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.

I think you're missing something explicit in what I wrote, people shop at these places because the prices are low, the prices are low (at least in part) due to low wages paid to staff, because wages are one of the biggest variable costs that a business has. You could force a statist intervention to raise wages, but that will just push the higher cost somewhere else, like higher prices which the customer will then have to pay (they might squeeze the supply chain, but that just pushes it around - lower wages somewhere else). It's the same circular logic as goes round in tax incidence arguments, nobody doubts its possible to force higher costs, its only self-deception that believes these higher costs will not simply flow to the groups that ultimately bear the costs in a different way.

I'm not doing any such thing, I'm just pointing out that in the much maligned "real world" somebody ultimately has to bear the costs, and short of some magic totem that can fill the gaping hole in the argument, if you increase the costs the increase will flow to those who ultimately bear the costs. It's not magic, people want cheap prices so suppliers squeeze costs, and some costs are easier to squeeze than others to keep those prices low. For the argument to be serious it has to at least offer an explanation that gets to an end point without dropping down a hole, then you can judge how strong it is.

I think that would be a good solution to the issue. If the CEO wants a high salary, the rest of their employees have to earn no less than 1/12 (or similar) of their wage and I would include benefits and bonuses as well. This would not only give the rest of the employees a fairer wage but limit the excessive wages of those at the top.

When a company in "the real world" is massively profitable, it's pretty easy to see where the money can come from. And Wal-Mart apparent profits of more than $15 billion in 2012.

Only people who rate increased profits above a workforce being paid decently would conclude otherwise. For clarity: I'm not saying profit per se is a bad thing or that a company should not make profit. But that when companies make vast profits, it's pretty easy to see where the money for decent wages can come from without any great suffering and without the costs being hoiked onto the suppliers etc.

Why should the taxpayer be left to pick up the tab when hugely profitable companies pay such low wages that people cannot afford to live? Or perhaps people should just have to choose between, say, food and heat?

And that's without mentioning the knock-on effects on the wider economy.

And the likes of Wal-Mart is already screwing suppliers and producers. Every time they announce more cuts to prices, they hand on the cost of those deals. This is well documented.

Are you really suggesting that the corporate world is no place for ethics or morality? If that's the case, perhaps it will be acceptable for chronically low paid workers to steal from the store to feed themselves?

Seconded

I didn't miss it. It was in fact that very point along with this unrealistic point:

"If people boycotted these businesses and took their cash to those who paid higher wages, and consequently charged more to the consumer change would happen. "

...I was responding to.

It is practically impossible to avoid shopping at "unethical" shops and the fact some people seek out the lowest price is a necessity not an obsession with saving money. The fact the low wages of those employed there allows them to do this is a problem in itself not part of a solution that delivers low cost goods to equally poorly off people!

I was also making the point that boycotting such places won't bring about social or economic change. It's politicians and bodies like trade unions and other campaign groups that do that. And while they campaign life goes on and these unethical business still attract customers who may well support the campaigns against them. That isn't a paradox either.

You also actually said "people are [uhappy[/u to consume from businesses that pay low wages ". I would suggest they are happy to pay low prices but don't really have much of clue about the wages paid. I am sure they would also prefer it if the employees were not paid wages not enough to live off. That is also not a paradox.



Your arguments ignore the most important point. [uThe wages paid are not enough to live off[/u. Where does your personal moral compass lie with that?

It's also not clear in the Wall Mart case that paying the 800 odd thousand staff who earn less than $25K a year, $25K a year would have the affect on costs you state given the vast profits made. Smaller profits, yes but a more equitable distribution of profit between the employees and the shareholders, not necessarily higher prices.

In my opinion there is a willingness and desire of some businesses to devise ever more exploitative employment t&c's in an effort to keep costs down. This is not motivated by a desire to lower prices but to increase profits.

I feel currently there is a climate that if a company could charge a fortune for its goods for whatever reason there are companies in that position who would still exploit their employees. Put it this way in Wall Mart's case if they could slash their wage bill or other costs by a third I doubt you'd see a 1/3 off prices. Many modern businesses seem to have lost the concept that paying their employees well is a good thing for their business. Maybe they have concluded they don't need to. Maybe a high turnover of slave labour will still deliver the required return to shareholders.

If so this is where that "statist intervention" you mention has to occur. It's called regulating the market and the fact Wall Mart pays wages not enough to live off should be telling us more regulation of the market is required to deal with Wall Mart's exploitation of its work force.

The cost you mention is already pushed elsewhere anyway. The taxpayer subsidises the business. In the Wall Mart case in the USA the majority of employees can't afford the deductions from their wages to pay the necessary employee contribution to "company provided" heath insurance. So they rely on public health services such as they are that thus cost the tax payer a fortune.

Indeed.

It's massively profitable because it pays low wages and people want to buy from it as a result.

So, ultimately it is the "consumer" who drives the wages. Waitrose offer an alternative model in the UK but the vast majority of people cannot afford to shop there or choose not to.

Until people are educated and care about their actions nothing will change. If people accepted higher grocery bills and cancelled their cheap foreign holidays, weekend breaks, etc the country would be alot better.

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/high-fidelity-julian-richer-rewards-staff-loyalty-with-holiday-homes-and-trips-on-the-company-jet-next-hes-planning-their-inheritance-8952760.htmlYou can be a profitable boss – and a decent one.[/url

Sounds like he's got a moral compass – which brings us back to Dave's question.