On Oct 21, 5:33 pm, Josh Hill  wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:13:10 -0500, "Carl"

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Josh Hill"  wrote in message
> >news:n0hmh356mlluol7n42a4jp0eenu67bgqaa{at}4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:01:24 -0500, "Carl"

> >> wrote:
>
> >>>"Josh Hill"  wrote in message
> >>>news:a1elh3llh2vrpi9v8i3df54toq406pl5lg{at}4ax.com...
> >>>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:41:33 -0500, "Carl"

> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>"Josh Hill" 
wrote in message
> >>>>>news:gfskh39lal1sco0c1976ejm6a7np7d6531{at}4ax.com...
>
> >>>>>> According to a web site I found:
>
> >>>>>> In 2001, sales associates, the most common
job in Wal-Mart, earned on
> >>>>>> average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of
$13,861. The 2001 poverty
> >>>>>> line for a family of three was $14,630.
["Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?",
> >>>>>> Business Week, 10/6/03, US Dept of Health and
Human Services 2001
> >>>>>> Poverty Guidelines, 2001]
>
> >>>>>> A 2003 wage analysis reported that cashiers,
the second most common
> >>>>>> job, earn approximately $7.92 per hour and
work 29 hours a week. This
> >>>>>> brings in annual wages of only $11,948.
["Statistical Analysis of
> >>>>>> Gender Patterns in Wal-Mart's
Workforce", Dr. Richard Drogin 2003]
> >>>>>> Wal-Mart Associates don't earn enough to
support a family
>
> >>>>>> The average two-person family (one parent and
one child) needed
> >>>>>> $27,948 to meet basic needs in 2005, well
above what Wal-Mart reports
> >>>>>> that its average full-time associate earns.
Wal-Mart claimed that its
> >>>>>> average associate earned $9.68 an hour in
2005. That would make the
> >>>>>> average associate's annual wages $17,114.
["Basic Family Budget
> >>>>>> Calculator" online atwww.epinet.org]
>
> >>>>>>http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/facts/
>
> >>>>>> It seems they're paying poverty-level wages.
>
> >>>>>Those figures could be very misleading.  How many
of those workers are
> >>>>>high
> >>>>>school students and not people trying to live on
those wages?
>
> >>>>>The people that scream about minimum wages often
misreport statistics as
> >>>>>though every high school student working at
McDonalds for minimum wage
> >>>>>was
> >>>>>trying to live off of $11,000 annually.  They
aren't, nor are they doing
> >>>>>without health care.  Trying to claim them as
working poor is
> >>>>>disingenuous
> >>>>>at best.
>
> >>>>>Low end jobs are supposed to be stepping stones...
you do them to get
> >>>>>the
> >>>>>money (and sometimes experience) that you need to
move on to something
> >>>>>better.
>
> >>>> I'd find a higher evidence to speculation ratio more
convincing, Carl.
> >>>> Anyway, why do you assume that the sort of person who
has to take a
> >>>> job at Wal-Mart -- and we aren't talking about
moonlighting high
> >>>> school students, who are a tiny percentage of the
workforce and don't
> >>>> work 29 hours a week -- have the skills,
qualifications, and ability
> >>>> necessary to "move on to something better"?
We aren't talking law
> >>>> school graduate here.
>
> >>>53% of workers making minimum wage are between the age of 16 and 24
> >>>(High school and college).
>
> >> A non-sequitur: being between the ages of 16 and 24 doesn't mean that
> >> a worker is in high school and college.
>
> >>>High school students are a *significant* portion of the low end work
> >>>force.
>
> >>>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1186.cfm
>
> >> Where did they say that? I couldn't find any statistics that did.
>
> >I found them for a similar conversation elsewhere a few weeks ago.
> >I'm sure you can find them.  Th e statistics are there to be found.
>
> >>>Certainly not a "tiny" percentage as you
suggest.  As to 29 hours a week,
> >>>when I was in high school and college I certainly worked
that many hours.
>
> >> I said high school students were a tiny percentage of the workforce,
> >> and they are, given that high school students are a tiny percentage of
> >> the population.
>
> >But they are NOT a tiny percentage of the workforce that works at
> >minimum wage.
>
> Perhaps, but I wasn't talking about people who work at minimum wage.
> You were the one who brought that up. I was talking about people who
> earn poverty-level wages, like employees at Wal-Mart.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> And let us hope that not many high school students are
> >> working 29 hours during a school week: that would be illegal for a
> >> student under 16, and harmful to the academic aspirations of a junior
> >> or senior. Certainly, I've never met any who did.
>
> >By the time high school students are juniors and seniors, many do.
>
> >I worked that many hours, and so did a number of people that I worked with.
> >I can't speak of the people you knew.
> >I had a car and a girlfriend in high school...both of which required
> >attention.
>
> >> In any case, no one is denying that high school kids work at
> >> McDonalds. The problem here is everybody else. All I have to do is go
> >> to the store to see people struggling on minimum wage or something
> >> like, e.g., the poverty-level wages paid by Wal-Mart.
>
> >Oh please.  Give me a break.
>
> You're going to have to back that up, Carl, because that's what the
> people get paid around here -- poverty level wages. I see help wanted
> signs, and what they're paying. And no, most of those employees aren't
> kids. Do the non-unionized stores in your area pay higher wages? I
> didn't think so.
>
> >> Most of them
> >> aren't high school students, who wouldn't even be available during
> >> business hours. These are precisely the conditions that unions would
> >> help to redress; this source, for example, says that the average union
> >> wage is 28% higher than the average non-union wage:
>
>
>>http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/index.php?page=Union+vs.+Nonunion%3A+...)
>
> >> -- and benefits such as health care and pensions would increase that
> >> differential.
>
> >Yeah, and 30% of the cost of sa U.S. made car is in auto worker health
> >benefits.
> >See what that did to the US auto industry.
>
> Right. And for that you can thank the Republicans for blocking the
> universal health care that every other industrialized nation has. Our
> insane health care costs are one of the reasons American factories
> can't compete.
>
> > How about the US electronics
> >industry?
> >Make everyone pay more and more for everything and people will buy
> >less and less of it.  You'll have wonderfully paid employees for a short
> >time,
> >until they get laid off.
>
> >Great business model.
>
> For which you can thank the Republicans and their support for
> unbridled globalization. American factory worker earning $20 an hour
> competes with Chinese factory worker earning 15 cents an hour. Result:
> American factory closes. Great business model.

Who signed NAFTA and Most favored Nation for China again?
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32