Walmart/Corporations Kill Off "Mom and Pop Shops"...

[blastoff]

The Walmart 'problem' for many on the left is that they're an inordinately successful - profitable - corporate entity.

 

[mal]

The Walmart 'problem' for many on the left is that they're an inordinately successful - profitable - corporate entity.

No sir!... And they don't pay ANY Employees a "Living Wage" nor do they create endless jobs and opportunities for people and other business...

Lord knows the Pads around the Walmarts in Denver aren't full with other Businesses.

Let me Digressz... A Living Wage... So am I to believe that it's Brilliant Social Engineering to pay a 15-year-old @ McDonald's who is still in High School enough so he can afford his own Home and support a Family?...

Liberals are Mentally Retarded.



peace...

 

[candycorn]

Anyway, lets either accept that we're subsidizing big business or ask them to change; in either case stop blaming the workers who are caught in the middle.

Who's blaming the workers?

A lot of conservative posters here who claim you can "make it" to the middle class if you just "work hard and stick with it."

I only see the left say that about the right. But that's par for the course. "We" hurt them by electing idiots that pass legislation that makes full time employees expensive with taxes and regulation. An employee is only worth so much, when costs exceed the benefit you make cuts. Walmart isn't the problem, big government is.

See point #1. "Big Government" subsidizes Wal Mart's (and other businesses) pathetic wages. These corporations (unlike Mom and Pop shops) have the option to pay a lesser dividend to investors and return that money to the employees. Currently WMT pays $0.48 per share or about a billion dollars every quarter to people who do not work for the company and contribute nothing. What if, just one of those 4 annual quarters, they cut the dividend by a quarter and paid what is still a nice dividend of $0.36 per share (with the understanding that 90 days later, it would return to $0.48) and took that $250,000,000 and applied it to hourly employee's paychecks

Would it raise prices? No.
Would it hurt their competitiveness? No.
Would it cause a massive sell off? No.
Would it give the workers who are the backbone of any company a nice incentive to keep their jobs and the slightest of pay bumps? Yes.

Google says 1.4 million people work there. It's a pretty safe bet that about 1 million are store workers and about 400,000 are likely management or higher. Just a $25 bonus...just to let the employees know that they care or at least pretend they do with some credibility.

You say workers are only worth so much. This is true. The company could actually pay them what they are worth from time to time.

 

[dr.d]

Yup...another example of BIG MONEY as VERY LOUD SPEECH...drowning out the voices of average Americans...
Nice going, conservatives on SCOTUS


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[KevinWestern]

Do you guys know that in 2012, Sam Rawlings Walton (the grandson of Walmart's founder) donated $300,000 to Barack Obama's super PAC?

If the owners of this company are against workers rights, have no concern beyond the bottom line, etc, then why would he donate such a large sum to a candidate who represents the party that pushes for minimum wage hikes, more worker benefits, etc?

This might be a difficult one for some people to explain..

 

[asterism]

Everything youvisaid was correct except that it is corporate welfare insofar as taking advantage of the rules. . Nearly every employer does the same thing. Which is why I cant understand the anger at Wal-Mart. Chik fil A does the same thing.

But it's not taking advantage of the rules. If I paid an assistant $30,000 per year to answer phones that would be a fair wage for the job. With one child as a single mom she'd be at 200% of the poverty level. With five children she's below the poverty level, so why not help her get what the legislature says she deserves? Her extra children don't add value to my business so why should I pay her more? Shouldn't I pay according to the market wages and the value they add to the company?

I get the point that is being made, that in some way paying lower wages but helping people get benefits that allow them to live a lifestyle beyond the capabilities of those wages (even if it's very basic support for a family) could keep wages low but we have not seen that happen. Wal Mart doesn't decrease average worker wages in an area, it actually raises them. Mom & Pop stores displaced by Wal Mart didn't pay higher wages and certainly didn't have professionals helping with benefit applications.

It isn't what I meant but I see what you're saying.

I don't decry Wal Mart doing what it does because every business from Amazon to Zappos does the same thing with very few exceptions.

What gives me pause is that some conservatives look at those who are on public assistance and assumes that these people are lazy or unmotivated or ____________ and wish to eliminate and/or reduce the programs in place. All the while, a large segment of those on PA are working but are under-employed due to the corporations wishing to take care of shareholders before employees.

