Libertarians should support the wal mart strike.

[National Socialist]

If he intends to keep that job yes he needs a livable wage. Maybe not 12$ an hour it would depend on where he lives etc....I figure 1200$ a month is enough to live off of. I can raise a family on 1500$ so 1200$ for a single guy should be easy.That's 300$ a week.That would be a bare minimum...it should go up from there...they are now telling my wife they had to cut her hours thanks to odumbass care...can't let her have more than 32 hours a week or they have to give her benefits...must really hurt those rich snobs who rake in millions every year to pay a little benefits.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If he intends to keep that job yes he needs a livable wage. Maybe not 12$ an hour it would depend on where he lives etc....I figure 1200$ a month is enough to live off of. I can raise a family on 1500$ so 1200$ for a single guy should be easy.That's 300$ a week.That would be a bare minimum...it should go up from there...they are now telling my wife they had to cut her hours thanks to odumbass care...can't let her have more than 32 hours a week or they have to give her benefits...must really hurt those rich snobs who rake in millions every year to pay a little benefits.

So you want the employer to pay more for a person based entirely on their age, and with absolutely no consideration to the employee's skill-level or the actual job being performed?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

If he intends to keep that job yes he needs a livable wage. Maybe not 12$ an hour it would depend on where he lives etc....I figure 1200$ a month is enough to live off of. I can raise a family on 1500$ so 1200$ for a single guy should be easy.That's 300$ a week.That would be a bare minimum...it should go up from there...they are now telling my wife they had to cut her hours thanks to odumbass care...can't let her have more than 32 hours a week or they have to give her benefits...must really hurt those rich snobs who rake in millions every year to pay a little benefits.

You can survive off of 1500 for a family of 5 because you're cheating the welfare system by working for cash while drawing welfare

And it is NO ONES BUSINESS what an employer chooses to pay their employees besides the individual that agreed to the job to begin with.

You sir are a joke and arguably a criminal committing fraud.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I say a teen aka anyone under 18 doesn't need to worry about bills/rent/car notes etc...they are their parents problem until 18. Once they turn 18 a livable wage should be paid. Employers keep shitting on its employees they are gonna get bit.

Oh, they don't? Just how ignorant are you? I've been on my own since I was sixteen, bud. Paid my own bills. Should I have been given a "living wage"? You're still missing Kevin's point and insisting upon repeating your claim without even apparently thinking it through.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I say a teen aka anyone under 18 doesn't need to worry about bills/rent/car notes etc...they are their parents problem until 18. Once they turn 18 a livable wage should be paid. Employers keep shitting on its employees they are gonna get bit.

Oh, they don't? Just how ignorant are you? I've been on my own since I was sixteen, bud. Paid my own bills. Should I have been given a "living wage"? You're still missing Kevin's point and insisting upon repeating your claim without even apparently thinking it through.

I wasn't on my own at 16 and still had bills.

 

[kaz]

Walmart Strike Black Friday: Why Libertarians Should Support This Movement

Yep...I agree 100% seems I am with the majority on this and not in the minority.Wal Mart is crony capitalism not TRUE capitalism.

That argument is so twisted.

Libertarians should oppose Wal-Mart because they should not pay market wages, they should pay wages so their employees don't go to government and get welfare programs from government that libertarians oppose.

Yeah. One libertarian passes on the request.

 

[kaz]

Does a high schooler need the money to make sure he pays rent? Bills? Adults do a teen doesn't. Do you think wal mart isn't practicing capitalism but crony capitalism...or at the very least they are perverting what true capitalism should be...using and abusing its workers instead of treating them with just a bit of respect.

You don't know what crony capitalism is, dude. Wal-mart paying market wages for low skilled employees has nothing to do with crony capitalism. I always find odd the liberal desire to redefine words to mean what you want them to mean.

 

[petro]

No one in America is trapped in a job. Everyone has choices. Whether it's finding another job, getting more education, doing something to improve their own conditions...(ie.personal responsibility) No employer is responsible for the economic conditions of it's employees. That is the responsibility of the individual. When government mandates wages, unemployment rises, Economics 101. Those who say they are trapped are just using a cop out and are too afraid or inept to adapt.
As I stated, Wal-Mart has no shortage of employees, until that happens the wages will remain where the market will bear.

