Hey cons: if your solution to the min wage issue is to tell those people...

[P@triot]

Walmart and McDonald's are paying starting wages of $25 per hour there.

A Walmart store in Williston, N.D., is offering to pay entry-level workers as much as $17.40 per hour—nearly 2½ times the federal minimum wage—in an effort to compete in one of America’s most dynamic labor markets.

Hmmm. Not 25. One store. In 2014. Think that's the case today?

Your first statement simply proved the effectiveness of conservative policy. Your second statement is simply bizarre. Your citing one store in one city. Both McDonald's and Walmart having been offering $25 per hour. In fact, at one point they were so desperate, they were putting advertisements on the radio airwaves with this info to help drive people to North Dakota. Sean Hannity on his Fox News show was also helping with the effort.

Conservative policy creates economic boom and prosperity. Liberal policy creates famine, poverty, and misery.

 

[P@triot]

Supply and demand for labor is what drove labor rates higher.
To many oil workers vs Wal-Mart workers. Wal-Mart had to pay those wages to attract workers from the oil fields.

Supply and demand. The same thing that causes manufacturers to hire more workers.

Supply and demand.

Bingo. Supply and Demand (exactly as I stated if you'll scroll up). Not government interference. Supply and Demand in the free market.

 

[P@triot]

Sounds like the city made a strategic mistake. All Walmart has to do then is open a bunch of stores 50 feet outside city limits. Did they in fact do that?

No they couldnt do that. The geography and zoning in Oakland wont permit that I am familiar with this since I grew up there. However they do have Walmarts in cities right next to Oakland such as San Leandro and Alameda.

The city obviously made a strategic mistake by increasing the cost of doing business so much.

Not really. Due to Walmart doing so well there I am pretty sure Target will take their spot. No one cares if its Walmart or Target. To be honest Target is actually a step up. Its going to be a PR loss for Walmart as well.

And Target can better handle increases in labor costs because they charge higher prices. Of course, the customers will have to pay more, but who cares about them?

As you know, Target is in a downward spiral due to their capitulating to the far left Progressives and making all their restrooms available to anyone and everyone who claim they do not know if they have or do not have a penis.

I can't tell you how much I'm enjoying watching that stupid ass company take it on the chin. If this ends with them going out of business, I'm going to be so happy.

 

[Asclepias]

No they couldnt do that. The geography and zoning in Oakland wont permit that I am familiar with this since I grew up there. However they do have Walmarts in cities right next to Oakland such as San Leandro and Alameda.

The city obviously made a strategic mistake by increasing the cost of doing business so much.

Not really. Due to Walmart doing so well there I am pretty sure Target will take their spot. No one cares if its Walmart or Target. To be honest Target is actually a step up. Its going to be a PR loss for Walmart as well.

And Target can better handle increases in labor costs because they charge higher prices. Of course, the customers will have to pay more, but who cares about them?

People dont mind paying slightly higher prices for better quality. I know I dont. Seems like Walmart has you guys right were they want you.

If you think Target is "better" quality than you're clearly a minimum wage worker.... i

I've purchased a handful of very fine Italian suits over the years - not one of which came from Target.

You bought Italian suits at Walmart? You definitely are a MW worker. No wonder you claimed people dont buy debt. You think Walmart is better quality than Target. Just because they had a name that ended in I on it doesnt mean it was really an italian suit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The city obviously made a strategic mistake by increasing the cost of doing business so much.

Not really. Due to Walmart doing so well there I am pretty sure Target will take their spot. No one cares if its Walmart or Target. To be honest Target is actually a step up. Its going to be a PR loss for Walmart as well.

And Target can better handle increases in labor costs because they charge higher prices. Of course, the customers will have to pay more, but who cares about them?

People dont mind paying slightly higher prices for better quality. I know I dont. Seems like Walmart has you guys right were they want you.

That statement is false on its face. If it were true, Walmart would be fighting to survive against Target. It is not. The truth is that a LOT of people will take cheap crap just to save a few bucks. THAT'S the truth.

========
What's **true** is that lots of people are working for starvation wages and don't have any option but to take the cheapest crap they can get by with.

People don't buy cheap because they LIKE cheap but because they have no other choice.