WMT pays $0.48 per share per quarter to shareholders; it has something like 3 billion shares outstanding. It's a blue chip so there is a lot of institutional interest involved owning about a billion of those shares. Paying a stout $0.45 per share would allow WMT to give employees a raise without seriously hurting their standing with Wall Street. TGT pays less; I think Sears pays $0.00.

Anyway, lets either accept that we're subsidizing big business or ask them to change; in either case stop blaming the workers who are caught in the middle.

I have no idea what impact a $0.03 per share permanent increase in costs would be, but it would most definitely be "serious." A permanent 6% reduction in dividends is significant.

I still don't see how calling low income subsidies for certain workers is "subsidizing." The company is paying market rates for services and labor. It's the lifestyle details of some of those workers that garner the subsidies, not any company policies.

 

[asterism]

Anyway, lets either accept that we're subsidizing big business or ask them to change; in either case stop blaming the workers who are caught in the middle.

Who's blaming the workers?

A lot of conservative posters here who claim you can "make it" to the middle class if you just "work hard and stick with it."

I only see the left say that about the right. But that's par for the course. "We" hurt them by electing idiots that pass legislation that makes full time employees expensive with taxes and regulation. An employee is only worth so much, when costs exceed the benefit you make cuts. Walmart isn't the problem, big government is.

See point #1. "Big Government" subsidizes Wal Mart's (and other businesses) pathetic wages. These corporations (unlike Mom and Pop shops) have the option to pay a lesser dividend to investors and return that money to the employees. Currently WMT pays $0.48 per share or about a billion dollars every quarter to people who do not work for the company and contribute nothing. What if, just one of those 4 annual quarters, they cut the dividend by a quarter and paid what is still a nice dividend of $0.36 per share (with the understanding that 90 days later, it would return to $0.48) and took that $250,000,000 and applied it to hourly employee's paychecks

Would it raise prices? No.
Would it hurt their competitiveness? No.
Would it cause a massive sell off? No.
Would it give the workers who are the backbone of any company a nice incentive to keep their jobs and the slightest of pay bumps? Yes.

Google says 1.4 million people work there. It's a pretty safe bet that about 1 million are store workers and about 400,000 are likely management or higher. Just a $25 bonus...just to let the employees know that they care or at least pretend they do with some credibility.

You say workers are only worth so much. This is true. The company could actually pay them what they are worth from time to time.

You don't think an immediate 25% cut in the dividend wouldn't cause a selloff?

That's some strange logic.

 

[candycorn]

Who's blaming the workers?

A lot of conservative posters here who claim you can "make it" to the middle class if you just "work hard and stick with it."

I only see the left say that about the right. But that's par for the course. "We" hurt them by electing idiots that pass legislation that makes full time employees expensive with taxes and regulation. An employee is only worth so much, when costs exceed the benefit you make cuts. Walmart isn't the problem, big government is.

See point #1. "Big Government" subsidizes Wal Mart's (and other businesses) pathetic wages. These corporations (unlike Mom and Pop shops) have the option to pay a lesser dividend to investors and return that money to the employees. Currently WMT pays $0.48 per share or about a billion dollars every quarter to people who do not work for the company and contribute nothing. What if, just one of those 4 annual quarters, they cut the dividend by a quarter and paid what is still a nice dividend of $0.36 per share (with the understanding that 90 days later, it would return to $0.48) and took that $250,000,000 and applied it to hourly employee's paychecks

Would it raise prices? No.
Would it hurt their competitiveness? No.
Would it cause a massive sell off? No.
Would it give the workers who are the backbone of any company a nice incentive to keep their jobs and the slightest of pay bumps? Yes.

Google says 1.4 million people work there. It's a pretty safe bet that about 1 million are store workers and about 400,000 are likely management or higher. Just a $25 bonus...just to let the employees know that they care or at least pretend they do with some credibility.

You say workers are only worth so much. This is true. The company could actually pay them what they are worth from time to time.

You don't think an immediate 25% cut in the dividend wouldn't cause a selloff?

That's some strange logic.

Not if you announce it's a once-yearly thing and why you are doing it; Wal Mart is a growth stock and $0.48 per share is not a huge dividend to start with. I own shares that pay almost a dollar per quarter and have no where near the cap that WMT has.

WMT has gone up over $20 per share in the last 4-5 years.

I was wrong now that I look at the table; they have 2.2 million employees according to Yahoo Finance; not 1.4 as according to Google.

A third is in the hands of mutual funds and pension funds anyway; it isn't as if they are going to sell off WMT and start buying under performers because they like the retail sector.

 

[g5000]

So why the Hatred?...

