More blatant nonsense from the right, keeping the poor away from their schools

[Aletheia4u]

Why is Trump cutting grants for poor students to go to top schools? | Opinion

"
Why Is Trump Stopping Poor Students From Going to Top Schools?"

"The Administration’s education budget slashes $150 billion in federal student aid over 10 years. This move would cut by half our federal Work-Study program, which helps 675,000 students support themselves through college every year. "

Basically Trump put DeVos in charge at "education" and she's a proponent of school vouchers. Now, for me, school vouchers are just a way of taking money out of schools and giving it to rich people. But the right say it's all about CHOICE. The same people will then dismiss choice elsewhere, and ignore the fact that the UK manages to give choice to kids to go to schools they want to go to WITHOUT school vouchers.

Now, they want choice with school vouchers, and yet.... they're taking away money from poorer kids to go to college. Oh, so, what, wait.... universities will only be for rich kids, so it will benefit the rich and mean they can get the levels of education needed to get higher paid jobs....

Oh, I see, they're preventing choice, once again.

A leader elected not by choice of the people, but by the system, is making sure poorer people don't get to go to school.

When Kelly Anne Conway was on her needs at the Whitehouse, Pres. Trump has signed into budget 24 billion dollars, to grant poor Black students the opportunity to attends universities. But the media had put the focus on Kelly Anne on her knees, on the sofa, making it seems as if she was performing fellatio on the members of the Black caucus.

So what is your point here? Bashing the media again?

Yeah I like bashing the media as the way you guys bashes Pres. Trump. But I uses the truth to bashed the media.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why is Trump cutting grants for poor students to go to top schools? | Opinion

"
Why Is Trump Stopping Poor Students From Going to Top Schools?"

"The Administration’s education budget slashes $150 billion in federal student aid over 10 years. This move would cut by half our federal Work-Study program, which helps 675,000 students support themselves through college every year. "

Basically Trump put DeVos in charge at "education" and she's a proponent of school vouchers. Now, for me, school vouchers are just a way of taking money out of schools and giving it to rich people. But the right say it's all about CHOICE. The same people will then dismiss choice elsewhere, and ignore the fact that the UK manages to give choice to kids to go to schools they want to go to WITHOUT school vouchers.

Now, they want choice with school vouchers, and yet.... they're taking away money from poorer kids to go to college. Oh, so, what, wait.... universities will only be for rich kids, so it will benefit the rich and mean they can get the levels of education needed to get higher paid jobs....

Oh, I see, they're preventing choice, once again.

A leader elected not by choice of the people, but by the system, is making sure poorer people don't get to go to school.

When Kelly Anne Conway was on her needs at the Whitehouse, Pres. Trump has signed into budget 24 billion dollars, to grant poor Black students the opportunity to attends universities. But the media had put the focus on Kelly Anne on her knees, on the sofa, making it seems as if she was performing fellatio on the members of the Black caucus.

So what is your point here? Bashing the media again?

Yeah I like bashing the media as the way you guys bashes Pres. Trump. But I uses the truth to bashed the media.

The problem here is that the truth might not be relevant to the topic

 

[Aletheia4u]

Why is Trump cutting grants for poor students to go to top schools? | Opinion

"
Why Is Trump Stopping Poor Students From Going to Top Schools?"

"The Administration’s education budget slashes $150 billion in federal student aid over 10 years. This move would cut by half our federal Work-Study program, which helps 675,000 students support themselves through college every year. "

Basically Trump put DeVos in charge at "education" and she's a proponent of school vouchers. Now, for me, school vouchers are just a way of taking money out of schools and giving it to rich people. But the right say it's all about CHOICE. The same people will then dismiss choice elsewhere, and ignore the fact that the UK manages to give choice to kids to go to schools they want to go to WITHOUT school vouchers.

Now, they want choice with school vouchers, and yet.... they're taking away money from poorer kids to go to college. Oh, so, what, wait.... universities will only be for rich kids, so it will benefit the rich and mean they can get the levels of education needed to get higher paid jobs....

Oh, I see, they're preventing choice, once again.

A leader elected not by choice of the people, but by the system, is making sure poorer people don't get to go to school.

When Kelly Anne Conway was on her needs at the Whitehouse, Pres. Trump has signed into budget 24 billion dollars, to grant poor Black students the opportunity to attends universities. But the media had put the focus on Kelly Anne on her knees, on the sofa, making it seems as if she was performing fellatio on the members of the Black caucus.

So what is your point here? Bashing the media again?

Yeah I like bashing the media as the way you guys bashes Pres. Trump. But I uses the truth to bashed the media.

The problem here is that the truth might not be relevant to the topic

He most likely cutting unnecessary funding, like classes that has plenty of time to teach students how to riot against him.

University of Pittsburgh Email Revealed, Encouraged Professors To Give Students “Extra Credit” For Anti-Trump Protest

Black Conservative Student Exposes Anti-Trump Teacher's Sick 'Extra Credit'

University students offered extra credit to attend anti-Trump march - Geller Report

And many more that are using tax payers' dollars to become anti-Trump protesters, instead of teaching what they are being paid to teach.....

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why is Trump cutting grants for poor students to go to top schools? | Opinion

"
Why Is Trump Stopping Poor Students From Going to Top Schools?"

"The Administration’s education budget slashes $150 billion in federal student aid over 10 years. This move would cut by half our federal Work-Study program, which helps 675,000 students support themselves through college every year. "

Basically Trump put DeVos in charge at "education" and she's a proponent of school vouchers. Now, for me, school vouchers are just a way of taking money out of schools and giving it to rich people. But the right say it's all about CHOICE. The same people will then dismiss choice elsewhere, and ignore the fact that the UK manages to give choice to kids to go to schools they want to go to WITHOUT school vouchers.

Now, they want choice with school vouchers, and yet.... they're taking away money from poorer kids to go to college. Oh, so, what, wait.... universities will only be for rich kids, so it will benefit the rich and mean they can get the levels of education needed to get higher paid jobs....

Oh, I see, they're preventing choice, once again.

A leader elected not by choice of the people, but by the system, is making sure poorer people don't get to go to school.

When Kelly Anne Conway was on her needs at the Whitehouse, Pres. Trump has signed into budget 24 billion dollars, to grant poor Black students the opportunity to attends universities. But the media had put the focus on Kelly Anne on her knees, on the sofa, making it seems as if she was performing fellatio on the members of the Black caucus.

So what is your point here? Bashing the media again?

Yeah I like bashing the media as the way you guys bashes Pres. Trump. But I uses the truth to bashed the media.

