Walmart on Welfare: We support their employees so they don't have to.

[Progressivedude2014]

The journalist who wrote the article consulted with renowned economists when writing his article and this article come from Fortune magazine not some left wing liberal paper so keep that in mind as well.

Idiots who work for Fortune and consult with idiot economists are still idiots.
He wants WalMart to give low-skill employees another $15.4 billion in raises, when their net income was $16.5 billion.
He's an idiot.

A lot of economists and media people hate profit, so that math makes perfect sense to them.

Idiot economist who have no idea what they are talking about right? Forget their years of education and experience and credentials in their field, you are the expert right? You must be.

You really are a brainwashed little tool. Education, Experience and Credentials from Leftwing institutions mean that they are highly adept at promoting progressive agendas.

It's the tyranny of credentialism. SOmeone with a PhD is suddenly an expert on everything. Feh.

More like the tyranny of rednecks who don't want to listen or consider those with knowledge on the matter, just bathe in their own ignorance.

Ironic post is ironic.
Youv'e already demonstrated little knowledge. What was your point again?

Your too funny, you obviously have not read the 20 replies I have already left and all the educated comments I have already left, please read next time.

 

[The Rabbi]

This guy who works for this company is not completely wrong in his discussion. There is nothing wrong with unions, I am very pro union. They have done a lot of good for this country and workers do deserve a say in their work conditions and wages and hours. Decisions such as how to increase business and manage a business are the responsibility of management but again workers do have a say.

Please tell us what good unions have done in the last 40 years. Please tell us why someone who is guaranteed wages in exchange for labor and thus risks nothing should have a say in how a business is managed. Please tell us why a worker should have greater insight into expanding business rather than someone whose job it is to do exactly that.

 

[The Rabbi]

The journalist who wrote the article consulted with renowned economists when writing his article and this article come from Fortune magazine not some left wing liberal paper so keep that in mind as well.

Idiots who work for Fortune and consult with idiot economists are still idiots.
He wants WalMart to give low-skill employees another $15.4 billion in raises, when their net income was $16.5 billion.
He's an idiot.

A lot of economists and media people hate profit, so that math makes perfect sense to them.

Idiot economist who have no idea what they are talking about right? Forget their years of education and experience and credentials in their field, you are the expert right? You must be.

You really are a brainwashed little tool. Education, Experience and Credentials from Leftwing institutions mean that they are highly adept at promoting progressive agendas.

It's the tyranny of credentialism. SOmeone with a PhD is suddenly an expert on everything. Feh.

More like the tyranny of rednecks who don't want to listen or consider those with knowledge on the matter, just bathe in their own ignorance.

Ironic post is ironic.
Youv'e already demonstrated little knowledge. What was your point again?

Your too funny, you obviously have not read the 20 replies I have already left and all the educated comments I have already left, please read next time.

I can look back at the discussion in one post. I dont see anything resembling an educated comment on your side.

 

[Progressivedude2014]

Unions have done a lot of good for this country and unions are what built the backbone of manufacturing in this country, it is only in the last 30 years since Reagan took office that unions have declined and gained a bad reputation. Where you work in what conditions you work and the hours you work you do have a say in, you as an employee very much have a say in those matters. Labor laws back up my claims in hours worked overtime sick pay working conditions etc.. Unions played a big part in achieving these victories for the working class and need to have much more of a role in our current society. Look at income inequality in this country and tell me there are no problems economically.

 

[Progressivedude2014]

Oh yeah? Nothing huh? Which posts were those? The ones where I cited articles and reports and talked about different forms of governments or the ones where I talked about the importation of goods and economic and military security, I have made plenty of intelligent comments and backed them up with reports and articles. You really are full of it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Unions have done a lot of good for this country and unions are what built the backbone of manufacturing in this country, it is only in the last 30 years since Reagan took office that unions have declined and gained a bad reputation. Where you work in what conditions you work and the hours you work you do have a say in, you as an employee very much have a say in those matters. Labor laws back up my claims in hours worked overtime sick pay working conditions etc.. Unions played a big part in achieving these victories for the working class and need to have much more of a role in our current society. Look at income inequality in this country and tell me there are no problems economically.

You are mouthing platitudes without providing proof or specifics.
Unions have been declining sice the 1950s, well before Reagan.

Labor laws are passed by COngress, not unions.
Unions have decimated their own workforces. There is not an industry with strong unions that has not been in deep decline for years: mining, autos, railroads, steel, etc. OTOH, those industries with no union membership do fine, computers,banking.
So back up what you say with specifics or admit you're throwing crap out there.

 

[Progressivedude2014]

Not really and I don't appreciate you singling me out to attack my comments. Why dont you simply comment on the subject matter and my replies regarding the subject. I have been writing on this posts for almost four hours now have over 30 replies and am exhausted. Labor laws have a lot to do with unions and were hard won victories for the working class. Labor laws are passed by Congress you don't say? Any law enacted is passed by Congress, kind of a moronic thing to say, the unions played a significant part in applying pressure to Congress to get those laws enacted but I'm tired and you can shut your face and stop attacking me, talk about the subject matter instead.

 

[petro]

This guy who works for this company is not completely wrong in his discussion. There is nothing wrong with unions, I am very pro union. They have done a lot of good for this country and workers do deserve a say in their work conditions and wages and hours. Decisions such as how to increase business and manage a business are the responsibility of management but again workers do have a say.