Only thing I can Conclude is that they are as Successful as they are and it's not because of Unions and that simply Confuses, Frustrates and Angers Liberals.

What say you? :

It's a tough one.

What's the draw of Walmart? Why are they so successful? A few reasons, but largely because of the low prices. And is that a bad thing? Usually not, however I think it can be in some cases. For example:

People might think it's attractive to pay $1 for a bag of Jay's Chips vs $2, however if they knew that the dollar savings came at the price of the Jay's Chips factory deciding to move to China (and laying off 10,000 American employees), maybe they'd think twice. But most consumers don't think this way, and have no consideration for the broader implications of paying $1 vs $2 beyond how it will impact their own wallet.

This is why Walmart can be bad.

You know what I mean?

Jay's Chips factory should move to China. Or Mexico. We are not supposed to be a nation of chip friers and lava lamp assembly line workers. We need to educate our workforce for the high paying jobs of tomorrow, not the low tech, low skilled jobs of yesterday. Let someone else do the easy manufacturing stuff for low pay.

The laid off American Jay's Chips workers can go to work at WalMart.

 

[candycorn]

But it's not taking advantage of the rules. If I paid an assistant $30,000 per year to answer phones that would be a fair wage for the job. With one child as a single mom she'd be at 200% of the poverty level. With five children she's below the poverty level, so why not help her get what the legislature says she deserves? Her extra children don't add value to my business so why should I pay her more? Shouldn't I pay according to the market wages and the value they add to the company?

I get the point that is being made, that in some way paying lower wages but helping people get benefits that allow them to live a lifestyle beyond the capabilities of those wages (even if it's very basic support for a family) could keep wages low but we have not seen that happen. Wal Mart doesn't decrease average worker wages in an area, it actually raises them. Mom & Pop stores displaced by Wal Mart didn't pay higher wages and certainly didn't have professionals helping with benefit applications.

It isn't what I meant but I see what you're saying.

I don't decry Wal Mart doing what it does because every business from Amazon to Zappos does the same thing with very few exceptions.

What gives me pause is that some conservatives look at those who are on public assistance and assumes that these people are lazy or unmotivated or ____________ and wish to eliminate and/or reduce the programs in place. All the while, a large segment of those on PA are working but are under-employed due to the corporations wishing to take care of shareholders before employees.

WMT pays $0.48 per share per quarter to shareholders; it has something like 3 billion shares outstanding. It's a blue chip so there is a lot of institutional interest involved owning about a billion of those shares. Paying a stout $0.45 per share would allow WMT to give employees a raise without seriously hurting their standing with Wall Street. TGT pays less; I think Sears pays $0.00.

Anyway, lets either accept that we're subsidizing big business or ask them to change; in either case stop blaming the workers who are caught in the middle.

I have no idea what impact a $0.03 per share permanent increase in costs would be, but it would most definitely be "serious." A permanent 6% reduction in dividends is significant.

I still don't see how calling low income subsidies for certain workers is "subsidizing." The company is paying market rates for services and labor. It's the lifestyle details of some of those workers that garner the subsidies, not any company policies.

Six percent of 48 cents is what, 3 cents? WMT is a growth stock that is 1/3 owned by mutuals and pensions; unlikely they will dump WMT and buy stocks that both pay less in dividend AND have under performed.

You may be right about the "lifestyles" of the workers but the degrees of separation between need/want narrows. Back home, they announced the end to employees getting paper checks for payroll the other day. Now they have to have direct deposit. And, unless you want to run to the ATM to check your balance every day, you need some pathway to the Internet to check your paycheck and your timesheet. So how do you get there? Cell phones are the least expensive way to access the 'net unless you want to pay for both phone service AND a line in the house;

True; nobody needs a camera phone.

As for other lifestyles such as having kids or a husband...get real.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And of course Walmart doesn't pay well... At least these are some of the things that Liberals say about Wamart... Basically because they Refuse to give in to the Unions... Seriously.

It's funny, Teacher's Pensions are Invested in Walmart, but I Digress.

Let's talk about "Mom and Pop Shops"...

So what Future or Opportunity does someone at the little Bakery have if they are working the Counter for the Owners?...

Do they get Minimum Wage?... Almost Definitely.

Do they get Health Insurance?... Usually Never.

Retirement?...

Walmart offers all of those things and Opportunity for those who are Motivated and want to Work Hard.

They also Generate other Jobs outside of a greeter or checker.

Truck drivers for Walmart make good money.

