factors will affect how much someone can actually get for doing a certain amount of work (such as the labor pool size for the given occupation, etc.), but as far as actual worth, there is only one consideration.Jon

*ahem*

So, if someone is instrumental in bringing in a $300,000,000 deal, he should be paid close to that amount?If that's the case, I'm severely underpaid.

And have you analyzed the worth of grocery baggers based on this criteria to determine that the value of bagging is less than min. wage? Because it seems to me that such an evaluation is too complex to hand wave. The fact that you and your buddies don't like baggers isn't a serious analysis.