Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So you're saying that a store which saves people money compared to other stores should be given a free ride by the government?
What the hell are you talking about?
They employ 1.4 million Americans.
Last year they paid $8 billion in income taxes, $7 billion in dividends, $10s of billions in sales taxes, billions more in payroll taxes. Free ride? LOL!
I'll pay my employees $1 an hour...
"I'm saving these people loads of money because I pay my employees peanuts, so, give my employees $10 for every hour that they work in welfare"
As usual, liberal math is way off. Assume the stupid study by the anti-WalMart group was correct and each WalMart employee gets $2,103 in government benefits. If every employee works 30 hours a week, the government is adding $1.40 an hour.
It's Walmart and companies like that who are pushing for welfare for people who don't earn enough.
They are? Why would Wal-Mart have a care in the world about welfare? It doesn't benefit them. But I suppose you have evidence of this push for welfare Wal-Mart is involved in?
I didn't think so.
Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor.
For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan.
A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years.
This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance.
Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%.
Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600.
Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest.
California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government.
Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04
"
The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:
- $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
- $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
- $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.
- $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.
- $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
- $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."
The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee.
Let's assume a part-time worker, 30 hours a week at $10 an hour. About $15,000 a year.
If WalMart closes her store, does that supposed $2,103 cost increase or decrease?
Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
Liberal math is funny.
WalMart has about 1.4 million employees in the US. If we assume the $2,103 number is correct (I don't), that's about $3 billion. Now you'd have to balance that against the tens of billions they save consumers each year, the tens of billions they contribute in sales taxes, the $8 billion they paid in income taxes, the $7 billion they paid in dividends, the $3 billion they spent to buy back stock, the income and payroll taxes their employees pay, the taxes collected on the dividends and capital gains taxes and more that I've left out.
It's clear to anyone who understands economics, and math, that WalMart does not cost the US loads of money.
Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
Correct, something is very wrong. But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare. Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability. People put themselves on welfare.
Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale. Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management. Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits. Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time. So does their warehouse people. Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them. It's an option. People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs. It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage! No, people should make themselves worth a living wage. Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
They are? Why would Wal-Mart have a care in the world about welfare? It doesn't benefit them. But I suppose you have evidence of this push for welfare Wal-Mart is involved in?
I didn't think so.
Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor.
For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan.
A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years.
This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance.
Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%.
Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600.
Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest.
California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government.
Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04
"
The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:
- $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
- $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
- $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.
- $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.
- $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
- $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."
The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee.
Let's assume a part-time worker, 30 hours a week at $10 an hour. About $15,000 a year.
If WalMart closes her store, does that supposed $2,103 cost increase or decrease?
Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
Liberal math is funny.
WalMart has about 1.4 million employees in the US. If we assume the $2,103 number is correct (I don't), that's about $3 billion. Now you'd have to balance that against the tens of billions they save consumers each year, the tens of billions they contribute in sales taxes, the $8 billion they paid in income taxes, the $7 billion they paid in dividends, the $3 billion they spent to buy back stock, the income and payroll taxes their employees pay, the taxes collected on the dividends and capital gains taxes and more that I've left out.
It's clear to anyone who understands economics, and math, that WalMart does not cost the US loads of money.
Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
Correct, something is very wrong. But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare. Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability. People put themselves on welfare.
Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale. Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management. Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits. Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time. So does their warehouse people. Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them. It's an option. People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs. It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage! No, people should make themselves worth a living wage. Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
Oprah is a black woman that is barely a billionaire in supposedly an oppressive, racist country against blacks and women.
It's called SYSTEMIC dummy. She's an exception to the rule. Know what that means Bubs?
That racism isn't a rule?
Systemic racism is a sociological theory for understanding the role of race and racism in United States society developed by Joe Feagin and presented in his book Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, & Future Reparations. Feagin uses historical evidence and demographic statistics to create a theory that asserts that the United States was founded in racism as the Constitution classified black people as the property of whites, and that this legal recognition of slavery is a cornerstone of a racist social system in which resources and rights were and are unjustly given to white people, and unjustly denied black people. Rooted in this foundation, systemic racism today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors. As such, it is a theory that accounts for individual, institutional, and structural forms of racism. The development of this theory was influenced by other scholars of race, including Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. Du Bois, Oliver Cox, Anna Julia Cooper, Kwame Ture, and Frantz Fanon, among others.