The problem here is that the truth might not be relevant to the topic

He most likely cutting unnecessary funding, like classes that has plenty of time to teach students how to riot against him.

University of Pittsburgh Email Revealed, Encouraged Professors To Give Students “Extra Credit” For Anti-Trump Protest

Black Conservative Student Exposes Anti-Trump Teacher's Sick 'Extra Credit'

University students offered extra credit to attend anti-Trump march - Geller Report

And many more that are using tax payers' dollars to become anti-Trump protesters, instead of teaching what they are being paid to teach.....

Well, this is the problem with the US, it's becoming so partisan that everything is becoming infected, and no one wants to change it.

 

[koshergrl]

When Kelly Anne Conway was on her needs at the Whitehouse, Pres. Trump has signed into budget 24 billion dollars, to grant poor Black students the opportunity to attends universities. But the media had put the focus on Kelly Anne on her knees, on the sofa, making it seems as if she was performing fellatio on the members of the Black caucus.

So what is your point here? Bashing the media again?

Yeah I like bashing the media as the way you guys bashes Pres. Trump. But I uses the truth to bashed the media.

The problem here is that the truth might not be relevant to the topic

He most likely cutting unnecessary funding, like classes that has plenty of time to teach students how to riot against him.

University of Pittsburgh Email Revealed, Encouraged Professors To Give Students “Extra Credit” For Anti-Trump Protest

Black Conservative Student Exposes Anti-Trump Teacher's Sick 'Extra Credit'

University students offered extra credit to attend anti-Trump march - Geller Report

And many more that are using tax payers' dollars to become anti-Trump protesters, instead of teaching what they are being paid to teach.....

Well, this is the problem with the US, it's becoming so partisan that everything is becoming infected, and no one wants to change it.

No, the problem with the US is the left, and the lefty propagandists running the media, and the lefty-run schools.
We get rid of the lefties, we get rid of the problem.
And we absolutely want to change it and we are going to change it. We're changing it now. That's why you guys hate Trump.

 

[koshergrl]

When you see a lefty whine about "partisanship" what they really mean is "accountability".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Blatant lie! Any employee below a certain income is eligible for benefits, no matter what store employs them. Wal-Mart does not get subsidies for their employees' pay, period. Wal-Mart receives no federal money for keeping wages low. KMart's employees under that income level are eligible for the EXACT same benefits. It has nothing to do with the evil Wal-Mart vs the angelic Target.

States and counties/parishes offer incentives to lure businesses to them because it benefits their citizens. Their citizens have a voice on who they want and don't want. Many areas have said no to WalMart, as is their right. These same localities lure MANY businesses they want, as is their right. We (La) offer a lot to chemical plants and refineries because it benefits La.

The federal government does NOT give Wal-Mart an amount of money per employee while forcing other retailers to pay higher wages. That is a lie some love to tell, despite knowing it is a lie. You're on an awfully high horse to be telling such obvious lies.

I didn't say employees under a certain level weren't entitled. Did I?

No, Walmart doesn't get the subsidies. But they do get to keep what they didn't pay their workers who could then go to the govt to get help. Right?

Actually states and counties offer incentives because the US is for sale. It doesn't benefit the US.

The problem is that these companies are playing different areas off each other, and they get the benefits from it. In the EU they're not allowed to do this.

A company can go from area to area demanding the best deal to set up shop. They're still in the US. If they didn't get any incentives they'd still have to choose somewhere in the US to set up. So while one area might benefit, another area loses out, while the whole country loses out.

If their competitors don't get such a good deal, then there's an unfair advantage. Smaller businesses are losing out big time because they can't hope to get the level of deal that's coming their way, and they're paying more in taxes, which means their products cost more.

Also these areas lose out on taxes, so who makes up the shortfall in those taxes? The people, the other businesses, someone is going to have to pay.

The whole system doesn't benefit the US at all. There's a reason why the US has changed to a system where they can't give favorable advantages to one company and not everyone else.

In Ireland Google were getting this, and the EU said that Google had to pay the taxes just like everyone else, and quite rightly so.

The federal government does not subsidize WalMart's payroll. No matter how you spin it, it's just a flat out lie. Wal-Mart simply pays shitty wages that people agree to work for. Mom-N-Pop convenience store pays shitty wages, too. It is quite legal and all on the up and up.

The Fed's don't recruit plants and refineries to La. La does that on its own. It is a huge benefit to La. It brings in jobs, a ton of supporting industries (CNC, river pilots, heavy machinery companies, hotels and housing, and on and on. It absolutely benefits us.

Yes, Walmart pays shitty wages that people wouldn't accept unless they had other income. Simply said, if the govt refused to give these people money while they're working, Walmart would NOT be able to get away paying such low wages, would they?

No, what would happen to Walmart's profits if they had to pay MORE WAGES? Go on, have a guess.

A couple things here: if Walmart had to pay higher wages, it's likely that the price of their stock would go down. That would decrease the amount of stockholders they have. That would force them to take other cost cutting measures. Secondly, if the government did not hand out goodies to low wage workers, they would have to work more hours, maybe get a second job, maybe force them to learn a trade, but it would not make Walmart pay more money.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Okay, if Walmart pay wages more and their stock goes down to the RIGHT LEVEL it should be at, you have a problem?

So they have less stock holders, good. More cost cutting measure and become more efficient, good.

I like what you're saying here. It would require Walmart to be a NORMAL company competing on a level playing field.

I'm wondering what YOUR problem is with that?

No, if the govt didn't hand out "goodies" then the people would demand to have a LIVING WAGE or they wouldn't bother working for Walmart. Which is again, GREAT>

No, it's just the opposite. When a worker meets their maximum income before their benefits get cut, they work less hours. Trust me, I work in industry and see it all the time. People on the dole know how to play the system.

I have two tenants on disability--one on full disability and one on partial disability. My tenant on full disability has it worked out so he only makes X amount of money every month. He could work more hours, but that would cut into his government check, so he made an agreement with his employer even though his employer wants him to work more hours.

So now we force Walmart (or whoever) to pay more money. What do you think the outcome of that would be, that the workers would give up their freebies? Of course not, they will reduce the amount of hours they work per month.

So the bottom line is that it would hurt Walmart, not reduce government dependency, and the worker would be working less hours than they ever have.

 

[Tresha91203]

When one company is more successful than another, it hardly has anything to do with government. Some companies do things better than others.

