In the back of the book Nickel and Dimed is the question, “Why do you think low-wage workers are reluctant to form labor organizations as Ehrenreich(the author) discovered at Wal-Mart?” The other questions presuppose so many economic fallacies, but this question I was not sure about and was wondering if someone could help.
Because wal mart will just try to fire and not-promote any union organizers. Right?
Because, despite the irritation it causes non-interested third parties, the workers themselves have determined that they are better off without a union than they would be with a union, as do most workers in most industries. Besides, wages aren’t the only form of compensation a job offers. There are such non-monetary draws as flexible scheduling. I’m not sure what the percentage of Walmart’s employees are part-time, or view the job as a temporary one, but if it’s high, then I suspect the resistence to unionism is that it’s just not worth the cost for someone who does not have their Walmart job as their main occupation. There’s probably also a corporate culture that disparages unionism; Walmart, after all, is a Southern company, and the South has traditionally been a region of “right to work” states.
The workers of Wal-Mart are happy with what they make. While their 10 or 11 dollars may not seem like a lot to someone working in a big city or with a college degree, to a barely high school educated rural Arkansasian it may seem like a great wage. If you compare that to what they would make as a farm laborer, the wage is incredible. Wal-Mart offers its workers stability and benefits that they would otherwise not be able to earn, thus negating the need for them to go ruin what they already have.
“Don’t sh*t where you eat..”
"Don’t sh*t where you eat..
Well put
10 bucks an hour? I’ve worked many jobs around 7 and 8, and haven’t complained.
I don’t think any leftists really want to look at the real world implementation of their policy for walmart to treat employees better… it would go like this:
From the wiki:
Revenue: $408 billion
Net Income: $14.3 billion
employees: 2.1 million
So, 14.3/408 = 3.5%. So for every dollar you spend at walmart, they get 3.5 cents from it. I spend about 400 bucks a month, which gives them a net of $14. But but they make it up on volume right? So they really ARE greedy capitalists and need to pay their employees better.
$14.3 billion / 2.1 million = $6,800 extra it could pay its employees every year. Is that a lot? Most of us would say yes. But on an income of $20,000/yr its just over a 25% increase in sallary. Not going to solve the poverty problem.
But so if the leftist insists on doing this, it destroys wal-mart’s profitability and attractiveness as an asset, and walmart shares plummit. No one wants to own a zero profit company. So walmart goes broke and all the employees get fired. Now their wage is zero.
So… as much as we don’t like walmart, I think we should let them keep their 3% profit margin. And if the workers really really want a bigger piece of the pie, they can simply buy shares of walmart stock. Isn’t that a way to sieze the means of production?
The temptation to cheat is the weakest argument. You have to start thinking from the bottom. Why does competition exist? Because there is not enough for every use for everyone. The top 50% most productive workers benefit more by competing with the bottom 50% because they will win and can get more of the pie. That is fundamentally why free labour can’t raise wages by collusion and why there is also no collusion in anything else.
But so if the leftist insists on doing this, it destroys wal-mart’s profitability and attractiveness as an asset, and walmart shares plummit. No one wants to own a zero profit company. So walmart goes broke and all the employees get fired. Now their wage is zero.
I agree with what you’re saying, but you have to take it into account that people are all seeking a desired standard of living. Ben and Jerry’s made a decent profit when they used the 7x rule.
if the workers really really want a bigger piece of the pie, they can simply buy shares of walmart stock
I agree, but with what; their rent money? Some industrious people manage this, but many, let’s face it, don’t. Unionizing provides a way for that industrious fellow to share his secrets with his fellow man and further progress the kowledge of society. There’s a difference between what they do now, what they can do, and what their existence has done indirectly.
If they formed unions, they would all have to pay an initiation fee, and a monthly fee. I pay 42/month to my union. The cost/benefit might not be all that great. Especially if they feel they are being treated fairly.
quote ". Ben and Jerry’s made a decent profit when they used the 7x rule. "
I had heard ( but did not investigate myself) that they were unsuccessful trying to pay the CEO only 7 x’s the lowest worker and had to abandon that.
I’m saying that if you did try to raise worker wages, they’d go out of business. It isn’t the nature of greedy capitalists at the helm of walmart, its the nature of the industry. I don’t know what you mean by the 7x rule.
Yes they get paid well enough to have disposable income. Even slaves could purchase their freedom via manumission (till it was outlawed).
Socialists also typically have very short sighted logic… I mean if you just run around attacking entrepreneurs guess what people will stop being? No entrepreneurs, no civilization. But everyone will be equal woohoo.
John Stossel covered this book while he was at 20/20.