EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,153
- 1,100
I support Wal-Mart. It helps a lot of people!!!
this is true of all corporations since we shop there and work there only because we decide it helps us. Its the essence of freedom.
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.
I support Wal-Mart. It helps a lot of people!!!
I remember reading an article in The Atlantic Monthly the mid-90s called "The Walmarting of America" that accurately predicted Walmart's effect on wages for the working class.
The attached chart reflects the working class's share of the National Income. I would guess a large portion of posters here fall in the category of working class and so will their children. If I was part of the working class, I'd be very concerned about not only my future but also the future of my children.
Behold, the Walmarting of America"!
Labour Share is not the same as Real Compensation. While the compensation of employees in the business sector may be getting smaller and smaller relative to GDP (Which is getting larger), real incomes are still increasing.
Why don't we have a look at how gains were distributed from 1967-2003?
[FONT="]Data[/FONT]
[FONT="]Total gain[/FONT]
[FONT="]% gain[/FONT]
[FONT="]2003[/FONT]
[FONT="]2000[/FONT]
[FONT="]1991[/FONT]
[FONT="]1982[/FONT]
[FONT="]1973[/FONT]
[FONT="]1967[/FONT]
[FONT="]20th pctl[/FONT]
[FONT="]$3,982 [/FONT]
[FONT="]28%[/FONT]
[FONT="]$17,984 [/FONT]
[FONT="]$19,142 [/FONT]
[FONT="]$16,580 [/FONT]
[FONT="]$15,548 [/FONT]
[FONT="]$15,844 [/FONT]
[FONT="]$14,002 [/FONT]
[FONT="]50th pctl[/FONT]
[FONT="]$9,980 [/FONT]
[FONT="]30%[/FONT]
[FONT="]$43,318 [/FONT]
[FONT="]$44,853 [/FONT]
[FONT="]$39,679 [/FONT]
[FONT="]$36,811 [/FONT]
[FONT="]$37,700 [/FONT]
[FONT="]$33,338 [/FONT]
[FONT="]80th pctl[/FONT]
[FONT="]$31,602 [/FONT]
[FONT="]57%[/FONT]
[FONT="]$86,867 [/FONT]
[FONT="]$87,341 [/FONT]
[FONT="]$74,759 [/FONT]
[FONT="]$66,920 [/FONT]
[FONT="]$64,500 [/FONT]
[FONT="]$55,265 [/FONT]
[FONT="]95th pctl[/FONT]
[FONT="]$65,442 [/FONT]
[FONT="]74%[/FONT]
[FONT="]$154,120 [/FONT]
[FONT="]$155,121 [/FONT]
[FONT="]$126,969 [/FONT]
[FONT="]$111,516 [/FONT]
[FONT="]$102,243 [/FONT]
[FONT="]$88,678 [/FONT]
[FONT="][FONT="]SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2004[66] (Page 44/45)[/FONT][/FONT]
The bottom 40% isn't keeping pace. Why?
Voodoo economics subsidizing corporate wages.
The bottom 40% isn't keeping pace. Why?
Simple, the liberals destroyed the American family and created millions of poor single mothers, unions shippped 30 million jobs offshore, the highest corporate taxes in the world keep pushing whole corporations off-shore, and record deficits and debt allow Japan and China to buy our debt and deficit rather than our products.
Way over your liberal head- right?
According to the financial site NerdWallet, the 10 most profitable U.S. companies paid an average federal tax rate of just 9 percent last year. The group includes heavyweights Exxon Mobil, Apple, Microsoft, JPMorgan Chase and General Electric.
You don't give a fuck....You're just here to do your union hack ragging on Wally World.The bottom 40% isn't keeping pace. Why?
Simple, the liberals destroyed the American family and created millions of poor single mothers, unions shippped 30 million jobs offshore, the highest corporate taxes in the world keep pushing whole corporations off-shore, and record deficits and debt allow Japan and China to buy our debt and deficit rather than our products.
Way over your liberal head- right?
You're kidding, right?
How can anyone "create poor single mothers"?
How can unions "ship" jobs overseas?
And you have no clue on how corporate taxes work.
According to the financial site NerdWallet, the 10 most profitable U.S. companies paid an average federal tax rate of just 9 percent last year. The group includes heavyweights Exxon Mobil, Apple, Microsoft, JPMorgan Chase and General Electric.
10 Most Profitable U.S. Corporations Paid Average Tax Rate Of Just 9 Percent Last Year: Report
I guess you're pretty clueless on everything you posted, aren't you?
Class dismissed.
Oh....130% of the poverty level...I stand corrected....What's the other 30% for, since we do know that people making that little damn sure don't pay anything in income taxes?....In fact, they get a "refundable" (read: handout) EITC tax credit.Idjit lolberals make the qualification threshold for food stamps 165% of the poverty level, then bitch when people (most of whom don't work at Wally World) take advantage of the program.