While Feagin developed the theory based on the history and reality of anti-black racism in the United States, it is usefully applied to understanding how racism functions more broadly, both within the United States, and around the world.
The Key Aspects of Systemic Racism Include:
1. Patterns of undeserved impoverishment and enrichment that are historically rooted and continue to recur today. Over time, whites have been enriched by the labor of blacks, whether commanded for free during the era of slavery, or purchased on the cheap on the basis of race. This pattern consists of the simultaneous and mutually dependent denial of wealth accumulation for blacks, and unjust wealth accumulation for whites. It can be seen in the exclusion of blacks from buying homes in certain neighborhoods and receiving unfavorable mortgage rates, or in blacks being overwhelmingly channeled into low-wage jobs. Vested group interests, among both powerful whites and “ordinary whites” who benefit from a white racial identity, support political and economic systems that reproduce a social system that is racist and has racist outcomes.
Systemic racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wealth Gap. Did you know that in 2010 Black Americans made up 13% of the population but had only 2.7% of the country's wealth?
Hence the call for Redistribution? How far is that going to get US?
ANY form of taxation IS re-distributive.
Weird how the 1945-1980 time period when the EFFECTIVE tax rates on the top 1/10th+ of 1% (50%-70%) of US saw the largest growth for the bottom 90%,. Today the US has the lowest effective tax rates on those same guys, around 20% for decades, yet we see stagnant wages for the bottom. Correlation?
ANY form of taxation IS re-distributive.
Yep. Taxes are taken by force. There's nothing more directly "re-distributive", really.
Some taxes are voted on and others are voted on by people we elected. How is that forced? You do like driving on paved roads and living in a first world country? Your argument doesn't make any sense.
I'll walk you through it. If you refuse to pay your taxes, men with guns will come and take you to jail. Even if you voted against the taxes.
It's called a society. Grow up dummy
That's the conceit of the statist in a nutshell - the idea that society and government are the same thing.
Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor.
For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan.
A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years.
This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance.
Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%.
Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600.
Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest.
California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government.
Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04
"
The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:
- $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
- $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
- $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.
- $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.
- $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
- $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."
The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee.
Let's assume a part-time worker, 30 hours a week at $10 an hour. About $15,000 a year.
If WalMart closes her store, does that supposed $2,103 cost increase or decrease?
Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
Liberal math is funny.
WalMart has about 1.4 million employees in the US. If we assume the $2,103 number is correct (I don't), that's about $3 billion. Now you'd have to balance that against the tens of billions they save consumers each year, the tens of billions they contribute in sales taxes, the $8 billion they paid in income taxes, the $7 billion they paid in dividends, the $3 billion they spent to buy back stock, the income and payroll taxes their employees pay, the taxes collected on the dividends and capital gains taxes and more that I've left out.
It's clear to anyone who understands economics, and math, that WalMart does not cost the US loads of money.
Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
Correct, something is very wrong. But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare. Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability. People put themselves on welfare.
Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale. Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management. Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits. Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time. So does their warehouse people. Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them. It's an option. People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs. It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage! No, people should make themselves worth a living wage. Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.
It's called SYSTEMIC dummy. She's an exception to the rule. Know what that means Bubs?
That racism isn't a rule?
Systemic racism is a sociological theory for understanding the role of race and racism in United States society developed by Joe Feagin and presented in his book Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, & Future Reparations. Feagin uses historical evidence and demographic statistics to create a theory that asserts that the United States was founded in racism as the Constitution classified black people as the property of whites, and that this legal recognition of slavery is a cornerstone of a racist social system in which resources and rights were and are unjustly given to white people, and unjustly denied black people. Rooted in this foundation, systemic racism today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors. As such, it is a theory that accounts for individual, institutional, and structural forms of racism. The development of this theory was influenced by other scholars of race, including Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. Du Bois, Oliver Cox, Anna Julia Cooper, Kwame Ture, and Frantz Fanon, among others.
While Feagin developed the theory based on the history and reality of anti-black racism in the United States, it is usefully applied to understanding how racism functions more broadly, both within the United States, and around the world.
