It seems that Asda owners Wal-Mart pay some of their own staff so poorly that at least one store has set up a foodbank, in store, to collect food for staff who are in need.

Yet the Wal-Mart owners are some of the richest people on the planet, running a massively profitable company.

How do they square that as even remotely moral/ethical?

Robber barons don't seem to have really died out, do they?

rl[iPolitical Scrapbook[/irl. rl[iIndependent[/irl.

WallMart aren't the only ones....

rl"Worried that your job doesn't pay enough? Take a vacation and sing a song"rl

Interesting discussion rlHERErl

Link broken?

The comments below that article are even more depressing. How can those college educated "I am all right jack, so you can be to" types not have the brains to understand not everyone is college material and that we all need people to work in service industries such as restaurants and supermarkets?

We've had the same on here – people claiming that if others want decent pay, they can simply 'aspire' themselves into better-paid jobs. The same people never answer the question of why it remains acceptable to them – presumably – for these jobs to be so poorly paid. They never explain how people are supposed to live and how that impacts on the wider economy.

It's as though we've moved to a situation where some people feel that certain work (which they decide, of course) does not merit a living wage.

How the hell did we get to such a state?

Hmmmm.... rlhttps://chowhound.chow.com/topics/924775rl

Surely the real issue is that the majority of people are happy to consume from businesses that pay low wages because they charge less? If people boycotted these businesses and took their cash to those who paid higher wages, and consequnetly charged more to the consumer change would happen. If you care enough about it check whether places where you spend your money pay their employees what you consider to be acceptable, and if you don't care enough to make the effort then don't worry about it.

I think it stems from teachers telling kids to "do better or else they'll be cleaning toilets all their life". It's got to be cleaned by somebody and people should be paid correctly for doing so. It would be interesting to see what salaries would be if they were calculated in order of the jobs necessity. Some of the services sector could see a big reduction!

I don't think comparing 'job for job' is the issue. There will always be a disparity in pay between jobs with low talent pools and high barriers to entry, and those with larger pools and lower barriers to entry - and there is nothing inherently wrong with that, providing that everyone can live to a resonable standard.

The issue is that large businesses are paying so little that it is putting employees in a position where they find it impossible to live without state and/or charitable support. In the McDonalds example, the US taxpayer is subsidising McDonald's to the tune of $7bn in welfare programmes (presumably whatever the US equivilent of tax credits is).

In the Wallmart example, it is easy to claim that the low-skilled shelf-stacker should have tried harder at school and he should count himself lucky to be earning $7.00ph, but it is (for some reason) much less popular to argue that four of the richest people on the planet shouldn't be expecting the state to subsidise their fortunes.

The minimum wage didn't come about by people boycotting low paying employers. Most positive labour law has arisen from the "great and the good" campaigning for change while society carries on with the same poor labour law until the campaigns have succeeded.

The majority also aren't in the position to pick and choose how they shop. I am sure there are plenty who would prefer to shop a John Lewis as its a partnership (despite their treatment of the cleaners!) but have to buy from elsewhere such as Asda because its cheaper.

You can't be ethical if you are one of the ones on low pay! Poundland and Aldi/Lidl are your lot whether they are ethical on pay or not.

Your argument is little different to the "I am all right jack, you can be to" types I referred to above. That is saying, in effect, "If you don't want low paying employers shop at John Lewis or accept low paid workers" is the same as "If you don't want to work at McDonalds, go to college or accept your low paid job". Impossible for many in both cases.

In short in I don't think you have a valid point.

Low pay won't change because I and others in my position who are able to do so try and use the Ethical Consumer web site!

It's a new slant on victim blaming.

Essentially what you're doing is a form of what I touched on earlierThe Wal-Mart Effect[/i, shows that, about five years after Wal-Mart has set up a big store in an area, poverty in that area has increased slightly.

Well said. It's linked to another discussion on here recently about the disparity between pay of those at the bottom and the CEO and the suggestion in Switzerland that the ratio should be no more than 1 to 12. When you consider some wages are too low to live off when those at the top in this case are four of the 12 richest people in the world then no amount of economic theory can justify that. It is downright immoral, pure and simple.

Spot on.

And just to extend what you say about it being "easy to claim that the low-skilled shelf-stacker should have tried harder at school", if there is a job that needs doing, then it needs doing. If everyone had "tried harder at school", then there'd be nobody to do the job that needs doing.

In which case, the person doing that job should be paid a wage that allows them to live.

Pretty much spot on.
Welcome back BTW.