Question for those pushing a "living wage"

[Skull Pilot]

So if they pay $7 bil in taxes maybe they need to be taxed more. Last I checked they have over 8000 stores which cost tax payers over a million each.

After reading the whole article it seems to really support my plan to change corp taxes.

The stores don't cost you anything the slugs who won't work enough to pay their bills and the government that has made it easier than ever to get welfare are what's costing you.

The greedy people making billions while collecting corp welfare are costing me. You blame the poor when the rich are calling all the shots.

Not one single rich person is stopping any of the people working at Walmart from getting another job or improving their skills to try for a promotion are they?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The only time there should be talk of "worth per hour" is in the case of highly skilled workers, who need to be persuaded to take job. ei. the job has to pay significantly more than some other jobs that they could take. For bagging merchaindise on cashier checkout lines, this isn't the case. For that, the only criteria, ought to be to pay someone (for full-time work) enough for them to live on (otherwise why bother?), and this should be a moral minimum standard that a moral society sets for itself. Anything less than a living wage (for 40 hr/wk), is essentially stealing from the worker (difference between fair/proper/living wage and that actual wage)

You deserve the $15 hour because that what you need, not because of how easy or difficult the job is. No job should pay less than $15/hour, and in some high cost of living localities (ex. San Francisco, New York), the eminimum should be a lot more than that.

No, you're nor a loser if you're whatever age and doing unskilled work. for some people that work is what they choose to do. They have that right. We don't all need to be rocket scientists.

If you choose to remain unskilled and never better yourself you don't deserve much and you certainly don't deserve 15 an hour.

You think that because you thing the wage should be determined by what the employees work is worth to you, in business income and profits. I say that's a false premise. I say what is needed to live on is the criteria for unskilled work, regardless of the income the work brings in.

You're wrong of course.

I could tell you that all you "need" to live is 10K a year and you can share an apartment with 30 other people. You only "need" one pair of shoes, you only "need" to eat 1500 calories a day, you really don't "need" to buy underwear you certainly don't "need" to smoke or drink alcohol......

Need I go on?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Those people have made the Walton's the richest family in the world.

Those bastards! That's disgusting!

Disgusting is them getting extremely poor wages in return.

The "work" they do is not worth any more than they get

 

[Brain357]

The stores don't cost you anything the slugs who won't work enough to pay their bills and the government that has made it easier than ever to get welfare are what's costing you.

The greedy people making billions while collecting corp welfare are costing me. You blame the poor when the rich are calling all the shots.

Not one single rich person is stopping any of the people working at Walmart from getting another job or improving their skills to try for a promotion are they?

Well maybe the CEO's are colluding to hold wages down and not hire each others workers. Wouldn't be the first time that happened:
Apple, Google, 2 other firms agree to pay $324M in collusion deal | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times

So why should tax payers be paying for the workers that are making the Waltons billions? Obviously they can afford to pay them.

 

[Brain357]

Those bastards! That's disgusting!

Disgusting is them getting extremely poor wages in return.

The "work" they do is not worth any more than they get

Really? The Waltons wouldn't be making billions without them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

When a firm pays their employees so little that the employees are qualified to receive assistance from the state, then that firm is passing on the costs of business onto the state and the tax payer.

No when the government makes it easier and easier to get welfare it is the government and the people who won't work enough to support themselves that are costing the taxpayers money.

 

[Brain357]

When a firm pays their employees so little that the employees are qualified to receive assistance from the state, then that firm is passing on the costs of business onto the state and the tax payer.

No when the government makes it easier and easier to get welfare it is the government and the people who won't work enough to support themselves that are costing the taxpayers money.

I've looked at how little you have to make in order to get assistance. It's the company making billions that is the problem. Why should the Waltons make billions while taxes pay for their workers?

 

[Skull Pilot]

When a firm pays their employees so little that the employees are qualified to receive assistance from the state, then that firm is passing on the costs of business onto the state and the tax payer.

