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

[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?

Read. The. Entire. Thread.

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

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.

What did she post that isn't obviously true on its face? Your question is like asking me to prove the sky is blue.

 

[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?

Read. The. Entire. Thread.

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

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.

What claim have a made that's "ridiculous?"

 

[bripat9643]

I don't see how anyone can justify this.
Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted a startling statistic to his followers on July 22, 2012: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

Sanders speaks and writes frequently about wealth distribution in the U.S., a hot-button issue among liberals and a rallying cry of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

The Waltons, of course, are members of the proverbial 1 percent. But are they really sitting on that much wealth? We decided to check it out.

First, what is wealth?

In economics, wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth, and it’s defined as the value of assets minus liabilities. For someone in the middle class, that could encompass the value of their 401(k) or other retirement accounts, bank savings and personal assets such as jewelry or cars, minus what they owe on a home mortgage, credit cards and a car note.

It does not include income -- what people earn in wages. For that reason, someone who earns a good salary but has little savings and owes a lot of money on their house would have a negative net worth.

In fact, because so many Americans invest in real estate to buy a home, middle-class wealth has been one of the biggest casualties of the housing-driven recession.

From 2007 to 2010, typical families lost 39 percent of their wealth, according to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, done every three years. In 2007, the median family net worth was $126,400. In 2010, it was $77,300, according to the survey.

Where the Waltons fit in

Six members of the Walton family appear on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. Christy Walton, widow of the late John Walton, leads the clan at No. 6 with a net worth of $25.3 billion as of March 2012. She is also the richest woman in the world for the seventh year in a row, according to Forbes. Here are the other five:

No. 9: Jim Walton, $23.7 billion
No. 10: Alice Walton, $23.3 billion
No. 11: S. Robson Walton, oldest son of Sam Walton, $23.1 billion
No. 103: Ann Walton Kroenke, $3.9 billion
No. 139: Nancy Walton Laurie, $3.4 billion

It's theirs and they earned it. More power to them.

While it is theirs certainly, the earned part is questionable. Everyone is born.

What's questionable is why you leftists have latched onto the word "earned", and think you can demand that people prove to you that they "deserve" their own property through meeting some arbitrary definition of "earned".

They built and maintained a relationship with their father, such that he chose to give them his property. YOU, on the other hand, didn't even do that much. So I think we can safely say the Walton children did more to "earn" what they have than YOU did. Or the government did. Or anyone who doesn't actually own the money did.

No actually I do far more than the Waltons, none of them even have a position with the company. They don't work at all. I work quite a lot.

I've already pointed out that Rob Walton is CEO of the company.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

So Wal-Mart's business model is to charge low prices?

Horrors!

 

[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.

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

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.

What claim have a made that's "ridiculous?"

You habitually conflate opinion with fact. Some of Cecelie's observations are factual (she knows the names of all the Walton heirs, for example), others are opinion. Now, the latter may have facts underlying them, but she's remarkably loathe to present them.

(Incidentally, the sky isn't really blue, but the explanation for why it appears that way has to do with science. You're not averse to science, are you?)

You also seem to think your own opinions are facts just because you post them. It ain't necessarily so.

As for one of the more amusing confusions of opinion with fact, check out Posts 151-153 in this thread:

Should Abortion Be Illegal Once a Heartbeat Is Detectable? | Page 16 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Arianrhod]

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.

So Wal-Mart's business model is to charge low prices?

Horrors!

See, you're deliberately misunderstanding.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

My mother took care of my father until he died. My sister lived with my mother all her life and took care of her until she died. We also had some hired help (Visiting Angels) come in to to help with things, especially in the last year she was alive. If my sister wasn't there, then she would have moved in with one of us.

Don't ever put your mother in a nursing home. She will begin a rapid decline the minute you do. My wife worked in one for a while, and she would tell me plenty of horror stories about the place.

 

[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?

Read. The. Entire. Thread.

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

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.

What claim have a made that's "ridiculous?"

You habitually conflate opinion with fact.

You keep saying that, but you can't quote any examples. Actually, you're the one who equates your opinion with fact, like your theory Wal-Mart's wages require us to pay for food stamps. That's obvious horseshit.

Some of Cecelie's observations are factual (she knows the names of all the Walton heirs, for example), others are opinion. Now, the latter may have facts underlying them, but she's remarkably loathe to present them.

(Incidentally, the sky isn't really blue, but the explanation for why it appears that way has to do with science. You're not averse to science, are you?)

You also seem to think your own opinions are facts just because you post them. It ain't necessarily so.

As for one of the more amusing confusions of opinion with fact, check out Posts 151-153 in this thread:

Should Abortion Be Illegal Once a Heartbeat Is Detectable? | Page 16 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Actually, the sky is blue since the light that reaches your eye from the sky is blue. That's the same reason an orange is orange, the light from the orange is the wavelength of orange light. That's what it means for an object to have a color.

I'm not posting opinions. I'm posting economic facts.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

So Wal-Mart's business model is to charge low prices?

Horrors!