For instance they just closed down a K-Mart store where I live. It didn't surprise me. Every time I went in there, there were a lot of empty spaces in the shelves. Years ago I remember going there and complaining about not being able to find the products I went there for. One worker explained the K-Mart system to me:

She said that their store cannot order anything. It doesn't matter what they need or if they have too much of something else. K-Mart just sends in trucks of "stuff" and the items people want clear off the shelves fast. The items that they sell less of stay on the shelf and they have much more of it in the warehouse.

Well...... other stores like Target and Walmart found a better way of doing things. They not only do a better job keeping stock, but they have lower prices to boot.

Jesus Ray, we've done this to death and you're still ignoring everything.

Right, let's try again.

Two companies.

Company one pays no taxes because they did a special deal, and they pay their workers less because they've managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company two pays 30% tax because they didn't do a special deal, and they pay their workers more because they haven't managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company one sells their goods at X-10% and company two sells their goods are X.

Which company do you think is going to succeed?

So K-mart closed down near you. So what? What does this have to do with anything we're talking about?

Blatant lie! Any employee below a certain income is eligible for benefits, no matter what store employs them. Wal-Mart does not get subsidies for their employees' pay, period. Wal-Mart receives no federal money for keeping wages low. KMart's employees under that income level are eligible for the EXACT same benefits. It has nothing to do with the evil Wal-Mart vs the angelic Target.

States and counties/parishes offer incentives to lure businesses to them because it benefits their citizens. Their citizens have a voice on who they want and don't want. Many areas have said no to WalMart, as is their right. These same localities lure MANY businesses they want, as is their right. We (La) offer a lot to chemical plants and refineries because it benefits La.

The federal government does NOT give Wal-Mart an amount of money per employee while forcing other retailers to pay higher wages. That is a lie some love to tell, despite knowing it is a lie. You're on an awfully high horse to be telling such obvious lies.

I didn't say employees under a certain level weren't entitled. Did I?

No, Walmart doesn't get the subsidies. But they do get to keep what they didn't pay their workers who could then go to the govt to get help. Right?

Actually states and counties offer incentives because the US is for sale. It doesn't benefit the US.

The problem is that these companies are playing different areas off each other, and they get the benefits from it. In the EU they're not allowed to do this.

A company can go from area to area demanding the best deal to set up shop. They're still in the US. If they didn't get any incentives they'd still have to choose somewhere in the US to set up. So while one area might benefit, another area loses out, while the whole country loses out.

If their competitors don't get such a good deal, then there's an unfair advantage. Smaller businesses are losing out big time because they can't hope to get the level of deal that's coming their way, and they're paying more in taxes, which means their products cost more.

Also these areas lose out on taxes, so who makes up the shortfall in those taxes? The people, the other businesses, someone is going to have to pay.

The whole system doesn't benefit the US at all. There's a reason why the US has changed to a system where they can't give favorable advantages to one company and not everyone else.

In Ireland Google were getting this, and the EU said that Google had to pay the taxes just like everyone else, and quite rightly so.

The federal government does not subsidize WalMart's payroll. No matter how you spin it, it's just a flat out lie. Wal-Mart simply pays shitty wages that people agree to work for. Mom-N-Pop convenience store pays shitty wages, too. It is quite legal and all on the up and up.

The Fed's don't recruit plants and refineries to La. La does that on its own. It is a huge benefit to La. It brings in jobs, a ton of supporting industries (CNC, river pilots, heavy machinery companies, hotels and housing, and on and on. It absolutely benefits us.

Yes, Walmart pays shitty wages that people wouldn't accept unless they had other income. Simply said, if the govt refused to give these people money while they're working, Walmart would NOT be able to get away paying such low wages, would they?

No, what would happen to Walmart's profits if they had to pay MORE WAGES? Go on, have a guess.

Yes! If not for the Federal Govt, we wouldn't have this problem. Exactly.

Control entry into the country, crack down on entitlements to the able-bodied (maybe tie it to unemployment rate), and get out of the way.

Wages go up (unless the workers don't actually work), prices go up, more money in the economy, and a new balance will be established.

 

[Tresha91203]

Jesus Ray, we've done this to death and you're still ignoring everything.

Right, let's try again.

Two companies.

Company one pays no taxes because they did a special deal, and they pay their workers less because they've managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company two pays 30% tax because they didn't do a special deal, and they pay their workers more because they haven't managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company one sells their goods at X-10% and company two sells their goods are X.

Which company do you think is going to succeed?

So K-mart closed down near you. So what? What does this have to do with anything we're talking about?

Blatant lie! Any employee below a certain income is eligible for benefits, no matter what store employs them. Wal-Mart does not get subsidies for their employees' pay, period. Wal-Mart receives no federal money for keeping wages low. KMart's employees under that income level are eligible for the EXACT same benefits. It has nothing to do with the evil Wal-Mart vs the angelic Target.

States and counties/parishes offer incentives to lure businesses to them because it benefits their citizens. Their citizens have a voice on who they want and don't want. Many areas have said no to WalMart, as is their right. These same localities lure MANY businesses they want, as is their right. We (La) offer a lot to chemical plants and refineries because it benefits La.

The federal government does NOT give Wal-Mart an amount of money per employee while forcing other retailers to pay higher wages. That is a lie some love to tell, despite knowing it is a lie. You're on an awfully high horse to be telling such obvious lies.

I didn't say employees under a certain level weren't entitled. Did I?

No, Walmart doesn't get the subsidies. But they do get to keep what they didn't pay their workers who could then go to the govt to get help. Right?

Actually states and counties offer incentives because the US is for sale. It doesn't benefit the US.

The problem is that these companies are playing different areas off each other, and they get the benefits from it. In the EU they're not allowed to do this.

A company can go from area to area demanding the best deal to set up shop. They're still in the US. If they didn't get any incentives they'd still have to choose somewhere in the US to set up. So while one area might benefit, another area loses out, while the whole country loses out.

If their competitors don't get such a good deal, then there's an unfair advantage. Smaller businesses are losing out big time because they can't hope to get the level of deal that's coming their way, and they're paying more in taxes, which means their products cost more.

Also these areas lose out on taxes, so who makes up the shortfall in those taxes? The people, the other businesses, someone is going to have to pay.

The whole system doesn't benefit the US at all. There's a reason why the US has changed to a system where they can't give favorable advantages to one company and not everyone else.

In Ireland Google were getting this, and the EU said that Google had to pay the taxes just like everyone else, and quite rightly so.

The federal government does not subsidize WalMart's payroll. No matter how you spin it, it's just a flat out lie. Wal-Mart simply pays shitty wages that people agree to work for. Mom-N-Pop convenience store pays shitty wages, too. It is quite legal and all on the up and up.