No when the government makes it easier and easier to get welfare it is the government and the people who won't work enough to support themselves that are costing the taxpayers money.

I've looked at how little you have to make in order to get assistance. It's the company making billions that is the problem. Why should the Waltons make billions while taxes pay for their workers?

That's the government and the people who apply for welfare's fault.

Sorry but if you have so little pride that you go one the dole when you are able to work then you are the problem. The government that makes it easier ans easier for people to get assistance and thereby not work is the problem.

 

[rightwinger]

If you choose to remain unskilled and never better yourself you don't deserve much and you certainly don't deserve 15 an hour.

You think that because you thing the wage should be determined by what the employees work is worth to you, in business income and profits. I say that's a false premise. I say what is needed to live on is the criteria for unskilled work, regardless of the income the work brings in.

You're wrong of course.

I could tell you that all you "need" to live is 10K a year and you can share an apartment with 30 other people. You only "need" one pair of shoes, you only "need" to eat 1500 calories a day, you really don't "need" to buy underwear you certainly don't "need" to smoke or drink alcohol......

Need I go on?

That is all a slave needed

 

[Brain357]

No when the government makes it easier and easier to get welfare it is the government and the people who won't work enough to support themselves that are costing the taxpayers money.

I've looked at how little you have to make in order to get assistance. It's the company making billions that is the problem. Why should the Waltons make billions while taxes pay for their workers?

That's the government and the people who apply for welfare's fault.

Sorry but if you have so little pride that you go one the dole when you are able to work then you are the problem. The government that makes it easier ans easier for people to get assistance and thereby not work is the problem.

That was billions with a B. They can afford to pay them. If they are going to use them to make billions then they should pay them enough.

 

[RKMBrown]

A low minimum wage that has failed to keep up with inflation or worker productivity creates a taxpayer subsidy to low-wage employers.

Raising the minimum wage would reduce the cost of social welfare programs, foster economic growth, and strengthen families - all virtues extolled by conservatives.

Actually, reducing or eliminating social welfare programs would reduce or eliminate social welfare.

We have a 50 year history of increasing social welfare programs that has showed an increase in social welfare. We also have a proven history of creating and increasing minimum wage and the result is what we have now.
Why the heck do you fools think that doing the same thing over and over will have different results?
Even a child learns to stop putting his hand on a hot stove once he gets burned.

From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages. What is the result? 23% of total income goes to the top 1%. 70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand. Stagnation is the result.

Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.

Lying dumb ass pos. The rich pay more in tax now than they did then. The difference between now and then is your stupid effing handout programs.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You think that because you thing the wage should be determined by what the employees work is worth to you, in business income and profits. I say that's a false premise. I say what is needed to live on is the criteria for unskilled work, regardless of the income the work brings in.

You're wrong of course.

I could tell you that all you "need" to live is 10K a year and you can share an apartment with 30 other people. You only "need" one pair of shoes, you only "need" to eat 1500 calories a day, you really don't "need" to buy underwear you certainly don't "need" to smoke or drink alcohol......

Need I go on?

That is all a slave needed

Where talking about what a person needs not wants.

You don't need to make 15 an hour to live.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I've looked at how little you have to make in order to get assistance. It's the company making billions that is the problem. Why should the Waltons make billions while taxes pay for their workers?

That's the government and the people who apply for welfare's fault.

Sorry but if you have so little pride that you go one the dole when you are able to work then you are the problem. The government that makes it easier ans easier for people to get assistance and thereby not work is the problem.

That was billions with a B. They can afford to pay them. If they are going to use them to make billions then they should pay them enough.

They do pay them enough for what their job is worth.

 

[Brain357]

That's the government and the people who apply for welfare's fault.

Sorry but if you have so little pride that you go one the dole when you are able to work then you are the problem. The government that makes it easier ans easier for people to get assistance and thereby not work is the problem.

That was billions with a B. They can afford to pay them. If they are going to use them to make billions then they should pay them enough.