Construction jobs?... Oh yeah.

How about all of the Businesses that open around Walmart to get some of their MASSIVE Traffic...

Specialty "Mom and Pop Shops"?... Yep.

So why the Hatred?...

Only thing I can Conclude is that they are as Successful as they are and it's not because of Unions and that simply Confuses, Frustrates and Angers Liberals.

What say you?



peace...

As a liberal, it doesn't anger me (Wal Mart). What does make me pause is that Wal Mart receives billions in corporate welfare in the form of taxpayers picking up large chunks of the costs of living for part time as well as full time Wal Mart employees.

VIDEO: What if Wal-Mart paid its employees more? | Marketplace.org

The "pause" comes from the right wing's hatred of all assistance programs for individuals but a seemingly endless supply of sympathy for corporations (like Wal Mart but in no way ONLY Wal Mart) who receive billions from the exact same sources and are able to keep wages very low since Uncle Sam pays the difference.

How utterly absurd.... most of the jobs you speak of are low-skill jobs. There's only so much that businesses are willing to pay. The problem is that there are so many low-skill/no-skill workers... that's the problem.

But liberals keep creating generation after generation of illiterates barely able to spell their own names, then complain that he problem is they don't make $20/hr.

As usual, liberals always see the symptom as the problem...

 

[candycorn]

And of course Walmart doesn't pay well... At least these are some of the things that Liberals say about Wamart... Basically because they Refuse to give in to the Unions... Seriously.

It's funny, Teacher's Pensions are Invested in Walmart, but I Digress.

Let's talk about "Mom and Pop Shops"...

So what Future or Opportunity does someone at the little Bakery have if they are working the Counter for the Owners?...

Do they get Minimum Wage?... Almost Definitely.

Do they get Health Insurance?... Usually Never.

Retirement?...

Walmart offers all of those things and Opportunity for those who are Motivated and want to Work Hard.

They also Generate other Jobs outside of a greeter or checker.

Truck drivers for Walmart make good money.

Construction jobs?... Oh yeah.

How about all of the Businesses that open around Walmart to get some of their MASSIVE Traffic...

Specialty "Mom and Pop Shops"?... Yep.

So why the Hatred?...

Only thing I can Conclude is that they are as Successful as they are and it's not because of Unions and that simply Confuses, Frustrates and Angers Liberals.

What say you?



peace...

As a liberal, it doesn't anger me (Wal Mart). What does make me pause is that Wal Mart receives billions in corporate welfare in the form of taxpayers picking up large chunks of the costs of living for part time as well as full time Wal Mart employees.

VIDEO: What if Wal-Mart paid its employees more? | Marketplace.org

The "pause" comes from the right wing's hatred of all assistance programs for individuals but a seemingly endless supply of sympathy for corporations (like Wal Mart but in no way ONLY Wal Mart) who receive billions from the exact same sources and are able to keep wages very low since Uncle Sam pays the difference.

How utterly absurd.... most of the jobs you speak of are low-skill jobs. There's only so much that businesses are willing to pay. The problem is that there are so many low-skill/no-skill workers... that's the problem.

But liberals keep creating generation after generation of illiterates barely able to spell their own names, then complain that he problem is they don't make $20/hr.

As usual, liberals always see the symptom as the problem...

Fact:

30 States have GOP governors.

Fact:

30 States (presumably) have GOP appointed heads to their State Boards of Education

Fact:

The SBOE's have the predominant verdict on what type of education the kids in their State receive

Fact:

Blaming Liberals is what lazy rednecks do when they can't admit that conservatism is a failure.

 

[mal]

And of course Walmart doesn't pay well... At least these are some of the things that Liberals say about Wamart... Basically because they Refuse to give in to the Unions... Seriously.

It's funny, Teacher's Pensions are Invested in Walmart, but I Digress.

Let's talk about "Mom and Pop Shops"...

So what Future or Opportunity does someone at the little Bakery have if they are working the Counter for the Owners?...

Do they get Minimum Wage?... Almost Definitely.

Do they get Health Insurance?... Usually Never.

Retirement?...

Walmart offers all of those things and Opportunity for those who are Motivated and want to Work Hard.

They also Generate other Jobs outside of a greeter or checker.

Truck drivers for Walmart make good money.

Construction jobs?... Oh yeah.

How about all of the Businesses that open around Walmart to get some of their MASSIVE Traffic...

Specialty "Mom and Pop Shops"?... Yep.

So why the Hatred?...