The Fed's don't recruit plants and refineries to La. La does that on its own. It is a huge benefit to La. It brings in jobs, a ton of supporting industries (CNC, river pilots, heavy machinery companies, hotels and housing, and on and on. It absolutely benefits us.

Yes, Walmart pays shitty wages that people wouldn't accept unless they had other income. Simply said, if the govt refused to give these people money while they're working, Walmart would NOT be able to get away paying such low wages, would they?

No, what would happen to Walmart's profits if they had to pay MORE WAGES? Go on, have a guess.

A couple things here: if Walmart had to pay higher wages, it's likely that the price of their stock would go down. That would decrease the amount of stockholders they have. That would force them to take other cost cutting measures. Secondly, if the government did not hand out goodies to low wage workers, they would have to work more hours, maybe get a second job, maybe force them to learn a trade, but it would not make Walmart pay more money.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Wal-Mart may get by with older, disabled to a degree, or very entry level for some of their positions; but, it's just too easy for someone with muscle and a decent work ethic to move to higher paying jobs. Likewise, any cashier that can last a year somewhere without getting caught stealing. They are going to have to pay more. Their turnover is bad enough now that they are raising wages to try to keep the decent ones. If it's harder to do the part time + assistance thing, labor is going to demand full time again. Any company that wants decent workers will have to get on board of end up with the dregs.

Initially, there may be less profit, but that is short term. They will still have the lowest prices, though not as low. They won't be losing customers. In fact, without the evil cloud over their heads, they may gain quite a few.

 

[Tresha91203]

I didn't say employees under a certain level weren't entitled. Did I?

No, Walmart doesn't get the subsidies. But they do get to keep what they didn't pay their workers who could then go to the govt to get help. Right?

Actually states and counties offer incentives because the US is for sale. It doesn't benefit the US.

The problem is that these companies are playing different areas off each other, and they get the benefits from it. In the EU they're not allowed to do this.

A company can go from area to area demanding the best deal to set up shop. They're still in the US. If they didn't get any incentives they'd still have to choose somewhere in the US to set up. So while one area might benefit, another area loses out, while the whole country loses out.

If their competitors don't get such a good deal, then there's an unfair advantage. Smaller businesses are losing out big time because they can't hope to get the level of deal that's coming their way, and they're paying more in taxes, which means their products cost more.

Also these areas lose out on taxes, so who makes up the shortfall in those taxes? The people, the other businesses, someone is going to have to pay.

The whole system doesn't benefit the US at all. There's a reason why the US has changed to a system where they can't give favorable advantages to one company and not everyone else.

In Ireland Google were getting this, and the EU said that Google had to pay the taxes just like everyone else, and quite rightly so.

The federal government does not subsidize WalMart's payroll. No matter how you spin it, it's just a flat out lie. Wal-Mart simply pays shitty wages that people agree to work for. Mom-N-Pop convenience store pays shitty wages, too. It is quite legal and all on the up and up.

The Fed's don't recruit plants and refineries to La. La does that on its own. It is a huge benefit to La. It brings in jobs, a ton of supporting industries (CNC, river pilots, heavy machinery companies, hotels and housing, and on and on. It absolutely benefits us.

Yes, Walmart pays shitty wages that people wouldn't accept unless they had other income. Simply said, if the govt refused to give these people money while they're working, Walmart would NOT be able to get away paying such low wages, would they?

No, what would happen to Walmart's profits if they had to pay MORE WAGES? Go on, have a guess.

A couple things here: if Walmart had to pay higher wages, it's likely that the price of their stock would go down. That would decrease the amount of stockholders they have. That would force them to take other cost cutting measures. Secondly, if the government did not hand out goodies to low wage workers, they would have to work more hours, maybe get a second job, maybe force them to learn a trade, but it would not make Walmart pay more money.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Okay, if Walmart pay wages more and their stock goes down to the RIGHT LEVEL it should be at, you have a problem?

So they have less stock holders, good. More cost cutting measure and become more efficient, good.

I like what you're saying here. It would require Walmart to be a NORMAL company competing on a level playing field.

I'm wondering what YOUR problem is with that?

No, if the govt didn't hand out "goodies" then the people would demand to have a LIVING WAGE or they wouldn't bother working for Walmart. Which is again, GREAT>

No, it's just the opposite. When a worker meets their maximum income before their benefits get cut, they work less hours. Trust me, I work in industry and see it all the time. People on the dole know how to play the system.

I have two tenants on disability--one on full disability and one on partial disability. My tenant on full disability has it worked out so he only makes X amount of money every month. He could work more hours, but that would cut into his government check, so he made an agreement with his employer even though his employer wants him to work more hours.

So now we force Walmart (or whoever) to pay more money. What do you think the outcome of that would be, that the workers would give up their freebies? Of course not, they will reduce the amount of hours they work per month.

So the bottom line is that it would hurt Walmart, not reduce government dependency, and the worker would be working less hours than they ever have.

In this "if I ran the world scenario" we care has been cracked down on so this couldn't happen. That's how we got to "Wal-Mart is going to have to pay more."

 

[frigidweirdo]

I didn't say employees under a certain level weren't entitled. Did I?

No, Walmart doesn't get the subsidies. But they do get to keep what they didn't pay their workers who could then go to the govt to get help. Right?

Actually states and counties offer incentives because the US is for sale. It doesn't benefit the US.

The problem is that these companies are playing different areas off each other, and they get the benefits from it. In the EU they're not allowed to do this.

A company can go from area to area demanding the best deal to set up shop. They're still in the US. If they didn't get any incentives they'd still have to choose somewhere in the US to set up. So while one area might benefit, another area loses out, while the whole country loses out.

If their competitors don't get such a good deal, then there's an unfair advantage. Smaller businesses are losing out big time because they can't hope to get the level of deal that's coming their way, and they're paying more in taxes, which means their products cost more.

Also these areas lose out on taxes, so who makes up the shortfall in those taxes? The people, the other businesses, someone is going to have to pay.

The whole system doesn't benefit the US at all. There's a reason why the US has changed to a system where they can't give favorable advantages to one company and not everyone else.

In Ireland Google were getting this, and the EU said that Google had to pay the taxes just like everyone else, and quite rightly so.

The federal government does not subsidize WalMart's payroll. No matter how you spin it, it's just a flat out lie. Wal-Mart simply pays shitty wages that people agree to work for. Mom-N-Pop convenience store pays shitty wages, too. It is quite legal and all on the up and up.