People buy groceries at Wal-Mart because everything is cheaper than at other stores ( but Wal-Mart is still making humongous profits which tells us something about the grocery store chains ). A box of cereal can easily be $1.00 cheaper at Wal-Mart than at Fry's / Kroger / other store and when they are only making minimum wage that makes their minimum wage stretch further.

We need to keep in mind how much American business lies to it's customers.

Grocery stores claim to operate on 1% profit --- why would anyone invest millions of dollars to build a store and all that equipment for 1% when they can put it in CD's and get more than that with little risk?

THEY WOULDN'T and THEY DON'T

Since they charge quite a bit more than Wal-Mart obviously they must be making more per item than Wal-Mart is. Sure some of them are union and pay better wages and benefits but those labor expenses are a very small percentage of their income. Wages and bennies for a chain unionized grocery store probably eat up 2 or 3 cents out of that dollar difference on a box of cereal.

I prefer to shop at the other stores but when it comes to some things like boxes of cereal or anything where the quality is exactly the same because it is the same box / can / package I go to Wal-Mart ... for produce / meat / deli / baked goods I < never > buy those at Wal-Mart I go to Fry's / Kroger usually because they have the best in this area. Even though I can afford to buy it all at Fry's ( and used to ) and prefer to deal with unionized stores, there is a point where their excessive charges are too much and I can't justify giving them $75 a week or more than it would cost at Wal-Mart.

But those excessive charges wind up in management's pockets with million dollar bonuses and they don't deserve the money.

What's **true** is that lots of people are working for starvation wages and don't have any option but to take the cheapest crap they can get by with.

People don't buy cheap because they LIKE cheap but because they have no other choice.

Really? Did you ever go to Walmart and take notice of the customer vehicles in their parking lot? I wish I could afford some of those cars and trucks.

People buy groceries at Wal-Mart because everything is cheaper than at other stores ( but Wal-Mart is still making humongous profits which tells us something about the grocery store chains ). A box of cereal can easily be $1.00 cheaper at Wal-Mart than at Fry's / Kroger / other store and when they are only making minimum wage that makes their minimum wage stretch further.

We need to keep in mind how much American business lies to it's customers.

Grocery stores claim to operate on 1% profit --- why would anyone invest millions of dollars to build a store and all that equipment for 1% when they can put it in CD's and get more than that with little risk?

THEY WOULDN'T and THEY DON'T

I never heard any grocery store chain claim they only make 1% profit.

Since they charge quite a bit more than Wal-Mart obviously they must be making more per item than Wal-Mart is. Sure some of them are union and pay better wages and benefits but those labor expenses are a very small percentage of their income. Wages and bennies for a chain unionized grocery store probably eat up 2 or 3 cents out of that dollar difference on a box of cereal.

Walmart negotiates and even threatens their suppliers, that's how they are able to keep their prices down. How do I know this? Because I'm a truck driver and one of our customers is a manufacturer of products that Walmart buys.

For instance. I'm an insulin dependent diabetic. I don't have prescription coverage so I pay for all my supplies in cash. Insulin became more and more expensive. It got to the point it was almost unaffordable.

I tried to research the problem on the internet and came up empty. I even wrote to the manufacturer and questioned them about the increasing price of their products. They wrote back, but nothing that told me what was really going on.

What I did remember however is bringing up the problem to a pharmacist one time, and she told me that Walmart has their own generic insulin which I wasn't crazy about buying. But I got to such a desperate point that I finally looked into it.

What I found is that the so-called generic insulin that Walmart carried was hardly generic at all. In fact, it was made by the same manufacturer, the same packaging, except it had a little ® on it because Walmart generic brand is called Reliance. It was the exact same stuff.

Bottom line: Walmart made a dirty deal with Lilly (the insulin company) to sell them their product cheap, and in return, Lilly drastically increased their prices to every other pharmacy including chains. People that have prescription coverage never bother looking into it as I did because the cost is little to none no matter how much they charge.

My insulin at Walmart costs me $24.99 per vial. Just for the hell of it, two weeks ago I asked the pharmacist at our chain grocery store how much they charge. They told me $175.00 per vial. I use three a month.

 

[P@triot]

The city obviously made a strategic mistake by increasing the cost of doing business so much.

Not really. Due to Walmart doing so well there I am pretty sure Target will take their spot. No one cares if its Walmart or Target. To be honest Target is actually a step up. Its going to be a PR loss for Walmart as well.

