Bernie: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

[Cecilie1200]

Not everyone has the freedom to move every time a job market dries up.

Unless they are on probation, they most certainly do.

Do you have kids in school? Elderly parents? A mortgage on a house you've put hours of work into?

You are kidding.....I hope.

People have been moving since the dawn of time. With kids in school and elderly parents. And your mortgage is your business.

Or do you really believe that is an entitlement ?

I believe that people with commitments to their families take those commitments seriously.

I've also observed that those who toss off "Pick up and move where the jobs are" usually have no commitments or don't give a shit.

"Oh, the wife has a job locally? Well, fuck her - we're moving!"

What an A-hole. I have a friend who just quite his job and took another job in Wisconsin. His wife had to quit hers so they could move. People move all the time, and the wife usually has to quit when they do.

"Kids like their school? Well, fuck them, we're moving!"

So you're saying my parents said "Fuck the kids" when we moved?"

"Mom's in a nursing home and she won't get to see me or the grandkids that often if we move? Well, fuck her (she doesn't like me anyway; can't imagine why), we're moving!"

I wouldn't put my mother in a nursing home. That is cruelty of the worse kind. However, we all know libs don't want their parents living with them. That's one reason they always give for supporting Social Security.

My mother is getting on in age, and at least one family member has always lived with her. When I, as the youngest, became an adult, it was because my father was starting the long, painful decline to his death, and she needed help with him. After he died, it was her health that became the concern. We have determined that, unless she declines so badly that she needs round-the-clock medical care, we do not want her in a nursing facility. With that in mind, a purchase was made years ago of a 1-acre plot of land with two manufactured houses on it, so that my brother and my daughter can remain with her until she dies and still have space for their own families.

I have little patience with families who simply don't want to be bothered with their own elderly.

 

[Rustic]

There are again, no one starts a business just to hire people. They start a business earn a profit, expanding the business entails hiring people.

Putting the cart before the horse seems to be the case with progressives on everything they do

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Good wages" -!

They're quite good, if you can't even manage to make change accurately without a computer to do the math for you, which is very much the case with most retail employees I've personally encountered.

Even my 1st grader can count money and add and subtract in his head, but I still have to doublecheck before I leave the store. How much do you propose someone without the skills of my 1st grader should earn?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not everyone has the freedom to move every time a job market dries up.

Well, make your current job better by working harder and/or being more responsible. There is any number of things that can be done about that.

Not if Walmart is your employer.

You mean they can't get a better job somewhere else?

Somehow, they are managing to work for WalMart, and yet live in a place where there are no other jobs and employers to turn to. Not sure how that works, since WalMart doesn't put stores in areas that don't have reasonably-sized population bases, but we're all supposed to pretend it's true.

As has been explained ad infinitum, ad nauseam, Walmart's business model is to build a store in a suburban or rural area, undercut the prices offered by every small business in the area, and drive them out of business. Many of the Walmart employees you look down your elitist nose at were the owners of those businesses.

People who don't live in basements and who've seen more of this country than the drive between home and church are aware that there's more to it than your little subdivision.

See above re: talking to the intelligent people. Definitely doesn't include you.

 

[Arianrhod]

There are again, no one starts a business just to hire people. They start a business earn a profit, expanding the business entails hiring people.

Putting the cart before the horse seems to be the case with progressives on everything they do

And there's nothing wrong with earning a profit.

Some of us just think it's wrong for multi-billion-dollar corporations to expect people like you and me to pick up the slack for them.

What would happen if you decided to pay no income tax? You know as well as I do. But Apple, GE, etc. do this year after year and get away with it, largely because people like you say "So what?"

 

[Cecilie1200]

Capitalism, sure helps bring out natural selection does it not??

Whether in politics or private sector, Warm and fuzzy feelings really don't go that far it here in the real world. And rightly so.

It's always amused me that leftists, champions of evolution and Darwinism that they are, devote all their domestic policies to contradicting those concepts.

 

[Arianrhod]

And another fine example of "How to Post Nothing but a Troll and Get Away with It":

See above re: talking to the intelligent people. Definitely doesn't include you.