The Fed's don't recruit plants and refineries to La. La does that on its own. It is a huge benefit to La. It brings in jobs, a ton of supporting industries (CNC, river pilots, heavy machinery companies, hotels and housing, and on and on. It absolutely benefits us.

Yes, Walmart pays shitty wages that people wouldn't accept unless they had other income. Simply said, if the govt refused to give these people money while they're working, Walmart would NOT be able to get away paying such low wages, would they?

No, what would happen to Walmart's profits if they had to pay MORE WAGES? Go on, have a guess.

A couple things here: if Walmart had to pay higher wages, it's likely that the price of their stock would go down. That would decrease the amount of stockholders they have. That would force them to take other cost cutting measures. Secondly, if the government did not hand out goodies to low wage workers, they would have to work more hours, maybe get a second job, maybe force them to learn a trade, but it would not make Walmart pay more money.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Okay, if Walmart pay wages more and their stock goes down to the RIGHT LEVEL it should be at, you have a problem?

So they have less stock holders, good. More cost cutting measure and become more efficient, good.

I like what you're saying here. It would require Walmart to be a NORMAL company competing on a level playing field.

I'm wondering what YOUR problem is with that?

No, if the govt didn't hand out "goodies" then the people would demand to have a LIVING WAGE or they wouldn't bother working for Walmart. Which is again, GREAT>

No, it's just the opposite. When a worker meets their maximum income before their benefits get cut, they work less hours. Trust me, I work in industry and see it all the time. People on the dole know how to play the system.

I have two tenants on disability--one on full disability and one on partial disability. My tenant on full disability has it worked out so he only makes X amount of money every month. He could work more hours, but that would cut into his government check, so he made an agreement with his employer even though his employer wants him to work more hours.

So now we force Walmart (or whoever) to pay more money. What do you think the outcome of that would be, that the workers would give up their freebies? Of course not, they will reduce the amount of hours they work per month.

So the bottom line is that it would hurt Walmart, not reduce government dependency, and the worker would be working less hours than they ever have.

And do you think that if the govt didn't make such a system, which companies like Walmart are happy to promote, that it would be like this? Why do you think Walmart like this sort of thing?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The federal government does not subsidize WalMart's payroll. No matter how you spin it, it's just a flat out lie. Wal-Mart simply pays shitty wages that people agree to work for. Mom-N-Pop convenience store pays shitty wages, too. It is quite legal and all on the up and up.

The Fed's don't recruit plants and refineries to La. La does that on its own. It is a huge benefit to La. It brings in jobs, a ton of supporting industries (CNC, river pilots, heavy machinery companies, hotels and housing, and on and on. It absolutely benefits us.

Yes, Walmart pays shitty wages that people wouldn't accept unless they had other income. Simply said, if the govt refused to give these people money while they're working, Walmart would NOT be able to get away paying such low wages, would they?

No, what would happen to Walmart's profits if they had to pay MORE WAGES? Go on, have a guess.

A couple things here: if Walmart had to pay higher wages, it's likely that the price of their stock would go down. That would decrease the amount of stockholders they have. That would force them to take other cost cutting measures. Secondly, if the government did not hand out goodies to low wage workers, they would have to work more hours, maybe get a second job, maybe force them to learn a trade, but it would not make Walmart pay more money.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Okay, if Walmart pay wages more and their stock goes down to the RIGHT LEVEL it should be at, you have a problem?

So they have less stock holders, good. More cost cutting measure and become more efficient, good.

I like what you're saying here. It would require Walmart to be a NORMAL company competing on a level playing field.

I'm wondering what YOUR problem is with that?

No, if the govt didn't hand out "goodies" then the people would demand to have a LIVING WAGE or they wouldn't bother working for Walmart. Which is again, GREAT>

No, it's just the opposite. When a worker meets their maximum income before their benefits get cut, they work less hours. Trust me, I work in industry and see it all the time. People on the dole know how to play the system.

I have two tenants on disability--one on full disability and one on partial disability. My tenant on full disability has it worked out so he only makes X amount of money every month. He could work more hours, but that would cut into his government check, so he made an agreement with his employer even though his employer wants him to work more hours.

So now we force Walmart (or whoever) to pay more money. What do you think the outcome of that would be, that the workers would give up their freebies? Of course not, they will reduce the amount of hours they work per month.

So the bottom line is that it would hurt Walmart, not reduce government dependency, and the worker would be working less hours than they ever have.

And do you think that if the govt didn't make such a system, which companies like Walmart are happy to promote, that it would be like this? Why do you think Walmart like this sort of thing?

What makes you think Walmart likes it? It's likely Walmart could care less about it. Social programs have nothing to do with their business with the exception they have to hire more people since the leeches are only working part-time.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Blatant lie! Any employee below a certain income is eligible for benefits, no matter what store employs them. Wal-Mart does not get subsidies for their employees' pay, period. Wal-Mart receives no federal money for keeping wages low. KMart's employees under that income level are eligible for the EXACT same benefits. It has nothing to do with the evil Wal-Mart vs the angelic Target.

States and counties/parishes offer incentives to lure businesses to them because it benefits their citizens. Their citizens have a voice on who they want and don't want. Many areas have said no to WalMart, as is their right. These same localities lure MANY businesses they want, as is their right. We (La) offer a lot to chemical plants and refineries because it benefits La.

The federal government does NOT give Wal-Mart an amount of money per employee while forcing other retailers to pay higher wages. That is a lie some love to tell, despite knowing it is a lie. You're on an awfully high horse to be telling such obvious lies.

I didn't say employees under a certain level weren't entitled. Did I?

No, Walmart doesn't get the subsidies. But they do get to keep what they didn't pay their workers who could then go to the govt to get help. Right?

Actually states and counties offer incentives because the US is for sale. It doesn't benefit the US.

The problem is that these companies are playing different areas off each other, and they get the benefits from it. In the EU they're not allowed to do this.

A company can go from area to area demanding the best deal to set up shop. They're still in the US. If they didn't get any incentives they'd still have to choose somewhere in the US to set up. So while one area might benefit, another area loses out, while the whole country loses out.

If their competitors don't get such a good deal, then there's an unfair advantage. Smaller businesses are losing out big time because they can't hope to get the level of deal that's coming their way, and they're paying more in taxes, which means their products cost more.

Also these areas lose out on taxes, so who makes up the shortfall in those taxes? The people, the other businesses, someone is going to have to pay.

The whole system doesn't benefit the US at all. There's a reason why the US has changed to a system where they can't give favorable advantages to one company and not everyone else.