See, you're deliberately misunderstanding.

Then explain it to us. What is the horror of Wal-Mart's business model?

 

[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.

Are you claiming that employees don't gain by selling their labor to Wal-Mart?

 

[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?

Read. The. Entire. Thread.

What an incredibly sleazy weasel you are. I've participated in this thread since the beginning.

 

[HenryBHough]

What's laughable is that liberals cannot comprehend that absolutely nobody is required to buy anything from Walmart. In second place is their failure to comprehend that nobody is compelled to work for Walmart.

But still they quietly shop there because liberals are, above all else, cheap bastards who want to pay the least possible.

 

[Arianrhod]

You keep saying that, but you can't quote any examples. Actually, you're the one who equates your opinion with fact, like your theory Wal-Mart's wages require us to pay for food stamps. That's obvious horseshit.

Posted it once. Posting it again:

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

 

[Wyatt earp]

You keep saying that, but you can't quote any examples. Actually, you're the one who equates your opinion with fact, like your theory Wal-Mart's wages require us to pay for food stamps. That's obvious horseshit.

Posted it once. Posting it again:

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

Uhm.... No they don't, it is the politicians who decided what the poverty level is.

Wal-Mart is providing a job at what the market is, don't work there if the employees don't like it.

 

[Arianrhod]

You keep saying that, but you can't quote any examples. Actually, you're the one who equates your opinion with fact, like your theory Wal-Mart's wages require us to pay for food stamps. That's obvious horseshit.

Posted it once. Posting it again:

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

Uhm.... No they don't, it is the politicians who decided what the poverty level is.

Wal-Mart is providing a job at what the market is, don't work there if the employees don't like it.

The question was whether or not some Walmart employees were receiving SNAP benefits, period.

If you think the information is inaccurate, you might want to write to Forbes and let them know.

 

[Brain357]

Oh and what part doesn't add up for you professor?

The part where the corporation saves enough in taxes to compensate for the increased cost of wages doesn't add up.

Why not? You republicans run around saying our corporations are the most taxed in the world. Are you now saying they aren't? Walmart for instance would have an extra 7.1 billion.

Wal-Mart as 1,000,000 employees. Paying them all an extra $1.00/hr means an additional $20 billion in payroll costs. That's more than their entire profit for the year.

I realize you won't get this because math is hard for leftwing turds.

How many employees they have on welfare?

What difference does that make?

Well we are talking about getting people off welfare. I assume all million employees aren't on welfare. Pretty sure 7.1 billion would be enough incentive to get every Walmart employee off welfare.

 

[Brain357]

I don't see how anyone can justify this.
Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans

It's theirs and they earned it. More power to them.

While it is theirs certainly, the earned part is questionable. Everyone is born.

What's questionable is why you leftists have latched onto the word "earned", and think you can demand that people prove to you that they "deserve" their own property through meeting some arbitrary definition of "earned".

They built and maintained a relationship with their father, such that he chose to give them his property. YOU, on the other hand, didn't even do that much. So I think we can safely say the Walton children did more to "earn" what they have than YOU did. Or the government did. Or anyone who doesn't actually own the money did.

No actually I do far more than the Waltons, none of them even have a position with the company. They don't work at all. I work quite a lot.

Not true. Rob Walton is the CEO of the company. Most of the others have positions with other companies. They are all on the Walton Family Foundation's board of directors.

Way to look stupid. Who is this guy?
Doug McMillon - President and CEO, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

 

[Brain357]

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.

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.

The Waltons provide a million employees with good wages for jobs that require no marketable skills. They're getting the better end of the bargain.

Yes the Waltons make billions paying many so little they are on welfare. The waltons definitely have the better end of the bargain.

 

[Brain357]

What's laughable is that liberals cannot comprehend that absolutely nobody is required to buy anything from Walmart. In second place is their failure to comprehend that nobody is compelled to work for Walmart.

But still they quietly shop there because liberals are, above all else, cheap bastards who want to pay the least possible.

The problem is that Walmart type jobs are mostly all we have now with the decline in unions. Walmart is the largest private employer in the country after all.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The part where the corporation saves enough in taxes to compensate for the increased cost of wages doesn't add up.

Why not? You republicans run around saying our corporations are the most taxed in the world. Are you now saying they aren't? Walmart for instance would have an extra 7.1 billion.

Wal-Mart as 1,000,000 employees. Paying them all an extra $1.00/hr means an additional $20 billion in payroll costs. That's more than their entire profit for the year.

I realize you won't get this because math is hard for leftwing turds.

How many employees they have on welfare?

What difference does that make?

Well we are talking about getting people off welfare. I assume all million employees aren't on welfare. Pretty sure 7.1 billion would be enough incentive to get every Walmart employee off welfare.

I wish it was that simple, ok Wal Mart raised their MW up to $10 bucks an hour in 2016 for like 500,000 employees that is livable in places like Alabama and SC but would still need assistance in places like Chicago or New York.

Do you think they wouldn't? I should research how many times the welfare rate was raised.... But probably would take to long and it would very state to state.