 

[Rustic]

There are again, no one starts a business just to hire people. They start a business earn a profit, expanding the business entails hiring people.

Putting the cart before the horse seems to be the case with progressives on everything they do

And there's nothing wrong with earning a profit.

Some of us just think it's wrong for multi-billion-dollar corporations to expect people like you and me to pick up the slack for them.

What would happen if you decided to pay no income tax? You know as well as I do. But Apple, GE, etc. do this year after year and get away with it, largely because people like you say "So what?"

It should not be the governments business who makes what or how much they make, luxury tax should be fine.

 

[Arianrhod]

There are again, no one starts a business just to hire people. They start a business earn a profit, expanding the business entails hiring people.

Putting the cart before the horse seems to be the case with progressives on everything they do

And there's nothing wrong with earning a profit.

Some of us just think it's wrong for multi-billion-dollar corporations to expect people like you and me to pick up the slack for them.

What would happen if you decided to pay no income tax? You know as well as I do. But Apple, GE, etc. do this year after year and get away with it, largely because people like you say "So what?"

It should not be the governments business who makes what or how much they make, luxury tax should be fine.

So how do you run a government on a luxury tax alone? (And why do I suspect your answer will be something along the lines of "We don't need government"?)

 

[Sun Devil 92]

And here we have two excellent examples of "How to Post Nothing But Trolls and Get Away with It":

Excuse me, but I was addressing the intelligent, serious people present. If I get bored and want to hear from you, I'll wave a Snausage over your nose and say, "Speak, boy!"

Yet another theory on how Arian became so monumentally ignorant: brain-damaging seizures.

She kicks your ass every time she posts.

 

[Arianrhod]

And here we have two excellent examples of "How to Post Nothing But Trolls and Get Away with It":

Excuse me, but I was addressing the intelligent, serious people present. If I get bored and want to hear from you, I'll wave a Snausage over your nose and say, "Speak, boy!"

Yet another theory on how Arian became so monumentally ignorant: brain-damaging seizures.

She kicks your ass every time she posts.

I take it you're as bored with the number of times she plays about Walmart as I am?

 

[bripat9643]

For one thing, if they raise their wage costs, they reduce their profit, and they automatically pay lower taxes as a result. Your plan would have to provide a substantially better incentive in taxes than the cost of the additional wages, and you couldn't do that even if you dropped corporate taxes to zero. For another, if most companies paid out their entire profit additional wages, it wouldn't have an appreciable effect on wages. Third, reducing company profits means reducing economic growth because profits are the fuel for growth.

So then companies now don't pay much in taxes you are saying?

It's a small fraction of what they pay in wages.

The government grows because libturds and all the people who get a check from the government (is there a distinction?) want it to grow.

And those people get a check from the gov because their employer hoses them. Either the gov or the employers need to provide for them. If you want small gov the only answer is the employer. This isn't so hard to understand.

No, they get a check from the government because they do a job that doesn't command a better paycheck. Blaming others for not paying you huge amounts to do a job a middle-schooler could manage is just part and parcel of why one doesn't have a better life.

Neither the government nor their employer "needs to provide for them", nor does anyone else.. THEY need to stop thinking like children, and provide for themselves. THAT is the only answer, and it isn't hard to understand, unless you're a lazy parasite.

Really? Cause in the example of Walmart the workers are making the waltons billions a year. Sounds pretty valuable to me.

To the extent that the Walton family still derives income from WalMart, it's their investment in same which makes them money. The workers are trading their labor for compensation, and if they don't think that compensation is fair, they're welcome to sell their labor elsewhere.

Furthermore, there is nothing one-sided about the arrangement, no matter what you think, since the monetary investments of the shareholders ALSO provides the employees with the opportunity to sell their labor to the company.

This ludicrous notion that only the rank-and-file, I-could-train-a-child-to-do-this-job workers are contributing any work or value to the company is the worst sort of simplistic, puerile thinking.

How many times do you have to repeat this before it even remotely resembles the actuality?

That is reality, no matter how much you deny it.