The Key Aspects of Systemic Racism Include:
1. Patterns of undeserved impoverishment and enrichment that are historically rooted and continue to recur today. Over time, whites have been enriched by the labor of blacks, whether commanded for free during the era of slavery, or purchased on the cheap on the basis of race. This pattern consists of the simultaneous and mutually dependent denial of wealth accumulation for blacks, and unjust wealth accumulation for whites. It can be seen in the exclusion of blacks from buying homes in certain neighborhoods and receiving unfavorable mortgage rates, or in blacks being overwhelmingly channeled into low-wage jobs. Vested group interests, among both powerful whites and “ordinary whites” who benefit from a white racial identity, support political and economic systems that reproduce a social system that is racist and has racist outcomes.
Systemic racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wealth Gap. Did you know that in 2010 Black Americans made up 13% of the population but had only 2.7% of the country's wealth?
Hence the call for Redistribution? How far is that going to get US?
ANY form of taxation IS re-distributive.
Weird how the 1945-1980 time period when the EFFECTIVE tax rates on the top 1/10th+ of 1% (50%-70%) of US saw the largest growth for the bottom 90%,. Today the US has the lowest effective tax rates on those same guys, around 20% for decades, yet we see stagnant wages for the bottom. Correlation?
Correlation was that the beginning of that period, Great Society 200 Year Plan was just a scratch in Johnson's crotch. By 1980, it was in full swing and US was shifting from creditor to debtor nation.
The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee.
Let's assume a part-time worker, 30 hours a week at $10 an hour. About $15,000 a year.
If WalMart closes her store, does that supposed $2,103 cost increase or decrease?
Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
Liberal math is funny.
WalMart has about 1.4 million employees in the US. If we assume the $2,103 number is correct (I don't), that's about $3 billion. Now you'd have to balance that against the tens of billions they save consumers each year, the tens of billions they contribute in sales taxes, the $8 billion they paid in income taxes, the $7 billion they paid in dividends, the $3 billion they spent to buy back stock, the income and payroll taxes their employees pay, the taxes collected on the dividends and capital gains taxes and more that I've left out.
It's clear to anyone who understands economics, and math, that WalMart does not cost the US loads of money.
Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
Correct, something is very wrong. But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare. Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability. People put themselves on welfare.
Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale. Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management. Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits. Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time. So does their warehouse people. Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them. It's an option. People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs. It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage! No, people should make themselves worth a living wage. Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.
To bad there isn't ANYTHING that WE could do like GOOD GOV'T POLICY you fukkn wingnutters HATE
Your drivel and inability to accept hat Corp/"Job creators" have gamed the system is noted Bubs
Lowest sustained EFFECTIVE tax rate on the top 1/10th of 1% since the 1920's. Over HALF of AL;L US dividends and capital gains each year go to this small group of plutocrats
US Corp profits are at 40 year highs where their tax burden are near record lows (12% EFFECTIVE) WHILE the costs of their labor, for the first time EVER, is less than half of their expense
WOOOHOO CONS say keep lowering the net and allow the "job creators" to capture even more of US, perhaps the US will look like it did PRE PROGRESSIVE POLICY, like workhouses for the poor and REAL company stores using scrip!
Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor.
For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan.
A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years.
This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance.
Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%.
Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600.
Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest.
California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government.
Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04
"
The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:
- $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
- $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
- $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.
- $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.
- $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
- $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."
The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee.
Let's assume a part-time worker, 30 hours a week at $10 an hour. About $15,000 a year.
If WalMart closes her store, does that supposed $2,103 cost increase or decrease?
Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
Liberal math is funny.
WalMart has about 1.4 million employees in the US. If we assume the $2,103 number is correct (I don't), that's about $3 billion. Now you'd have to balance that against the tens of billions they save consumers each year, the tens of billions they contribute in sales taxes, the $8 billion they paid in income taxes, the $7 billion they paid in dividends, the $3 billion they spent to buy back stock, the income and payroll taxes their employees pay, the taxes collected on the dividends and capital gains taxes and more that I've left out.
It's clear to anyone who understands economics, and math, that WalMart does not cost the US loads of money.
Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
Correct, something is very wrong. But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare. Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability. People put themselves on welfare.
Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale. Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management. Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits. Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time. So does their warehouse people. Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them. It's an option. People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs. It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage! No, people should make themselves worth a living wage. Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.
The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee.
Let's assume a part-time worker, 30 hours a week at $10 an hour. About $15,000 a year.
If WalMart closes her store, does that supposed $2,103 cost increase or decrease?
Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
Liberal math is funny.