Only thing I can Conclude is that they are as Successful as they are and it's not because of Unions and that simply Confuses, Frustrates and Angers Liberals.

What say you?



peace...

As a liberal, it doesn't anger me (Wal Mart). What does make me pause is that Wal Mart receives billions in corporate welfare in the form of taxpayers picking up large chunks of the costs of living for part time as well as full time Wal Mart employees.

VIDEO: What if Wal-Mart paid its employees more? | Marketplace.org

The "pause" comes from the right wing's hatred of all assistance programs for individuals but a seemingly endless supply of sympathy for corporations (like Wal Mart but in no way ONLY Wal Mart) who receive billions from the exact same sources and are able to keep wages very low since Uncle Sam pays the difference.

How utterly absurd.... most of the jobs you speak of are low-skill jobs. There's only so much that businesses are willing to pay. The problem is that there are so many low-skill/no-skill workers... that's the problem.

But liberals keep creating generation after generation of illiterates barely able to spell their own names, then complain that he problem is they don't make $20/hr.

As usual, liberals always see the symptom as the problem...

I think I asked Seabiscuit how much Walmart paid in Taxes last year... She didn't answer did she?...

Walmart doesn't receive "Corporate Welfare"... Walmart pays Taxes out the Ass...



peace...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

As a liberal, it doesn't anger me (Wal Mart). What does make me pause is that Wal Mart receives billions in corporate welfare in the form of taxpayers picking up large chunks of the costs of living for part time as well as full time Wal Mart employees.

VIDEO: What if Wal-Mart paid its employees more? | Marketplace.org

The "pause" comes from the right wing's hatred of all assistance programs for individuals but a seemingly endless supply of sympathy for corporations (like Wal Mart but in no way ONLY Wal Mart) who receive billions from the exact same sources and are able to keep wages very low since Uncle Sam pays the difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAcaeLmybCY

How utterly absurd.... most of the jobs you speak of are low-skill jobs. There's only so much that businesses are willing to pay. The problem is that there are so many low-skill/no-skill workers... that's the problem.

But liberals keep creating generation after generation of illiterates barely able to spell their own names, then complain that he problem is they don't make $20/hr.

As usual, liberals always see the symptom as the problem...

Fact:

30 States have GOP governors.

Fact:

30 States (presumably) have GOP appointed heads to their State Boards of Education

Fact:

The SBOE's have the predominant verdict on what type of education the kids in their State receive

Fact:

Blaming Liberals is what lazy rednecks do when they can't admit that conservatism is a failure.

Hit a nerve I see... if your contention is that education in the U.S. leans conservative, you're either full-of-shit or crazy.

So, which is it?

 

[Moonglow]

How utterly absurd.... most of the jobs you speak of are low-skill jobs. There's only so much that businesses are willing to pay. The problem is that there are so many low-skill/no-skill workers... that's the problem.

But liberals keep creating generation after generation of illiterates barely able to spell their own names, then complain that he problem is they don't make $20/hr.

As usual, liberals always see the symptom as the problem...

Fact:

30 States have GOP governors.

Fact:

30 States (presumably) have GOP appointed heads to their State Boards of Education

Fact:

The SBOE's have the predominant verdict on what type of education the kids in their State receive

Fact:

Blaming Liberals is what lazy rednecks do when they can't admit that conservatism is a failure.

Hit a nerve I see... if your contention is that education in the U.S. leans conservative, you're either full-of-shit or crazy.

So, which is it?

We can certainly see how you use language as a detriment of intelligence...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

As a liberal, it doesn't anger me (Wal Mart). What does make me pause is that Wal Mart receives billions in corporate welfare in the form of taxpayers picking up large chunks of the costs of living for part time as well as full time Wal Mart employees.

VIDEO: What if Wal-Mart paid its employees more? | Marketplace.org

The "pause" comes from the right wing's hatred of all assistance programs for individuals but a seemingly endless supply of sympathy for corporations (like Wal Mart but in no way ONLY Wal Mart) who receive billions from the exact same sources and are able to keep wages very low since Uncle Sam pays the difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAcaeLmybCY

How utterly absurd.... most of the jobs you speak of are low-skill jobs. There's only so much that businesses are willing to pay. The problem is that there are so many low-skill/no-skill workers... that's the problem.

But liberals keep creating generation after generation of illiterates barely able to spell their own names, then complain that he problem is they don't make $20/hr.

As usual, liberals always see the symptom as the problem...