Op sounds like a disgruntled Wal-/Mart employee.

 

[kaz]

Then what do you call wal mart? It sure in the hell ain't true capitalism....I believe every adult should make a livable wage. I remember making 5.15$ at pizza hut my first job...I didn't mind it...shitty checks and all but I bought my own school clothes that year...I didn't expect more money because I was a teen I had no bills,rent,car payment etc. Adults do.

Someone doesn't work at their education, invest in degrees, work hard at their job, be reliable, and Wal-Mart gives them a job. And they pay them market wages. They accept the job because it's the best offer they got. Sounds like they should thank Wal-Mart.

 

[National Socialist]

If he intends to keep that job yes he needs a livable wage. Maybe not 12$ an hour it would depend on where he lives etc....I figure 1200$ a month is enough to live off of. I can raise a family on 1500$ so 1200$ for a single guy should be easy.That's 300$ a week.That would be a bare minimum...it should go up from there...they are now telling my wife they had to cut her hours thanks to odumbass care...can't let her have more than 32 hours a week or they have to give her benefits...must really hurt those rich snobs who rake in millions every year to pay a little benefits.

So you want the employer to pay more for a person based entirely on their age, and with absolutely no consideration to the employee's skill-level or the actual job being performed?

Based on the fact they must pay bills/rent etc. If they were paying based on skill level instead of just job title then ceo's wouldn't be raking in millions every year for sitting on their ass.

If he intends to keep that job yes he needs a livable wage. Maybe not 12$ an hour it would depend on where he lives etc....I figure 1200$ a month is enough to live off of. I can raise a family on 1500$ so 1200$ for a single guy should be easy.That's 300$ a week.That would be a bare minimum...it should go up from there...they are now telling my wife they had to cut her hours thanks to odumbass care...can't let her have more than 32 hours a week or they have to give her benefits...must really hurt those rich snobs who rake in millions every year to pay a little benefits.

You can survive off of 1500 for a family of 5 because you're cheating the welfare system by working for cash while drawing welfare

And it is NO ONES BUSINESS what an employer chooses to pay their employees besides the individual that agreed to the job to begin with.

You sir are a joke and arguably a criminal committing fraud.

Whine more please...you have no clue what I do or how I do it. So fuck off pops. It is everyone's business. Seeing how they pay shit wages which forces the employee to get welfare to make ends meet...perfect example is me and my family...wife works pays into the system but doesn't make enough...so yeah its everyone's business to know they aren't paying shit for wages. You sir are a fucking twit for believing everything you read....seriously...you are. Oh btw the welfare folks here know what I make...it asks if you make "other" money...and seeing how what I make every month varies they don't really take it into consideration because its still well below what a family of 5 must make to not be allowed to get help.

I say a teen aka anyone under 18 doesn't need to worry about bills/rent/car notes etc...they are their parents problem until 18. Once they turn 18 a livable wage should be paid. Employers keep shitting on its employees they are gonna get bit.

Oh, they don't? Just how ignorant are you? I've been on my own since I was sixteen, bud. Paid my own bills. Should I have been given a "living wage"? You're still missing Kevin's point and insisting upon repeating your claim without even apparently thinking it through.

That's your problem. MOST kids aren't on their own until 18. Most don't have rent until then. Most don't have utility bills until then. cell phone bills sure,that's about it...They all need to take Henry Ford as an example. Paid his workers 5$ a day which was big bucks back then. The average was 2.50 a day. He doubled it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If he intends to keep that job yes he needs a livable wage. Maybe not 12$ an hour it would depend on where he lives etc....I figure 1200$ a month is enough to live off of. I can raise a family on 1500$ so 1200$ for a single guy should be easy.That's 300$ a week.That would be a bare minimum...it should go up from there...they are now telling my wife they had to cut her hours thanks to odumbass care...can't let her have more than 32 hours a week or they have to give her benefits...must really hurt those rich snobs who rake in millions every year to pay a little benefits.

So you want the employer to pay more for a person based entirely on their age, and with absolutely no consideration to the employee's skill-level or the actual job being performed?