WalMart has about 1.4 million employees in the US. If we assume the $2,103 number is correct (I don't), that's about $3 billion. Now you'd have to balance that against the tens of billions they save consumers each year, the tens of billions they contribute in sales taxes, the $8 billion they paid in income taxes, the $7 billion they paid in dividends, the $3 billion they spent to buy back stock, the income and payroll taxes their employees pay, the taxes collected on the dividends and capital gains taxes and more that I've left out.
It's clear to anyone who understands economics, and math, that WalMart does not cost the US loads of money.
Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
Correct, something is very wrong. But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare. Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability. People put themselves on welfare.
Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale. Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management. Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits. Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time. So does their warehouse people. Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them. It's an option. People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs. It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage! No, people should make themselves worth a living wage. Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.
I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.
But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.
Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.
Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.
The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.
Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
Correct, something is very wrong. But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare. Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability. People put themselves on welfare.
Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale. Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management. Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits. Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time. So does their warehouse people. Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them. It's an option. People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs. It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage! No, people should make themselves worth a living wage. Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.
To bad there isn't ANYTHING that WE could do like GOOD GOV'T POLICY you fukkn wingnutters HATE
Your drivel and inability to accept hat Corp/"Job creators" have gamed the system is noted Bubs
Lowest sustained EFFECTIVE tax rate on the top 1/10th of 1% since the 1920's. Over HALF of AL;L US dividends and capital gains each year go to this small group of plutocrats
US Corp profits are at 40 year highs where their tax burden are near record lows (12% EFFECTIVE) WHILE the costs of their labor, for the first time EVER, is less than half of their expense
WOOOHOO CONS say keep lowering the net and allow the "job creators" to capture even more of US, perhaps the US will look like it did PRE PROGRESSIVE POLICY, like workhouses for the poor and REAL company stores using scrip!
People like you who are consumed with the wealthy fail to realize the competition in business today.
Today we have to consider companies that move overseas, bring in cheap foreign labor, invest in technology like automation, and even internet sales.
Competition is what brings (or keeps) prices down. Don't act like your not guilty of participation either. We all do it.
Wal-Mart is number one because they brought their consumers what they wanted: cheap products. That's it in a nut shell. Americans never cried that we need better paying jobs and are willing to pay for it. Oh, they may want better paying jobs, but they want other people to pay for it.
Well it doesn't work that way in Realville. In Realville, you either have cheap products or you have better paying jobs, but you can't have both. The very idea that you think government should regulate it against the will of the majority is a definition of fascism. Government shouldn't be running our businesses.
Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
Correct, something is very wrong. But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare. Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability. People put themselves on welfare.
Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale. Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management. Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits. Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time. So does their warehouse people. Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them. It's an option. People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs. It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage! No, people should make themselves worth a living wage. Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.
I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.
But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.
Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.
Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.
The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.
Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs. Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians. The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government. Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage. That should be up to the individual. Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs. I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
The only people that think benefits are not too generous are those that are too lazy to provide for themselves.Correct, something is very wrong. But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare. Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability. People put themselves on welfare.
Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale. Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management. Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits. Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time. So does their warehouse people. Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them. It's an option. People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs. It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage! No, people should make themselves worth a living wage. Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.
I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.
But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.
Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.
Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.
The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.
Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs. Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians. The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government. Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage. That should be up to the individual. Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs. I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD
GOV'T POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.
YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN
If it wasn't for unions and government in the early 20th century I doubt a middle class of 1/10th the size would of ever formed. The super wealthy wouldn't of ever paid their workers well enough for it to happen and guess what! With tax rates at 60%+ on the rich we had the biggest industry, best education and biggest middle class in history in 1950. How did that happen?
Its sad how when the rich started taking all the profit since 1980 all these things started becoming smaller....
One last thing,,,If the robber barons had been allowed to keep doing what they were doing...Well, I honestly doubt there'd be more then 1 or 2 corps per item for the demander if that. Competition? Pure capitalism destroys it and ends up valuing one big corp. That is the nature of it.
The only people that think benefits are not too generous are those that are too lazy to provide for themselves.Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.
I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.
But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.
Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.
Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.
The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.
Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs. Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians. The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government. Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage. That should be up to the individual. Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs. I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD
GOV'T POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.
YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN
those that work would rather see those dollars left in their pockets to care for their own family.
Every dollar of my earned income that goes to a social program just means less to use for my family.
If not for the taxes maybe, just maybe I could have bought my daughter a nicer car than the chevy Cruze.
These programs directly affect us in a negative way.
Unemployment benefits, paid for from an employer for employees that WORK.The only people that think benefits are not too generous are those that are too lazy to provide for themselves.No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.