 

[bripat9643]

And here we have two excellent examples of "How to Post Nothing But Trolls and Get Away with It":

Excuse me, but I was addressing the intelligent, serious people present. If I get bored and want to hear from you, I'll wave a Snausage over your nose and say, "Speak, boy!"

Yet another theory on how Arian became so monumentally ignorant: brain-damaging seizures.

She kicks your ass every time she posts.

I take it you're as bored with the number of times she plays about Walmart as I am?

You're the one sticking your fingers in your ears.

 

[Arianrhod]

So then companies now don't pay much in taxes you are saying?

It's a small fraction of what they pay in wages.

And those people get a check from the gov because their employer hoses them. Either the gov or the employers need to provide for them. If you want small gov the only answer is the employer. This isn't so hard to understand.

No, they get a check from the government because they do a job that doesn't command a better paycheck. Blaming others for not paying you huge amounts to do a job a middle-schooler could manage is just part and parcel of why one doesn't have a better life.

Neither the government nor their employer "needs to provide for them", nor does anyone else.. THEY need to stop thinking like children, and provide for themselves. THAT is the only answer, and it isn't hard to understand, unless you're a lazy parasite.

Really? Cause in the example of Walmart the workers are making the waltons billions a year. Sounds pretty valuable to me.

To the extent that the Walton family still derives income from WalMart, it's their investment in same which makes them money. The workers are trading their labor for compensation, and if they don't think that compensation is fair, they're welcome to sell their labor elsewhere.

Furthermore, there is nothing one-sided about the arrangement, no matter what you think, since the monetary investments of the shareholders ALSO provides the employees with the opportunity to sell their labor to the company.

This ludicrous notion that only the rank-and-file, I-could-train-a-child-to-do-this-job workers are contributing any work or value to the company is the worst sort of simplistic, puerile thinking.

How many times do you have to repeat this before it even remotely resembles the actuality?

That is reality, no matter how much you deny it.

And yet, neither you nor she can provide the slight shred of evidence for your "reality." Repeat it a few more times, though.

 

[Arianrhod]

And here we have two excellent examples of "How to Post Nothing But Trolls and Get Away with It":

Excuse me, but I was addressing the intelligent, serious people present. If I get bored and want to hear from you, I'll wave a Snausage over your nose and say, "Speak, boy!"

Yet another theory on how Arian became so monumentally ignorant: brain-damaging seizures.

She kicks your ass every time she posts.

I take it you're as bored with the number of times she plays about Walmart as I am?

You're the one sticking your fingers in your ears.

No.

 

[bripat9643]

Doesn't matter how much you work, in this context, because the question is what they versus you did to deserve that money.

That's not the question at all.

The what is the question? Are you admitting that they don't deserve any more than what the Waltons agree to pay them?

 

[bripat9643]

It's a small fraction of what they pay in wages.

No, they get a check from the government because they do a job that doesn't command a better paycheck. Blaming others for not paying you huge amounts to do a job a middle-schooler could manage is just part and parcel of why one doesn't have a better life.

Neither the government nor their employer "needs to provide for them", nor does anyone else.. THEY need to stop thinking like children, and provide for themselves. THAT is the only answer, and it isn't hard to understand, unless you're a lazy parasite.

Really? Cause in the example of Walmart the workers are making the waltons billions a year. Sounds pretty valuable to me.

To the extent that the Walton family still derives income from WalMart, it's their investment in same which makes them money. The workers are trading their labor for compensation, and if they don't think that compensation is fair, they're welcome to sell their labor elsewhere.

Furthermore, there is nothing one-sided about the arrangement, no matter what you think, since the monetary investments of the shareholders ALSO provides the employees with the opportunity to sell their labor to the company.

This ludicrous notion that only the rank-and-file, I-could-train-a-child-to-do-this-job workers are contributing any work or value to the company is the worst sort of simplistic, puerile thinking.

How many times do you have to repeat this before it even remotely resembles the actuality?

That is reality, no matter how much you deny it.

And yet, neither you nor she can provide the slight shred of evidence for your "reality." Repeat it a few more times, though.

Economists have proven it over and over. Why do you think we need to regurgitate what they have said?