And Target can better handle increases in labor costs because they charge higher prices. Of course, the customers will have to pay more, but who cares about them?

People dont mind paying slightly higher prices for better quality. I know I dont. Seems like Walmart has you guys right were they want you.

If you think Target is "better" quality than you're clearly a minimum wage worker.... i

I've purchased a handful of very fine Italian suits over the years - not one of which came from Target.

You bought Italian suits at Walmart? You definitely are a MW worker. No wonder you claimed people dont buy debt. You think Walmart is better quality than Target. Just because they had a name that ended in I on it doesnt mean it was really an italian suit.

Uh.....what? I didn't even mention the word "Walmart" in my previous post. Your reading comprehension is below third grade level.

 

[Asclepias]

Not really. Due to Walmart doing so well there I am pretty sure Target will take their spot. No one cares if its Walmart or Target. To be honest Target is actually a step up. Its going to be a PR loss for Walmart as well.

And Target can better handle increases in labor costs because they charge higher prices. Of course, the customers will have to pay more, but who cares about them?

People dont mind paying slightly higher prices for better quality. I know I dont. Seems like Walmart has you guys right were they want you.

If you think Target is "better" quality than you're clearly a minimum wage worker.... i

I've purchased a handful of very fine Italian suits over the years - not one of which came from Target.

You bought Italian suits at Walmart? You definitely are a MW worker. No wonder you claimed people dont buy debt. You think Walmart is better quality than Target. Just because they had a name that ended in I on it doesnt mean it was really an italian suit.

Uh.....what? I didn't even mention the word "Walmart" in my previous post. Your reading comprehension is below third grade level.

if you didnt get your suits from Walmart WTF are you telling us about your suits for? The point was Target is higher quality than Walmart. Why the random mention of your suits if you didnt get them from Walmart?

 

[hadit]

The city obviously made a strategic mistake by increasing the cost of doing business so much.

Not really. Due to Walmart doing so well there I am pretty sure Target will take their spot. No one cares if its Walmart or Target. To be honest Target is actually a step up. Its going to be a PR loss for Walmart as well.

And Target can better handle increases in labor costs because they charge higher prices. Of course, the customers will have to pay more, but who cares about them?

People dont mind paying slightly higher prices for better quality. I know I dont. Seems like Walmart has you guys right were they want you.

That statement is false on its face. If it were true, Walmart would be fighting to survive against Target. It is not. The truth is that a LOT of people will take cheap crap just to save a few bucks. THAT'S the truth.

========
What's **true** is that lots of people are working for starvation wages and don't have any option but to take the cheapest crap they can get by with.

People don't buy cheap because they LIKE cheap but because they have no other choice.

People buy groceries at Wal-Mart because everything is cheaper than at other stores ( but Wal-Mart is still making humongous profits which tells us something about the grocery store chains ). A box of cereal can easily be $1.00 cheaper at Wal-Mart than at Fry's / Kroger / other store and when they are only making minimum wage that makes their minimum wage stretch further.

We need to keep in mind how much American business lies to it's customers.

Grocery stores claim to operate on 1% profit --- why would anyone invest millions of dollars to build a store and all that equipment for 1% when they can put it in CD's and get more than that with little risk?

THEY WOULDN'T and THEY DON'T

Since they charge quite a bit more than Wal-Mart obviously they must be making more per item than Wal-Mart is. Sure some of them are union and pay better wages and benefits but those labor expenses are a very small percentage of their income. Wages and bennies for a chain unionized grocery store probably eat up 2 or 3 cents out of that dollar difference on a box of cereal.

I prefer to shop at the other stores but when it comes to some things like boxes of cereal or anything where the quality is exactly the same because it is the same box / can / package I go to Wal-Mart ... for produce / meat / deli / baked goods I < never > buy those at Wal-Mart I go to Fry's / Kroger usually because they have the best in this area. Even though I can afford to buy it all at Fry's ( and used to ) and prefer to deal with unionized stores, there is a point where their excessive charges are too much and I can't justify giving them $75 a week or more than it would cost at Wal-Mart.

But those excessive charges wind up in management's pockets with million dollar bonuses and they don't deserve the money.

