No they didn’t, they specifically said workers might accept lower than minimum wage if walmart was allowed to give them expired food in liu of meeting minimum wage, and that somehow this will give workers more leverage and not less. They say they want strong unions, but only mention policy that would help the union’s enemy. Whether they know it or not, they’re a rightwing libertarian trying to pretend blatantly antiworker policy somehow helps workers.
Why wouldn’t walmart cut wages further if allowed to?
If it wasn’t literally illegal they wouldn’t even pay real money. We know this because its what companies did in the past.
The existence of millions of sub-livable wage jobs isn’t going to make walmart increase its wages, I feel like you’re trying to bend reality to pretend removing restrictions on capitalists exploiting workers somehow helps workers.
Either because unions force them or because better jobs are available.
And you think removing minimum wage would cause unions to become stronger and better jobs be made available?
The market must be turned to the advantage of the workers.
This is done by forcing the capitalists to operate on our terms, not letting them exploit workers with even less regulation wtf?
Sub-livable doesn’t help. But if sub-mimimum wage comes with a better package, e.g. child care or health coverage or short commute, then it creates a livable competing option that forces Walmart to rise wages.
A company giving its employees expired food instead of money isn’t going to make other companies increase wages.
With enough jobs nobody has to work for sub-minimum wage unless it’s to their advantage.
??? People are already forced to work for unsustainable wages and end up in debt or working while homeless.
It really feels like you started out with the assumption that capitalism is the best possible solution for everybody and then went backwards to figure out why this isn’t matching observations.
You’re operating on the false premise that a decent wage and decent working conditions are mutually exclusive and that is the primary flaw in your entire argument.
This is a person who thinks society would be better if stores gave workers expired food instead of money.
They meant the food as a bonus, not in place of living wages, which is what they want with unions and healthy worker benefits we all deserve.
No they didn’t, they specifically said workers might accept lower than minimum wage if walmart was allowed to give them expired food in liu of meeting minimum wage, and that somehow this will give workers more leverage and not less. They say they want strong unions, but only mention policy that would help the union’s enemy. Whether they know it or not, they’re a rightwing libertarian trying to pretend blatantly antiworker policy somehow helps workers.
Removed by mod
Why wouldn’t walmart cut wages further if allowed to?
If it wasn’t literally illegal they wouldn’t even pay real money. We know this because its what companies did in the past.
The existence of millions of sub-livable wage jobs isn’t going to make walmart increase its wages, I feel like you’re trying to bend reality to pretend removing restrictions on capitalists exploiting workers somehow helps workers.
Removed by mod
And you think removing minimum wage would cause unions to become stronger and better jobs be made available?
This is done by forcing the capitalists to operate on our terms, not letting them exploit workers with even less regulation wtf?
A company giving its employees expired food instead of money isn’t going to make other companies increase wages.
??? People are already forced to work for unsustainable wages and end up in debt or working while homeless.
It really feels like you started out with the assumption that capitalism is the best possible solution for everybody and then went backwards to figure out why this isn’t matching observations.
Removed by mod
You argument is that I should take a pay cut, and all I have to do is lower my material conditions.
You are trending toward slavery. Get your fucking head checked.
Removed by mod
You’re operating on the false premise that a decent wage and decent working conditions are mutually exclusive and that is the primary flaw in your entire argument.
Removed by mod