 

[bripat9643]

And here we have two excellent examples of "How to Post Nothing But Trolls and Get Away with It":

Excuse me, but I was addressing the intelligent, serious people present. If I get bored and want to hear from you, I'll wave a Snausage over your nose and say, "Speak, boy!"

Yet another theory on how Arian became so monumentally ignorant: brain-damaging seizures.

She kicks your ass every time she posts.

I take it you're as bored with the number of times she plays about Walmart as I am?

You're the one sticking your fingers in your ears.

No.

There you go singing "La-La-La!"

 

[Arianrhod]

Doesn't matter how much you work, in this context, because the question is what they versus you did to deserve that money.

That's not the question at all.

The what is the question? Are you admitting that they don't deserve any more than what the Waltons agree to pay them?

Read. The. Entire. Thread.

Really? Cause in the example of Walmart the workers are making the waltons billions a year. Sounds pretty valuable to me.

To the extent that the Walton family still derives income from WalMart, it's their investment in same which makes them money. The workers are trading their labor for compensation, and if they don't think that compensation is fair, they're welcome to sell their labor elsewhere.

Furthermore, there is nothing one-sided about the arrangement, no matter what you think, since the monetary investments of the shareholders ALSO provides the employees with the opportunity to sell their labor to the company.

This ludicrous notion that only the rank-and-file, I-could-train-a-child-to-do-this-job workers are contributing any work or value to the company is the worst sort of simplistic, puerile thinking.

How many times do you have to repeat this before it even remotely resembles the actuality?

That is reality, no matter how much you deny it.

And yet, neither you nor she can provide the slight shred of evidence for your "reality." Repeat it a few more times, though.

Economists have proven it over and over. Why do you think we need to regurgitate what they have said?

To prove they actually said it. Why is your side so reluctant to provide supporting data? In the Real World, when people want to prove something, they say "Here's the information that confirms what I just said."

The best you people can do most times is www.lmgtfy.com

And here we have two excellent examples of "How to Post Nothing But Trolls and Get Away with It":

She kicks your ass every time she posts.

I take it you're as bored with the number of times she plays about Walmart as I am?

You're the one sticking your fingers in your ears.

No.

There you go singing "La-La-La!"

To your ridiculous claims? Every single time.

 

[bripat9643]

The way to teach people they don't need government is to put them on the government tit?

How are you going to force a corporation to pay more than it can and still make a profit?

No, the plan is obviously to get them off welfare, pay attention.

Again professor, you give them tax breaks in return for providing for their employees. What makes you think they can't afford it? They can afford to continually give CEOs huge pay increases, and now they would have tax savings to pay for the increases.

For one thing, if they raise their wage costs, they reduce their profit, and they automatically pay lower taxes as a result. Your plan would have to provide a substantially better incentive in taxes than the cost of the additional wages, and you couldn't do that even if you dropped corporate taxes to zero. For another, if most companies paid out their entire profit additional wages, it wouldn't have an appreciable effect on wages. Third, reducing company profits means reducing economic growth because profits are the fuel for growth.

So then companies now don't pay much in taxes you are saying?

It's a small fraction of what they pay in wages.

Let the waltons be, envy really makes America an ugly place...

By paying so little their workers are on welfare, the government grows. I think that is a bad thing. You must love big government.

The government grows because libturds and all the people who get a check from the government (is there a distinction?) want it to grow.

And those people get a check from the gov because their employer hoses them. Either the gov or the employers need to provide for them. If you want small gov the only answer is the employer. This isn't so hard to understand.

No, they get a check from the government because they do a job that doesn't command a better paycheck. Blaming others for not paying you huge amounts to do a job a middle-schooler could manage is just part and parcel of why one doesn't have a better life.

Neither the government nor their employer "needs to provide for them", nor does anyone else.. THEY need to stop thinking like children, and provide for themselves. THAT is the only answer, and it isn't hard to understand, unless you're a lazy parasite.

Really? Cause in the example of Walmart the workers are making the waltons billions a year. Sounds pretty valuable to me.

Walmart is probably paying out well over $100 billion a year in wages, so the employees benefit far more than the Waltons benefit from the arrangement.