Let's see if we understand the direction in which you are heading. It sounds like you're saying that people have to shop at Walmart because they can't afford to shop at stores that offer better quality. Now, some who agree with you are saying that people don't mind paying more to get better quality, and thus driving Walmart out of business is a good thing. Does anyone else see the cognitive dissonance between the two positions?

 

[Wyatt earp]

And Target can better handle increases in labor costs because they charge higher prices. Of course, the customers will have to pay more, but who cares about them?

People dont mind paying slightly higher prices for better quality. I know I dont. Seems like Walmart has you guys right were they want you.

If you think Target is "better" quality than you're clearly a minimum wage worker.... i

I've purchased a handful of very fine Italian suits over the years - not one of which came from Target.

You bought Italian suits at Walmart? You definitely are a MW worker. No wonder you claimed people dont buy debt. You think Walmart is better quality than Target. Just because they had a name that ended in I on it doesnt mean it was really an italian suit.

Uh.....what? I didn't even mention the word "Walmart" in my previous post. Your reading comprehension is below third grade level.

if you didnt get your suits from Walmart WTF are you telling us about your suits for? The point was Target is higher quality than Walmart. Why the random mention of your suits if you didnt get them from Walmart?

What you don't know about Walmarts newspin off store?

Walmarto Italiano...


.

 

[P@triot]

And Target can better handle increases in labor costs because they charge higher prices. Of course, the customers will have to pay more, but who cares about them?

People dont mind paying slightly higher prices for better quality. I know I dont. Seems like Walmart has you guys right were they want you.

If you think Target is "better" quality than you're clearly a minimum wage worker.... i

I've purchased a handful of very fine Italian suits over the years - not one of which came from Target.

You bought Italian suits at Walmart? You definitely are a MW worker. No wonder you claimed people dont buy debt. You think Walmart is better quality than Target. Just because they had a name that ended in I on it doesnt mean it was really an italian suit.

Uh.....what? I didn't even mention the word "Walmart" in my previous post. Your reading comprehension is below third grade level.

if you didnt get your suits from Walmart WTF are you telling us about your suits for? The point was Target is higher quality than Walmart. Why the random mention of your suits if you didnt get them from Walmart?

You never said "Target is higher quality than Walmart" (which is an absurd statement anyway as they are two sides of the same coin). You only mentioned Target and then you said "People dont mind paying slightly higher prices for better quality" (exact quote). See, I read what is written. You see what you want to see.

 

[P@triot]

“Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise.” – Thomas Jefferson (March 4, 1801)

 

[Asclepias]

People dont mind paying slightly higher prices for better quality. I know I dont. Seems like Walmart has you guys right were they want you.

If you think Target is "better" quality than you're clearly a minimum wage worker.... i

I've purchased a handful of very fine Italian suits over the years - not one of which came from Target.

You bought Italian suits at Walmart? You definitely are a MW worker. No wonder you claimed people dont buy debt. You think Walmart is better quality than Target. Just because they had a name that ended in I on it doesnt mean it was really an italian suit.

Uh.....what? I didn't even mention the word "Walmart" in my previous post. Your reading comprehension is below third grade level.

if you didnt get your suits from Walmart WTF are you telling us about your suits for? The point was Target is higher quality than Walmart. Why the random mention of your suits if you didnt get them from Walmart?

You never said "Target is higher quality than Walmart" (which is an absurd statement anyway as they are two sides of the same coin). You only mentioned Target and then you said "People dont mind paying slightly higher prices for better quality" (exact quote). See, I read what is written. You see what you want to see.

Actually I did. Dont blame your poor reading comprehension for your slip up and admitting you got your "Italian" suits from Walmart. For starters we were comparing Target to Walmart. What does this sentence mean to you Walmart boy?

"People dont mind paying slightly higher prices for better quality. I know I dont. Seems like Walmart has you guys right were they want you."

 

[Asclepias]

“Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise.” – Thomas Jefferson (March 4, 1801)

Why you quote a slave owner as if he is credible is amusing to me.

 

[paulitician]

Greedy white Republican dude wants all poor folks to be disappeared. In his warped greedy little brain, he views the poor as unwashed 'Untouchables.' They shouldn't be allowed to exist. These are the kind of greedy bastids you're dealing with. So don't spend too much time trying to reason with them. They'll never get it.

Bubble popping time again. "Greedy white Republican dudes" are poor folks too. You're not really good at this, are you?