Based on the fact they must pay bills/rent etc. If they were paying based on skill level instead of just job title then ceo's wouldn't be raking in millions every year for sitting on their ass.

You're not making any sense. On the one hand, you argue that Pizza Hut paying you $5/hour before you were 18 was fine, and on the other hand you argue that places like Pizza Hut aren't paying based on skill-level. Wal-Mart and Pizza Hut don't offer "living wages" because those jobs don't require any amount of skill.

 

[DarkLion]

So if I hire a high school student to sweep up my shop for a few hours after school every week day I should be paying them a wage that they could comfortably live on with no outside assistance?

Not unless he's full-time. A full time job should be able to support one person. Otherwise, why work?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So if I hire a high school student to sweep up my shop for a few hours after school every week day I should be paying them a wage that they could comfortably live on with no outside assistance?

Not unless he's full-time. A full time job should be able to support one person. Otherwise, why work?

"Full-time," for starters, is an arbitrary and artificial creation of the government, and has no basis in the market itself. Regardless, let's go with it. So if I hire somebody who is mentally disabled to simply clean my shop "full-time," I should be paying them a so-called "living wage" despite the fact that they have no actual skills and that the job they're performing requires no skills whatsoever? Under those conditions, why would I hire them? They're priced out of the market and will never get hired.

 

[kaz]

So if I hire a high school student to sweep up my shop for a few hours after school every week day I should be paying them a wage that they could comfortably live on with no outside assistance?

Not unless he's full-time. A full time job should be able to support one person. Otherwise, why work?

One direct answer is that it could be a second income. However, unfortunately you're right in that our government is set up so that if you work below "living" wages, you get screwed, you can earn more welfare by not working.

The answer to your question should be that they benefit because someone who works always has more money than someone who doesn't. However, our system is geared towards dependency and it isn't set up to work that way on purpose. As to how to do that, suppose your welfare check was always reduced $1 for each $2 earned. That way, you'd always benefit by working.

 

[Katzndogz]

Which Friday is this? I want to make sure I haul over to WalMart. Usually I do my WalMart shopping on line because their service is EXCELLENT, but if there's a strike, I want to be sure to go in person.

 

[National Socialist]

So you want the employer to pay more for a person based entirely on their age, and with absolutely no consideration to the employee's skill-level or the actual job being performed?

Based on the fact they must pay bills/rent etc. If they were paying based on skill level instead of just job title then ceo's wouldn't be raking in millions every year for sitting on their ass.

You're not making any sense. On the one hand, you argue that Pizza Hut paying you $5/hour before you were 18 was fine, and on the other hand you argue that places like Pizza Hut aren't paying based on skill-level. Wal-Mart and Pizza Hut don't offer "living wages" because those jobs don't require any amount of skill.

I said them paying me 5$ an hour was fine because I lived at home I had no bills...I bought school clothes with my checks the time I worked there...that's it. If you are going to employ someone do the decent thing and give them a livable damn wage...all you do by not giving them a livable wage is force the onto the government welfare. You think me and my wife enjoy getting welfare? Hell no..it sucks...much rather her employer pay a decent wage for the work she busted her ass learning to do the correct way...ya know it won't kill them to skip a few shopping trips to NYC on their multi million dollar jet. My wife loves her job its a job she loves doing but she is looking for new work because they don't pay enough...the head chef is also looking...they already lost one last month and now this one is getting tired of their shit wages/hours as well.

 

[kaz]

Based on the fact they must pay bills/rent etc. If they were paying based on skill level instead of just job title then ceo's wouldn't be raking in millions every year for sitting on their ass.

You're not making any sense. On the one hand, you argue that Pizza Hut paying you $5/hour before you were 18 was fine, and on the other hand you argue that places like Pizza Hut aren't paying based on skill-level. Wal-Mart and Pizza Hut don't offer "living wages" because those jobs don't require any amount of skill.

I said them paying me 5$ an hour was fine because I lived at home I had no bills...I bought school clothes with my checks the time I worked there...that's it. If you are going to employ someone do the decent thing and give them a livable damn wage...all you do by not giving them a livable wage is force the onto the government welfare. You think me and my wife enjoy getting welfare? Hell no..it sucks...much rather her employer pay a decent wage for the work she busted her ass learning to do the correct way...ya know it won't kill them to skip a few shopping trips to NYC on their multi million dollar jet. My wife loves her job its a job she loves doing but she is looking for new work because they don't pay enough...the head chef is also looking...they already lost one last month and now this one is getting tired of their shit wages/hours as well.