Does the nincompoopery ever end?
Let's get some numbers in here. *130% of poverty level doesn't mean anything because it doesn't say what the povety level is. *Of course, these are SNAP references and then poverty level varies from region to region. *Some states use a different standard. *These are monthly standards.
135% poverty gross income, 100% of poverty for net income. SNAP expects 30% of income contribution to food. 130% of poverty is gross income of $1211, which equates to $7.00 an hour full time. Net income is 100% of poverty or $931 per month.
SNAP households are expected to spend about 30 percent of their resources on food. SNAP covers the rest. *So at best $847 of the gross covers all other living expences, basically.
There are other adjustments to gross income to get to net.
Eligibility
In any case, most of the positions at Wally World are entry-level jobs...And they're certainly nowhere near any kind of a large percentage of the entry-level jobs in the nation.
Long and the short of the matter is that the OP is just another boilerplate hit piece screed against Wal-Mart, by another in a long line of lolberal union hater goofs.
Wal-Mart Relies On Taxpayers To Subsidize Low Wages
.....Wal-Marts wages are so low that many of its workers must rely on food stamps and other government aid programs, costing taxpayers as much as $900,0000 at just one Wal-Mart Supercenter in Wisconsin
Wal-Mart has long been criticized for its pattern of offering wages that force its workers to take advantage of public-assistance programs. This recent study argues that the criticism is warranted. The company had more workers enrolled in the states public health care program in last years last quarter than any other employer.
Nevertheless, Wal-Mart stands by its current wage levels and the opportunities it provides for its workers.
Wal-Mart Relies On Taxpayers To Subsidize Low Wages - Business Insider
Wal-Mart Relies On Taxpayers To Subsidize Low Wages
Walmart does not rely on anyone to subsidize their employees. The lazy employees who dont want to get a second job rely on taxpayers to subsidize their income.
.....Wal-Marts wages are so low that many of its workers must rely on food stamps and other government aid programs, costing taxpayers as much as $900,0000 at just one Wal-Mart Supercenter in Wisconsin
just like everyone else in this country, not just low rent walmart workers.
Wal-Mart has long been criticized for its pattern of offering wages that force its workers to take advantage of public-assistance programs. This recent study argues that the criticism is warranted. The company had more workers enrolled in the states public health care program in last years last quarter than any other employer.
No one forces them to take pubic assistance. They do that all on their own.
Nevertheless, Wal-Mart stands by its current wage levels and the opportunities it provides for its workers.
walmart is paying government standard minimum wages. If anyone has a problem with that they can take it up with the government. Or better still, dont work for walmart and find a different job.
Wal-Mart Relies On Taxpayers To Subsidize Low Wages - Business Insider
How can anyone "create poor single mothers"?
How can unions "ship" jobs overseas?
And you have no clue on how corporate taxes work.
Wal-Mart Relies On Taxpayers To Subsidize Low Wages
Walmart does not rely on anyone to subsidize their employees. The lazy employees who dont want to get a second job rely on taxpayers to subsidize their income.
just like everyone else in this country, not just low rent walmart workers.
No one forces them to take pubic assistance. They do that all on their own.
walmart is paying government standard minimum wages. If anyone has a problem with that they can take it up with the government. Or better still, dont work for walmart and find a different job.Nevertheless, Wal-Mart stands by its current wage levels and the opportunities it provides for its workers.
Wal-Mart Relies On Taxpayers To Subsidize Low Wages - Business Insider
idiot.
Not much question who the idiots are. It is the people who believe the contemptibly beyond-ignorant white trash nutball blather in blue above.
Not much question who the idiots are. It is the people who believe the contemptibly beyond-ignorant white trash nutball blather in blue above.
are you too slow to say why it is blather?? You call names like a child indicating you have no brains at all. You're a Nazi like ego manic child who feels in your heart that when "you" call names it somehow has meaning. Please grow up.
How does it feel to bumble onto something real, Ed?
Sure, Eddie.
Nutball hero Ronald Reagan's claim to fame is the "new economy".
Sure, Eddie.
Nutball hero Ronald Reagan's claim to fame is the "new economy".
Too stupid as usual, he was a politician who had to make many compromises with liberals so in the end produced an economy that was mixed as it always had been between capitalism and socialism. Nevertheless, he is considered a great great beloved hero of ours because he ended the cold war, ended the threat of nuclear anniliation, freed 2 billion people, introduced capitalism to billions, and spoke the truth about economics although as a mere president was not able to implement much capitalism on his watch.
It would have been a lot easier if Reagan had not been so worried about world peace, winning the cold war, nuclear annihilation, freeing 2 billion people, introducing capitalism to Russia and china, saving 30 million from starvation, etc. and of course if Democrats believed in less welfare rather than more.Is that how they teach you nutballs to explain Reagan's failure to control spending?