In Ireland Google were getting this, and the EU said that Google had to pay the taxes just like everyone else, and quite rightly so.

The federal government does not subsidize WalMart's payroll. No matter how you spin it, it's just a flat out lie. Wal-Mart simply pays shitty wages that people agree to work for. Mom-N-Pop convenience store pays shitty wages, too. It is quite legal and all on the up and up.

The Fed's don't recruit plants and refineries to La. La does that on its own. It is a huge benefit to La. It brings in jobs, a ton of supporting industries (CNC, river pilots, heavy machinery companies, hotels and housing, and on and on. It absolutely benefits us.

Yes, Walmart pays shitty wages that people wouldn't accept unless they had other income. Simply said, if the govt refused to give these people money while they're working, Walmart would NOT be able to get away paying such low wages, would they?

No, what would happen to Walmart's profits if they had to pay MORE WAGES? Go on, have a guess.

A couple things here: if Walmart had to pay higher wages, it's likely that the price of their stock would go down. That would decrease the amount of stockholders they have. That would force them to take other cost cutting measures. Secondly, if the government did not hand out goodies to low wage workers, they would have to work more hours, maybe get a second job, maybe force them to learn a trade, but it would not make Walmart pay more money.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Wal-Mart may get by with older, disabled to a degree, or very entry level for some of their positions; but, it's just too easy for someone with muscle and a decent work ethic to move to higher paying jobs. Likewise, any cashier that can last a year somewhere without getting caught stealing. They are going to have to pay more. Their turnover is bad enough now that they are raising wages to try to keep the decent ones. If it's harder to do the part time + assistance thing, labor is going to demand full time again. Any company that wants decent workers will have to get on board of end up with the dregs.

Initially, there may be less profit, but that is short term. They will still have the lowest prices, though not as low. They won't be losing customers. In fact, without the evil cloud over their heads, they may gain quite a few.

I have no problem with Walmart paying more to attract workers. That's the way the system is supposed to work. I'm against government forcing them to however. But Walmart offers the best chance at advancing in a company and most don't earn minimum wage once they've been there for a while. In fact, Walmart pays pretty good outside floor sweepers and shelf stockers. I talk to their truck drivers all the time, they seem pretty satisfied. Their management positions pay pretty well with good benefits. Their warehouse and office people make out pretty good.

This promotion that all Walmart people make crappy money is a liberal lie. Walmart has been in their gun sights since they became number one in the country. The Democrats don't like them because of their success and the fact they are all non-union.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, Walmart pays shitty wages that people wouldn't accept unless they had other income. Simply said, if the govt refused to give these people money while they're working, Walmart would NOT be able to get away paying such low wages, would they?

No, what would happen to Walmart's profits if they had to pay MORE WAGES? Go on, have a guess.

A couple things here: if Walmart had to pay higher wages, it's likely that the price of their stock would go down. That would decrease the amount of stockholders they have. That would force them to take other cost cutting measures. Secondly, if the government did not hand out goodies to low wage workers, they would have to work more hours, maybe get a second job, maybe force them to learn a trade, but it would not make Walmart pay more money.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Okay, if Walmart pay wages more and their stock goes down to the RIGHT LEVEL it should be at, you have a problem?

So they have less stock holders, good. More cost cutting measure and become more efficient, good.

I like what you're saying here. It would require Walmart to be a NORMAL company competing on a level playing field.

I'm wondering what YOUR problem is with that?

No, if the govt didn't hand out "goodies" then the people would demand to have a LIVING WAGE or they wouldn't bother working for Walmart. Which is again, GREAT>

No, it's just the opposite. When a worker meets their maximum income before their benefits get cut, they work less hours. Trust me, I work in industry and see it all the time. People on the dole know how to play the system.

I have two tenants on disability--one on full disability and one on partial disability. My tenant on full disability has it worked out so he only makes X amount of money every month. He could work more hours, but that would cut into his government check, so he made an agreement with his employer even though his employer wants him to work more hours.

So now we force Walmart (or whoever) to pay more money. What do you think the outcome of that would be, that the workers would give up their freebies? Of course not, they will reduce the amount of hours they work per month.

So the bottom line is that it would hurt Walmart, not reduce government dependency, and the worker would be working less hours than they ever have.

And do you think that if the govt didn't make such a system, which companies like Walmart are happy to promote, that it would be like this? Why do you think Walmart like this sort of thing?

What makes you think Walmart likes it? It's likely Walmart could care less about it. Social programs have nothing to do with their business with the exception they have to hire more people since the leeches are only working part-time.

I'm thinking the $6 billion a year Walmart doesn't have to pay in wages might clinch it for them, don't you think?

What would you do if the govt picked up a $6 billion a year tab for you? Be miserable?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I didn't say employees under a certain level weren't entitled. Did I?

No, Walmart doesn't get the subsidies. But they do get to keep what they didn't pay their workers who could then go to the govt to get help. Right?

Actually states and counties offer incentives because the US is for sale. It doesn't benefit the US.

The problem is that these companies are playing different areas off each other, and they get the benefits from it. In the EU they're not allowed to do this.

A company can go from area to area demanding the best deal to set up shop. They're still in the US. If they didn't get any incentives they'd still have to choose somewhere in the US to set up. So while one area might benefit, another area loses out, while the whole country loses out.

If their competitors don't get such a good deal, then there's an unfair advantage. Smaller businesses are losing out big time because they can't hope to get the level of deal that's coming their way, and they're paying more in taxes, which means their products cost more.

Also these areas lose out on taxes, so who makes up the shortfall in those taxes? The people, the other businesses, someone is going to have to pay.

The whole system doesn't benefit the US at all. There's a reason why the US has changed to a system where they can't give favorable advantages to one company and not everyone else.

In Ireland Google were getting this, and the EU said that Google had to pay the taxes just like everyone else, and quite rightly so.

The federal government does not subsidize WalMart's payroll. No matter how you spin it, it's just a flat out lie. Wal-Mart simply pays shitty wages that people agree to work for. Mom-N-Pop convenience store pays shitty wages, too. It is quite legal and all on the up and up.

The Fed's don't recruit plants and refineries to La. La does that on its own. It is a huge benefit to La. It brings in jobs, a ton of supporting industries (CNC, river pilots, heavy machinery companies, hotels and housing, and on and on. It absolutely benefits us.

Yes, Walmart pays shitty wages that people wouldn't accept unless they had other income. Simply said, if the govt refused to give these people money while they're working, Walmart would NOT be able to get away paying such low wages, would they?

No, what would happen to Walmart's profits if they had to pay MORE WAGES? Go on, have a guess.