I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.
But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.
Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.
Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.
The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.
Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs. Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians. The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government. Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage. That should be up to the individual. Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs. I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD
GOV'T POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.
YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN
those that work would rather see those dollars left in their pockets to care for their own family.
Every dollar of my earned income that goes to a social program just means less to use for my family.
If not for the taxes maybe, just maybe I could have bought my daughter a nicer car than the chevy Cruze.
These programs directly affect us in a negative way.
More right wing nonsense NOT based in reality. Look to history to say you are full of shit Bubs
Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households
Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.
Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
No, I believe in equality. Not equality by policy but by opportunity, meaning we shouldn't force a part society to be more equal with the rest of society. Instead every American should pay as much as every other american, with exception of the poor (do we really need the 18% of those who make less than say 40,000 a year?) However the ultra rich (billionaires) have ways of getting around paying their fair share of taxes (not obamas definition of fair share which is actually unequal and more by his definition). The millionaires and the rich that Obama speaks of (those who make 250,000) are more of the new rich or nuvo-riche, the up and comers. Generally the small business owners and the employers of most Americans. We also have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and we wonder why, and get angry when companies like ford and Nabisco go to Mexico to conduct business. But the billionaires, the ones who can influence our politicians the most with money, power, and campaign donations keep getting regulation and laws passed in their favor, and get the blind eye from our politicians on the right and left.I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
Will business owners higher more entry level positions when the min wage is raised to 15.00? Or will they stop/have less hiring and have the current entry level positions do more work? Minimum wage raising has always been known as a job killer, except until recently. If not then why has every president not raised it when they've been in office? Because they're bought out? They definitely are not bought out by small business who this will undoubtably effect negatively the most (please explain how this is good for small business). So who really benefits from a raise in minimum wage? Id say this is one of many ways that help the ultra rich can close the door on their smaller sleeker competition. It's nothing but a bandaid on a flesh woundCorrect, something is very wrong. But it's not Wal-Mart or anybody else putting people on welfare. Wal-Mart doesn't have that capability. People put themselves on welfare.
Wal-Mart is the target of the left because of their size......not because of their pay scale. Their pay scale is no different than any other big box store, and in fact, pay better money and provide better opportunity for advancement than any mom and pop shop.
Wal-Mart has many happy employees such as management. Their office staff does very well in wages and benefits. Their truck drivers earn a very good wage; I talk to them all the time. So does their warehouse people. Yet when the left talks about Wal-Mart, they look to the lowly floor sweeper or shelf stocker.
Also to the chagrin of the left, Wal-Mart does not force people to work for them. It's an option. People willingly apply and take jobs at Wal-Mart because they want to do those jobs. It can't be ruled out that because of our over generous welfare system, they take those jobs on purpose either.
Wal-Mart should pay their employees a living wage! No, people should make themselves worth a living wage. Wal-Mart doesn't control what a person is worth in wages--the individual is in charge of that.
Walmart is a target because they make such big profits, pay such little wages, cost the country money, refuse to allow employees to unionize (which increases wages), refuses to give them sufficient health coverage in comparison with other companies.
Walmart is the sort of company that revels in higher unemployment because it means they can do what they like and know people need jobs. Doesn't make them right.
Other companies might be as bad as Walmart or worse, however there's more info about Walmart. Doesn't make Walmart good.
No, Wal-Mart only pays small wages and limited benefits to those who have positions with the company that are easily replaceable. It works that way with most companies that use manual labor. If you have no training or skill, what kind of money should a company pay such a person?
Now, Wal-Mart may move you up the ladder if you're a hard enough worker or the right person, but the only real way to increase your worth to any employer is to have a skill or trade. You are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.
Big profits? So what? Companies don't base everything on profits. Companies are more focused on growth. That's because companies rely on investors for a successful business.
After all, if you ran into a good sum of money....... let's say $150,000, where would you invest it? Would you invest it in a company that grosses 500 million a year, but has 2% growth, or would you invest it in a company that grosses 3 million a year, but has a 4.6% growth? Even if you are half-way honest, you'll admit you'd put your money into a company that has better growth because you don't make money on your investment by how much a company grosses. You make your money by how much your investment grows.