If you're poor, and you're a white Republican dude, you're voting against you're own best interests. The greedy white Republican dudes you worship, truly despise you. They only want you to be an obedient slave worker,

Typical lie coming from the far left Progessive.

All i can tell you is that the greedy white Republican dudes you worship, truly do despise you. If you're poor and struggling, you're only worthy of being their obedient slave worker. It is what it is.

 

[hadit]

Greedy white Republican dude wants all poor folks to be disappeared. In his warped greedy little brain, he views the poor as unwashed 'Untouchables.' They shouldn't be allowed to exist. These are the kind of greedy bastids you're dealing with. So don't spend too much time trying to reason with them. They'll never get it.

Bubble popping time again. "Greedy white Republican dudes" are poor folks too. You're not really good at this, are you?

If you're poor, and you're a white Republican dude, you're voting against you're own best interests. The greedy white Republican dudes you worship, truly despise you. They only want you to be an obedient slave worker,

Typical lie coming from the far left Progessive.

All i can tell you is that the greedy white Republican dudes you worship, truly do despise you. If you're poor and struggling, you're only worthy of being their obedient slave worker. It is what it is.

You seem obsessed. You can get help with that.

 

[Markle]

The city obviously made a strategic mistake by increasing the cost of doing business so much.

Not really. Due to Walmart doing so well there I am pretty sure Target will take their spot. No one cares if its Walmart or Target. To be honest Target is actually a step up. Its going to be a PR loss for Walmart as well.

And Target can better handle increases in labor costs because they charge higher prices. Of course, the customers will have to pay more, but who cares about them?

People dont mind paying slightly higher prices for better quality. I know I dont. Seems like Walmart has you guys right were they want you.

That statement is false on its face. If it were true, Walmart would be fighting to survive against Target. It is not. The truth is that a LOT of people will take cheap crap just to save a few bucks. THAT'S the truth.

========
What's **true** is that lots of people are working for starvation wages and don't have any option but to take the cheapest crap they can get by with.

People don't buy cheap because they LIKE cheap but because they have no other choice.

People buy groceries at Wal-Mart because everything is cheaper than at other stores ( but Wal-Mart is still making humongous profits which tells us something about the grocery store chains ). A box of cereal can easily be $1.00 cheaper at Wal-Mart than at Fry's / Kroger / other store and when they are only making minimum wage that makes their minimum wage stretch further.

We need to keep in mind how much American business lies to it's customers.

Grocery stores claim to operate on 1% profit --- why would anyone invest millions of dollars to build a store and all that equipment for 1% when they can put it in CD's and get more than that with little risk?

THEY WOULDN'T and THEY DON'T

Since they charge quite a bit more than Wal-Mart obviously they must be making more per item than Wal-Mart is. Sure some of them are union and pay better wages and benefits but those labor expenses are a very small percentage of their income. Wages and bennies for a chain unionized grocery store probably eat up 2 or 3 cents out of that dollar difference on a box of cereal.

I prefer to shop at the other stores but when it comes to some things like boxes of cereal or anything where the quality is exactly the same because it is the same box / can / package I go to Wal-Mart ... for produce / meat / deli / baked goods I < never > buy those at Wal-Mart I go to Fry's / Kroger usually because they have the best in this area. Even though I can afford to buy it all at Fry's ( and used to ) and prefer to deal with unionized stores, there is a point where their excessive charges are too much and I can't justify giving them $75 a week or more than it would cost at Wal-Mart.

But those excessive charges wind up in management's pockets with million dollar bonuses and they don't deserve the money.

Your ignorance of the market place is duly noted.

 

[Markle]

People dont mind paying slightly higher prices for better quality. I know I dont. Seems like Walmart has you guys right were they want you.

At the end of the day - this is a really stupid issue and this is an extra special stupid conversation. For starters, if people didn't mind paying more, then nobody would have been going to walmart in California (when in fact the article stated how successful the store had been). The idiot policies you support put everyone out of jobs and now you're trying to justify that.