A couple things here: if Walmart had to pay higher wages, it's likely that the price of their stock would go down. That would decrease the amount of stockholders they have. That would force them to take other cost cutting measures. Secondly, if the government did not hand out goodies to low wage workers, they would have to work more hours, maybe get a second job, maybe force them to learn a trade, but it would not make Walmart pay more money.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Wal-Mart may get by with older, disabled to a degree, or very entry level for some of their positions; but, it's just too easy for someone with muscle and a decent work ethic to move to higher paying jobs. Likewise, any cashier that can last a year somewhere without getting caught stealing. They are going to have to pay more. Their turnover is bad enough now that they are raising wages to try to keep the decent ones. If it's harder to do the part time + assistance thing, labor is going to demand full time again. Any company that wants decent workers will have to get on board of end up with the dregs.

Initially, there may be less profit, but that is short term. They will still have the lowest prices, though not as low. They won't be losing customers. In fact, without the evil cloud over their heads, they may gain quite a few.

I have no problem with Walmart paying more to attract workers. That's the way the system is supposed to work. I'm against government forcing them to however. But Walmart offers the best chance at advancing in a company and most don't earn minimum wage once they've been there for a while. In fact, Walmart pays pretty good outside floor sweepers and shelf stockers. I talk to their truck drivers all the time, they seem pretty satisfied. Their management positions pay pretty well with good benefits. Their warehouse and office people make out pretty good.

This promotion that all Walmart people make crappy money is a liberal lie. Walmart has been in their gun sights since they became number one in the country. The Democrats don't like them because of their success and the fact they are all non-union.

So, if the govt refused to give handouts to people already working, you'd have a problem with this?

Management positions might pay well, but there aren't that many, are there?

And because Walmart are able to get other benefits from the govt too, they taking business away from other companies who might be paying people better.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The federal government does not subsidize WalMart's payroll. No matter how you spin it, it's just a flat out lie. Wal-Mart simply pays shitty wages that people agree to work for. Mom-N-Pop convenience store pays shitty wages, too. It is quite legal and all on the up and up.

The Fed's don't recruit plants and refineries to La. La does that on its own. It is a huge benefit to La. It brings in jobs, a ton of supporting industries (CNC, river pilots, heavy machinery companies, hotels and housing, and on and on. It absolutely benefits us.

Yes, Walmart pays shitty wages that people wouldn't accept unless they had other income. Simply said, if the govt refused to give these people money while they're working, Walmart would NOT be able to get away paying such low wages, would they?

No, what would happen to Walmart's profits if they had to pay MORE WAGES? Go on, have a guess.

A couple things here: if Walmart had to pay higher wages, it's likely that the price of their stock would go down. That would decrease the amount of stockholders they have. That would force them to take other cost cutting measures. Secondly, if the government did not hand out goodies to low wage workers, they would have to work more hours, maybe get a second job, maybe force them to learn a trade, but it would not make Walmart pay more money.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Wal-Mart may get by with older, disabled to a degree, or very entry level for some of their positions; but, it's just too easy for someone with muscle and a decent work ethic to move to higher paying jobs. Likewise, any cashier that can last a year somewhere without getting caught stealing. They are going to have to pay more. Their turnover is bad enough now that they are raising wages to try to keep the decent ones. If it's harder to do the part time + assistance thing, labor is going to demand full time again. Any company that wants decent workers will have to get on board of end up with the dregs.

Initially, there may be less profit, but that is short term. They will still have the lowest prices, though not as low. They won't be losing customers. In fact, without the evil cloud over their heads, they may gain quite a few.

I have no problem with Walmart paying more to attract workers. That's the way the system is supposed to work. I'm against government forcing them to however. But Walmart offers the best chance at advancing in a company and most don't earn minimum wage once they've been there for a while. In fact, Walmart pays pretty good outside floor sweepers and shelf stockers. I talk to their truck drivers all the time, they seem pretty satisfied. Their management positions pay pretty well with good benefits. Their warehouse and office people make out pretty good.

This promotion that all Walmart people make crappy money is a liberal lie. Walmart has been in their gun sights since they became number one in the country. The Democrats don't like them because of their success and the fact they are all non-union.

So, if the govt refused to give handouts to people already working, you'd have a problem with this?

Management positions might pay well, but there aren't that many, are there?

And because Walmart are able to get other benefits from the govt too, they taking business away from other companies who might be paying people better.

What is this persistence of lying that you have? I can't repeat this anymore than I already have. WALMART DOES NOT GET ANY GOVERNMENT BENEFITS. They never did and never will. You can't make a case for something by lying about it all the time.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A couple things here: if Walmart had to pay higher wages, it's likely that the price of their stock would go down. That would decrease the amount of stockholders they have. That would force them to take other cost cutting measures. Secondly, if the government did not hand out goodies to low wage workers, they would have to work more hours, maybe get a second job, maybe force them to learn a trade, but it would not make Walmart pay more money.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Okay, if Walmart pay wages more and their stock goes down to the RIGHT LEVEL it should be at, you have a problem?

So they have less stock holders, good. More cost cutting measure and become more efficient, good.

I like what you're saying here. It would require Walmart to be a NORMAL company competing on a level playing field.

I'm wondering what YOUR problem is with that?

No, if the govt didn't hand out "goodies" then the people would demand to have a LIVING WAGE or they wouldn't bother working for Walmart. Which is again, GREAT>

No, it's just the opposite. When a worker meets their maximum income before their benefits get cut, they work less hours. Trust me, I work in industry and see it all the time. People on the dole know how to play the system.

I have two tenants on disability--one on full disability and one on partial disability. My tenant on full disability has it worked out so he only makes X amount of money every month. He could work more hours, but that would cut into his government check, so he made an agreement with his employer even though his employer wants him to work more hours.

So now we force Walmart (or whoever) to pay more money. What do you think the outcome of that would be, that the workers would give up their freebies? Of course not, they will reduce the amount of hours they work per month.

So the bottom line is that it would hurt Walmart, not reduce government dependency, and the worker would be working less hours than they ever have.

And do you think that if the govt didn't make such a system, which companies like Walmart are happy to promote, that it would be like this? Why do you think Walmart like this sort of thing?

What makes you think Walmart likes it? It's likely Walmart could care less about it. Social programs have nothing to do with their business with the exception they have to hire more people since the leeches are only working part-time.

I'm thinking the $6 billion a year Walmart doesn't have to pay in wages might clinch it for them, don't you think?

What would you do if the govt picked up a $6 billion a year tab for you? Be miserable?