You realize you're arguing to libertarians that we should support forcing companies to pay people how much they "need" rather than what they are worth. People who have skills and can get work for better wages than Wal-Mart pays don't work at Wal-Mart. The ones who accept the jobs don't have better offers. Hence the term "market" wages. The wages are set by the market. A key concept in libertarianism. Your use of the term "crony capitalism" is completely concocted. It's a silly argument from beginning to end.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Based on the fact they must pay bills/rent etc. If they were paying based on skill level instead of just job title then ceo's wouldn't be raking in millions every year for sitting on their ass.

You're not making any sense. On the one hand, you argue that Pizza Hut paying you $5/hour before you were 18 was fine, and on the other hand you argue that places like Pizza Hut aren't paying based on skill-level. Wal-Mart and Pizza Hut don't offer "living wages" because those jobs don't require any amount of skill.

I said them paying me 5$ an hour was fine because I lived at home I had no bills...I bought school clothes with my checks the time I worked there...that's it. If you are going to employ someone do the decent thing and give them a livable damn wage...all you do by not giving them a livable wage is force the onto the government welfare. You think me and my wife enjoy getting welfare? Hell no..it sucks...much rather her employer pay a decent wage for the work she busted her ass learning to do the correct way...ya know it won't kill them to skip a few shopping trips to NYC on their multi million dollar jet. My wife loves her job its a job she loves doing but she is looking for new work because they don't pay enough...the head chef is also looking...they already lost one last month and now this one is getting tired of their shit wages/hours as well.

So if I pay someone below a wage deemed livable I'm forcing them on the govt dole?

Do you have any idea how pathetically stupid and entitled you sound?

Hell I'll give you a list of solutions besides the welfare system.

1. Further their education.
2. Switch jobs.
3. Learn a trade or specific skill. Some require NO SCHOOLING if you hunt for someone willing to train you on the job like I did and currently do for others.
4. Start your own business. Lawn service to computer tech or whatever skill you may have.
5. Get a second job.


And last but not least defraud the welfare system while you work for cash while you whine like a little bitch on USMB

 

[National Socialist]

You're not making any sense. On the one hand, you argue that Pizza Hut paying you $5/hour before you were 18 was fine, and on the other hand you argue that places like Pizza Hut aren't paying based on skill-level. Wal-Mart and Pizza Hut don't offer "living wages" because those jobs don't require any amount of skill.

I said them paying me 5$ an hour was fine because I lived at home I had no bills...I bought school clothes with my checks the time I worked there...that's it. If you are going to employ someone do the decent thing and give them a livable damn wage...all you do by not giving them a livable wage is force the onto the government welfare. You think me and my wife enjoy getting welfare? Hell no..it sucks...much rather her employer pay a decent wage for the work she busted her ass learning to do the correct way...ya know it won't kill them to skip a few shopping trips to NYC on their multi million dollar jet. My wife loves her job its a job she loves doing but she is looking for new work because they don't pay enough...the head chef is also looking...they already lost one last month and now this one is getting tired of their shit wages/hours as well.

So if I pay someone below a wage deemed livable I'm forcing them on the govt dole?

Do you have any idea how pathetically stupid and entitled you sound?

Hell I'll give you a list of solutions besides the welfare system.

1. Further their education.
2. Switch jobs.
3. Learn a trade or specific skill. Some require NO SCHOOLING if you hunt for someone willing to train you on the job like I did and currently do for others.
4. Start your own business. Lawn service to computer tech or whatever skill you may have.
5. Get a second job.


And last but not least defraud the welfare system while you work for cash while you whine like a little bitch on USMB

Both my and my wife have done
1 and 3. Does no good.I haven't defrauded anyone...I refuse to hash this over AGAIN because in your old age you can't comprehend simple fucking things. I have explained it more than once. You enjoy your crony capitalism aka wage slavery I will continue to fight against it.

 

[National Socialist]

No thanks. I am the only man who will see her body.