But at the end of the day - here is the bottom line that you don't want to accept. Society is not responsible for you or your salary asclepias. This is the land of endless opportunity. You've made the conscious choice to wallow in poverty. I'd be wiling to bet you spend what few dollars you do have on very frivolous shit (like computers and internet so you can come to USMB and whine to everyone - instead of using that money to earn a degree or on learning a trade craft such as electrician or plumber). If you don't like your lot life, get off of USMB and do something about it. If you're happy with your lot in life (as I suspect you are), then stop being a greedy bitch and whining about this just to convince the American people to hand you more money which you've done nothing to earn.

There is nothing else to discuss or debate here. Libtard policy takes low-wage jobs and turns them into no-wage jobs. And it always ends in famine, poverty, and misery. Conservative policy creates a flourishing, dynamic, robust economy and it always ends with prosperity. Lying about what we all know to be true isn't going to help you get more money asclepias. You're just not that good of a con-artist.

Arguing with asclepias is like wrestling with a pig in mud. In the end, you're both filthy and exhausted but the pig enjoyed the experience. He's just stirring the pot.

 

[P@triot]

“Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise.” – Thomas Jefferson (March 4, 1801)

Why you quote a slave owner as if he is credible is amusing to me.

Wow. They you for unequivocally proving your extraordinary ignorance once and for all.

See, being that you dropped out of high school, you don't realize that Thomas Jefferson vehemently opposed slavery. In fact, even before we declared independence in 1776, Jefferson was proposing legislation in the Virginia state legislature to free slaves in Virginia.

Keep talking stupid. Every time you post you make everyone realize just how worthless your uninformed, uneducated opinion is. By the way - go ahead and ask the obvious question. Please. Do it. I'd love to show everyone just how stupid you are for the 482nd time.

 

[Asclepias]

“Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise.” – Thomas Jefferson (March 4, 1801)

Why you quote a slave owner as if he is credible is amusing to me.

Wow. They you for unequivocally proving your extraordinary ignorance once and for all.

See, being that you dropped out of high school, you don't realize that Thomas Jefferson vehemently opposed slavery. In fact, even before we declared independence in 1776, Jefferson was proposing legislation in the Virginia state legislature to free slaves in Virginia.

Keep talking stupid. Every time you post you make everyone realize just how worthless your uninformed, uneducated opinion is. By the way - go ahead and ask the obvious question. Please. Do it. I'd love to show everyone just how stupid you are for the 482nd time.

If he opposed slavery why did he have slaves?

"I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. … This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people."
- Thomas Jefferson

 

[P@triot]

“Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise.” – Thomas Jefferson (March 4, 1801)

Why you quote a slave owner as if he is credible is amusing to me.

Wow. They you for unequivocally proving your extraordinary ignorance once and for all.

See, being that you dropped out of high school, you don't realize that Thomas Jefferson vehemently opposed slavery. In fact, even before we declared independence in 1776, Jefferson was proposing legislation in the Virginia state legislature to free slaves in Virginia.

Keep talking stupid. Every time you post you make everyone realize just how worthless your uninformed, uneducated opinion is. By the way - go ahead and ask the obvious question. Please. Do it. I'd love to show everyone just how stupid you are for the 482nd time.

If he opposed slavery why did he have slaves?

Boom! There it is! There is the obvious question that makes you look even more uninformed.

The answer is - because it was against the law to free slaves back then (hence the reason that Jefferson kept introducing legislation). And unlike liberals of today, our founders were men of character who were law abiding citizens and followed the law even when they didn't agree with it. By the way - don't take my word for it. Do your own research. You'll see that it was against the law to free slaves.

Now, by the time George Washington had passed away (who also vehemently opposed slavery), it was legal to set them free upon your death (which is what George Washington did). And for the record, his slaves cried when he passed away. Why? Because he treated them so well and refused to allow anyone to hit them. He couldn't free them while he was alive, but he recognized it was wrong and he treated them with respect and dignity as did Thomas Jefferson.

Now, by the time Thomas Jefferson had passed away, the law had changed yet again. By that time, it was also permissible to free slaves upon your death but only if you have the money to pay for each one (I forget what the exact amount was) because society viewed these slaves as a "burden" when they were released and had no land, no money, no job, etc. Jefferson was over $50,000 in debt due to his charitable character and his love of country (he paid quite a bit out of pocket to help his city, state, and nation). So he simply didn't have the money to free any of his, unlike Washington who didn't have to pay at the time of his passing.

There are a few more obvious questions you can ask if you'd like to hit on those as well.