My lord, you are so dense. Walmart is not under any obligation to pay more in wages or benefits if the government does not. There was never a law like that and never will be. Walmart gets nothing, zero from the government.

 

[jillian]

Why is Trump cutting grants for poor students to go to top schools? | Opinion

"
Why Is Trump Stopping Poor Students From Going to Top Schools?"

"The Administration’s education budget slashes $150 billion in federal student aid over 10 years. This move would cut by half our federal Work-Study program, which helps 675,000 students support themselves through college every year. "

Basically Trump put DeVos in charge at "education" and she's a proponent of school vouchers. Now, for me, school vouchers are just a way of taking money out of schools and giving it to rich people. But the right say it's all about CHOICE. The same people will then dismiss choice elsewhere, and ignore the fact that the UK manages to give choice to kids to go to schools they want to go to WITHOUT school vouchers.

Now, they want choice with school vouchers, and yet.... they're taking away money from poorer kids to go to college. Oh, so, what, wait.... universities will only be for rich kids, so it will benefit the rich and mean they can get the levels of education needed to get higher paid jobs....

Oh, I see, they're preventing choice, once again.

A leader elected not by choice of the people, but by the system, is making sure poorer people don't get to go to school.

rightwingnuts hate people without money.

even trump loons who have no money themselves but are stupid enough to think this is ok.

 

[jillian]

Yes, Walmart pays shitty wages that people wouldn't accept unless they had other income. Simply said, if the govt refused to give these people money while they're working, Walmart would NOT be able to get away paying such low wages, would they?

No, what would happen to Walmart's profits if they had to pay MORE WAGES? Go on, have a guess.

A couple things here: if Walmart had to pay higher wages, it's likely that the price of their stock would go down. That would decrease the amount of stockholders they have. That would force them to take other cost cutting measures. Secondly, if the government did not hand out goodies to low wage workers, they would have to work more hours, maybe get a second job, maybe force them to learn a trade, but it would not make Walmart pay more money.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Wal-Mart may get by with older, disabled to a degree, or very entry level for some of their positions; but, it's just too easy for someone with muscle and a decent work ethic to move to higher paying jobs. Likewise, any cashier that can last a year somewhere without getting caught stealing. They are going to have to pay more. Their turnover is bad enough now that they are raising wages to try to keep the decent ones. If it's harder to do the part time + assistance thing, labor is going to demand full time again. Any company that wants decent workers will have to get on board of end up with the dregs.

Initially, there may be less profit, but that is short term. They will still have the lowest prices, though not as low. They won't be losing customers. In fact, without the evil cloud over their heads, they may gain quite a few.

I have no problem with Walmart paying more to attract workers. That's the way the system is supposed to work. I'm against government forcing them to however. But Walmart offers the best chance at advancing in a company and most don't earn minimum wage once they've been there for a while. In fact, Walmart pays pretty good outside floor sweepers and shelf stockers. I talk to their truck drivers all the time, they seem pretty satisfied. Their management positions pay pretty well with good benefits. Their warehouse and office people make out pretty good.

This promotion that all Walmart people make crappy money is a liberal lie. Walmart has been in their gun sights since they became number one in the country. The Democrats don't like them because of their success and the fact they are all non-union.

So, if the govt refused to give handouts to people already working, you'd have a problem with this?

Management positions might pay well, but there aren't that many, are there?

And because Walmart are able to get other benefits from the govt too, they taking business away from other companies who might be paying people better.

What is this persistence of lying that you have? I can't repeat this anymore than I already have. WALMART DOES NOT GET ANY GOVERNMENT BENEFITS. They never did and never will. You can't make a case for something by lying about it all the time.

Walmart DOES get government benefits. they get tax gimme's and a lot of other things when they go into areas where they then destroy all local business and people end u-p having to work for garbage wages at awl-mart.

stop making garbage up in your ignorant demented little trumptard brain.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A couple things here: if Walmart had to pay higher wages, it's likely that the price of their stock would go down. That would decrease the amount of stockholders they have. That would force them to take other cost cutting measures. Secondly, if the government did not hand out goodies to low wage workers, they would have to work more hours, maybe get a second job, maybe force them to learn a trade, but it would not make Walmart pay more money.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Wal-Mart may get by with older, disabled to a degree, or very entry level for some of their positions; but, it's just too easy for someone with muscle and a decent work ethic to move to higher paying jobs. Likewise, any cashier that can last a year somewhere without getting caught stealing. They are going to have to pay more. Their turnover is bad enough now that they are raising wages to try to keep the decent ones. If it's harder to do the part time + assistance thing, labor is going to demand full time again. Any company that wants decent workers will have to get on board of end up with the dregs.

Initially, there may be less profit, but that is short term. They will still have the lowest prices, though not as low. They won't be losing customers. In fact, without the evil cloud over their heads, they may gain quite a few.

I have no problem with Walmart paying more to attract workers. That's the way the system is supposed to work. I'm against government forcing them to however. But Walmart offers the best chance at advancing in a company and most don't earn minimum wage once they've been there for a while. In fact, Walmart pays pretty good outside floor sweepers and shelf stockers. I talk to their truck drivers all the time, they seem pretty satisfied. Their management positions pay pretty well with good benefits. Their warehouse and office people make out pretty good.

This promotion that all Walmart people make crappy money is a liberal lie. Walmart has been in their gun sights since they became number one in the country. The Democrats don't like them because of their success and the fact they are all non-union.

So, if the govt refused to give handouts to people already working, you'd have a problem with this?

Management positions might pay well, but there aren't that many, are there?

And because Walmart are able to get other benefits from the govt too, they taking business away from other companies who might be paying people better.

What is this persistence of lying that you have? I can't repeat this anymore than I already have. WALMART DOES NOT GET ANY GOVERNMENT BENEFITS. They never did and never will. You can't make a case for something by lying about it all the time.

Walmart DOES get government benefits. they get tax gimme's and a lot of other things when they go into areas where they then destroy all local business and people end u-p having to work for garbage wages at awl-mart.

stop making garbage up in your ignorant demented little trumptard brain.

Allowing a business to keep more of their money is not a government benefit unless you're a liberal who believes all money belongs to government, and what they allow you to keep is a gift from government to you.

In many cases, Walmart is the anchor store. Do you know what that is or what it means?

Our neighboring city built a brand new mall. It was great for a few short years, but when Walmart left, all other stores closed up and left within the next couple of years. Those smaller stores depended on Walmart bringing in business to the mall. Now the new mall looks like a ghost town with only one store still in business.