To bad there isn't ANYTHING that WE could do like GOOD GOV'T POLICY you fukkn wingnutters HATE
Your drivel and inability to accept hat Corp/"Job creators" have gamed the system is noted Bubs
Lowest sustained EFFECTIVE tax rate on the top 1/10th of 1% since the 1920's. Over HALF of AL;L US dividends and capital gains each year go to this small group of plutocrats
US Corp profits are at 40 year highs where their tax burden are near record lows (12% EFFECTIVE) WHILE the costs of their labor, for the first time EVER, is less than half of their expense
WOOOHOO CONS say keep lowering the net and allow the "job creators" to capture even more of US, perhaps the US will look like it did PRE PROGRESSIVE POLICY, like workhouses for the poor and REAL company stores using scrip!
People like you who are consumed with the wealthy fail to realize the competition in business today.
Today we have to consider companies that move overseas, bring in cheap foreign labor, invest in technology like automation, and even internet sales.
Competition is what brings (or keeps) prices down. Don't act like your not guilty of participation either. We all do it.
Wal-Mart is number one because they brought their consumers what they wanted: cheap products. That's it in a nut shell. Americans never cried that we need better paying jobs and are willing to pay for it. Oh, they may want better paying jobs, but they want other people to pay for it.
Well it doesn't work that way in Realville. In Realville, you either have cheap products or you have better paying jobs, but you can't have both. The very idea that you think government should regulate it against the will of the majority is a definition of fascism. Government shouldn't be running our businesses.
MORON IN REALVILLE, GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN HELP.
Why is it conservatives "believe" tax cuts boom the economy, but helping those at the bottom (by increasing min wage, better conditions, etc) will destroy it? Do you Klowns EVER THINK?
Unemployment benefits, paid for from an employer for employees that WORK.The only people that think benefits are not too generous are those that are too lazy to provide for themselves.I'm not disputing that people in low wage jobs should be paid low wages.
But this isn't what we're talking. We're talking Walmart having employees who they don't give decent health insurance, which costs the tax payer, they don't have wages high enough which means they also cost the tax payer.
Now, there are two problems, one is the politicians and the other is Walmart making the most of the politicians.
Are Walmart giving money in exchange for politicians making it easy for Walmart to use the government to make them richer? Maybe, it would surprise me if they weren't.
The point of this thread is that the rich should pay their way. Walmart aren't. They earn billions but manage to get out of paying their fair way by using the government as a way of giving their employees more money because Walmart aren't giving enough, and also by avoiding other stuff.
Wal-Mart has nothing to do with our social programs. Our social programs are the responsibility of politicians. The solution to these people making insufficient money is not Wal-Mart, the solution is to curb these social programs.
If these programs had tighter restrictions, paid less, and would prove just to be a helping hand instead of a total subsidy, Wal-Mart would have to pay more because they would have less employees; nobody could afford to work for them unless they fit into one of the categories of most minimum wage workers which is a spouse looking for extra cash for the family, kids living with their parents, or college kids saving money for school.
What anybody pays their workers is not the responsibility of our government. Our government should be in no way be obligated to make up the difference between low wage jobs and a livable wage. That should be up to the individual. Trust me, when I was younger, I worked plenty of low-wage jobs. I just had to work more hours to bring in the income I needed to keep a roof over my head.
GAWD you are a low informed idiot. PERIOD
GOV'T POLICY MATTERED WHEN YOU WERE YOUNGER, AND TODAY, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOV'T POLICY MATTERS (hint conservative pushing "free trade", LOWERING the tax burden on those (Chinese) "job creators", it IS GOV'T policy that matters the most.
YOU THINK BENEFITS ARE TO GENEROUS? YOU FUKKN KLOWN
those that work would rather see those dollars left in their pockets to care for their own family.
Every dollar of my earned income that goes to a social program just means less to use for my family.
If not for the taxes maybe, just maybe I could have bought my daughter a nicer car than the chevy Cruze.
These programs directly affect us in a negative way.
More right wing nonsense NOT based in reality. Look to history to say you are full of shit Bubs
Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households
Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.
Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Social Security, paid for from employer and employee from employees that WORK
Health insurance, should be paid for by the individuals and companies for employees that WORK
Social services like the ones actually in question are paid for by those that WORK so that those that are LAZY can get for free.
Why do you idiots always try to bring up things like social security that are paid for in advance to further your redistribution efforts.
Look Corky, the bottom line is simple. If you dont work for it, you should not get it. Sorry about your health but its not my job to make sure you stay healthy longer to suck off of my wallet.