They do pay them enough for what their job is worth.

Well they are making the Waltons billions so they must be pretty valuable. If they were making enough they wouldn't be on welfare. They have to be healthy enough to work which means they need to be able to afford housing and food. Since they are on welfare it's clear they aren't making enough.

 

[The T]

That was billions with a B. They can afford to pay them. If they are going to use them to make billions then they should pay them enough.

They do pay them enough for what their job is worth.

Well they are making the Waltons billions so they must be pretty valuable. If they were making enough they wouldn't be on welfare. They have to be healthy enough to work which means they need to be able to afford housing and food. Since they are on welfare it's clear they aren't making enough.

Still whining I see. Those workers are quite free to look elsewhere. What is it you people keep missing about this? And why do you advocate government intrusion into legal contracts made by the employer/employee at the time of hiring?

 

[rightwinger]

You're wrong of course.

I could tell you that all you "need" to live is 10K a year and you can share an apartment with 30 other people. You only "need" one pair of shoes, you only "need" to eat 1500 calories a day, you really don't "need" to buy underwear you certainly don't "need" to smoke or drink alcohol......

Need I go on?

That is all a slave needed

Where talking about what a person needs not wants.

You don't need to make 15 an hour to live.

Again, your description describes all a slave needed to survive. It is obvious that is where you set the bar
Why should a person have to work their lives just to live under those conditions.

Our workers used to strive for the American dream....now you say they should be satisfied with sustinance wages

 

[Brain357]

They do pay them enough for what their job is worth.

Well they are making the Waltons billions so they must be pretty valuable. If they were making enough they wouldn't be on welfare. They have to be healthy enough to work which means they need to be able to afford housing and food. Since they are on welfare it's clear they aren't making enough.

Still whining I see. Those workers are quite free to look elsewhere. What is it you people keep missing about this? And why do you advocate government intrusion into legal contracts made by the employer/employee at the time of hiring?

Because the Waltons are making billions and collecting corporate welfare. Why do you love big government so much? As long as this continues the debt will continue to grow. But all you care is that the Waltons make billions. Who cares how bad it is for our country.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That was billions with a B. They can afford to pay them. If they are going to use them to make billions then they should pay them enough.

They do pay them enough for what their job is worth.

Well they are making the Waltons billions so they must be pretty valuable. If they were making enough they wouldn't be on welfare. They have to be healthy enough to work which means they need to be able to afford housing and food. Since they are on welfare it's clear they aren't making enough.

The cashier is not making them millions.

It's the people who buy the merchandise and handle all the logistics of getting it all to the stores and you can bet those people do not make minimum wage.

So maybe the people who settle for the low paying jobs ought to aspire to more because obviously better paying jobs are out there.

 

[The T]

They do pay them enough for what their job is worth.

Well they are making the Waltons billions so they must be pretty valuable. If they were making enough they wouldn't be on welfare. They have to be healthy enough to work which means they need to be able to afford housing and food. Since they are on welfare it's clear they aren't making enough.

The cashier is not making them millions.

It's the people who buy the merchandise and handle all the logistics of getting it all to the stores and you can bet those people do not make minimum wage.

So maybe the people who settle for the low paying jobs ought to aspire to more because obviously better paying jobs are out there.

Yep. Take charge of their own lives instead of petitioning government to do it for them and trod upon the liberties of others.

 

[The T]

Well they are making the Waltons billions so they must be pretty valuable. If they were making enough they wouldn't be on welfare. They have to be healthy enough to work which means they need to be able to afford housing and food. Since they are on welfare it's clear they aren't making enough.

Still whining I see. Those workers are quite free to look elsewhere. What is it you people keep missing about this? And why do you advocate government intrusion into legal contracts made by the employer/employee at the time of hiring?

Because the Waltons are making billions and collecting corporate welfare. Why do you love big government so much? As long as this continues the debt will continue to grow. But all you care is that the Waltons make billions. Who cares how bad it is for our country.

Proof?