I think I asked Seabiscuit how much Walmart paid in Taxes last year... She didn't answer did she?...

Walmart doesn't receive "Corporate Welfare"... Walmart pays Taxes out the Ass...



peace...

It's one of their liberal buzzwords they whip out when they run out of gas... you must understand, in their minds, they're entitled to 100% of what you have, so anything they don't take is a gift.

They're nuts.. completely nuts.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Fact:

30 States have GOP governors.

Fact:

30 States (presumably) have GOP appointed heads to their State Boards of Education

Fact:

The SBOE's have the predominant verdict on what type of education the kids in their State receive

Fact:

Blaming Liberals is what lazy rednecks do when they can't admit that conservatism is a failure.

Hit a nerve I see... if your contention is that education in the U.S. leans conservative, you're either full-of-shit or crazy.

So, which is it?

We can certainly see how you use language as a detriment of intelligence...

Have you ever pulled together even one cogent thought? You seem like you're drunk 24/7.

 

[candycorn]

How utterly absurd.... most of the jobs you speak of are low-skill jobs. There's only so much that businesses are willing to pay. The problem is that there are so many low-skill/no-skill workers... that's the problem.

But liberals keep creating generation after generation of illiterates barely able to spell their own names, then complain that he problem is they don't make $20/hr.

As usual, liberals always see the symptom as the problem...

Fact:

30 States have GOP governors.

Fact:

30 States (presumably) have GOP appointed heads to their State Boards of Education

Fact:

The SBOE's have the predominant verdict on what type of education the kids in their State receive

Fact:

Blaming Liberals is what lazy rednecks do when they can't admit that conservatism is a failure.

Hit a nerve I see... if your contention is that education in the U.S. leans conservative, you're either full-of-shit or crazy.

So, which is it?

Education and being educated are what transforms persons like yourself into liberals....however the people deciding our educational standards are appointed by GOPV governors 3 out of 5 times. That educated persons are predominantly politically liberal is simply human nature

 

[asterism]

It isn't what I meant but I see what you're saying.

I don't decry Wal Mart doing what it does because every business from Amazon to Zappos does the same thing with very few exceptions.

What gives me pause is that some conservatives look at those who are on public assistance and assumes that these people are lazy or unmotivated or ____________ and wish to eliminate and/or reduce the programs in place. All the while, a large segment of those on PA are working but are under-employed due to the corporations wishing to take care of shareholders before employees.

WMT pays $0.48 per share per quarter to shareholders; it has something like 3 billion shares outstanding. It's a blue chip so there is a lot of institutional interest involved owning about a billion of those shares. Paying a stout $0.45 per share would allow WMT to give employees a raise without seriously hurting their standing with Wall Street. TGT pays less; I think Sears pays $0.00.

Anyway, lets either accept that we're subsidizing big business or ask them to change; in either case stop blaming the workers who are caught in the middle.

I have no idea what impact a $0.03 per share permanent increase in costs would be, but it would most definitely be "serious." A permanent 6% reduction in dividends is significant.

I still don't see how calling low income subsidies for certain workers is "subsidizing." The company is paying market rates for services and labor. It's the lifestyle details of some of those workers that garner the subsidies, not any company policies.

Six percent of 48 cents is what, 3 cents? WMT is a growth stock that is 1/3 owned by mutuals and pensions; unlikely they will dump WMT and buy stocks that both pay less in dividend AND have under performed.

You may be right about the "lifestyles" of the workers but the degrees of separation between need/want narrows. Back home, they announced the end to employees getting paper checks for payroll the other day. Now they have to have direct deposit. And, unless you want to run to the ATM to check your balance every day, you need some pathway to the Internet to check your paycheck and your timesheet. So how do you get there? Cell phones are the least expensive way to access the 'net unless you want to pay for both phone service AND a line in the house;

True; nobody needs a camera phone.

As for other lifestyles such as having kids or a husband...get real.

I am getting real. Compensation for a job is based on the market rates for that job function not the size of a family the employee has to support.

 

[Iceweasel]

Education and being educated are what transforms persons like yourself into liberals....however the people deciding our educational standards are appointed by GOPV governors 3 out of 5 times. That educated persons are predominantly politically liberal is simply human nature

Governors don't set educational standards, that mostly comes from DC. It should be up to the states though. Public ed is overwhelmingly liberal and teach with that mindset. If you think a GOP governor has a bigger impact on the youths then you really aren't playing with a full deck. Brainwashing works and is difficult to overcome, that's human nature.