Please tell us what good unions have done in the last 40 years. Please tell us why someone who is guaranteed wages in exchange for labor and thus risks nothing should have a say in how a business is managed. Please tell us why a worker should have greater insight into expanding business rather than someone whose job it is to do exactly that.

From what I have observed in Residential construction, of which in my neck of the woods is largely non-union, production is higher as work ethic gets rewarded rather than seniority. Those in unions who get laid off are put on a waiting list based upon seniority so more unproductive workers may get called back first simply because of time at the company. This leads to longer stints on Unemployment. Meanwhile, from my skill set and work ethic I am free to move to another job while my unionized counterparts still sit on Unemployment even when times are good. Despite the housing crises I only spent 3 months of my entire life on Unemployment. That was 4 years ago and I have been working as much as I care to since then. I will take that freedom to move over Unionization any day.

 

[Andylusion]

You don't care that is great, you are lazy. I do not support companies that contribute to economic hardships Americans face, companies like Walmart can afford to pay more, employ more, give their workers more hours and make plenty of profit which it seems to me is that the Walton Family's 150 billion dollar combined worth is what you are really concerned about. Here is a link to an article by Fortune which i posted earlier which explains why Walmart can afford to pay its workers more.

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise.
Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50 raise - Fortune

Ugh.... gah. Unbelievable. Are you really saying that if Walmart didn't exist, and MILLIONS OF PEOPLE DID NOT HAVE A JOB.... and that would be better?

Not to mention the millions of other people who have jobs outside of Walmart, because of Walmart. Contractors, Contracted IT support. Contracted Building Maintenance. Security, and other services Walmart purchases.

But no, in leftard land, all those people unemployed, would be better because Walmart contributes to the hardship of Americans. If they were unemployed and starving, at least Walmart would not be causing economic hardship.

I have a friend, who worked at Walmart for nearly 10 years. She decided to go to college and get an engineering degree. She used Walmart's tuition scholarship program, to pay for a chunk of that degree. You think she could have gotten that at "Bubba's Shop" mom&pop shop? Walmart is the highest paying job in that class. Mom&pop shops.... pay nothing. I've worked there. Done that. Walmart pays much better than any other similar store.

Back to your article.

These reporters.... they never know jack squat about what they are writing on.

He starts talking about the massive dividend payments. Do you actually know what the dividend payment is for Walmart stock? Of course not. Yet it's extremely easy to look up.
Walmart raises annual dividend to 1.92 per share representing the 41st consecutive year of dividend increases

(drum roll) 48¢.... per quarter. 48¢. That's it. GOOD HEAVENS!! ALMOST HALF OF A DOLLAR!

That's for a share of Walmart, which is currently trading at $75.50. For $75 you too can get that absolutely obscene dividend payment of 48¢.

He talks about ROE, and claims that it means investors think that the company should pay employees more. What crap. Hint.... the person typing to you right now.... is a share holder of Walmart. The ROE doesn't mean anything he implies. ROE is a measure of how successful the company is, at turning the money it got from selling shares, into growth. Nothing more.

He then looks at the average ROE... and claims that Walmart is higher than the average, suggesting it's too high.

Stupid. Investors are not looking for some 'average ROE'. Investors look for an ROE that is comparable to the success of the company. The ROE of Dollar General, isn't going to be a fraction of Walmart, because Dollar General is 1/10th the size of Walmart.

The idea that investors are going to accept Dollar General ROE, on Walmart stock, when Walmart is worth more than 11 Dollar General companies together.... is absolute stupidity. That's what anyone who reads this article and agrees with it, is... plain stupid.

Lastly, he moronically says that Walmart paid it's executives $66 Million. Bull crap. Executives are paid in 'stock options'. Do you people not understand how that works? That $66 Million isn't in cash. Walmart did not have $66 Million in dollars, that it wrote out checks to it's executives with.

The executives got STOCK.... most of which they are not allowed to sell. The value of that stock, is millions of dollars. But they didn't get dollars... they got stock. You can't collect that $60 million in stock and give it to the employees. Why? Because it's not money, and why would you as an hourly employee want a stock you can't sell instead of cash?

That's the point.

Bottom line... this article is absolute trash. Why you people on the left can't think through this stuff and grasp it's not true, is beyond me. Just a bunch of lemmings...

"well he said they could increase wages by 50%, and since I believe that already, it must be true, and I cite this trash as fact"

 

[Andylusion]

It is not 400 posts it is one post, this post! You can't read the replies and see what was said? Why would I waste my time answering a question I already answered? Stop trolling and say something intelligent, read the entire post and the information provided before opening your mouth.

No, you did not answer my question in this post.
Try again?

Why don't you tell me specifically with points and highlights how I did not answer this question about the costs of welfare and Walmarts policies in previous replies. Come back with a detailed, articulated answer and I will address your points.

I don't care if you answered my question somewhere else in the thread.
If you want to discuss my post further, answer my question again.
Here it is. Highlighted even.
Those poor underpaid workers should quit and stay home.
If they did, would the government spend more or less on foodstamps and other programs for the poor?

Or else run away, Sir Robin.

You don't care that is great, you are lazy. I do not support companies that contribute to economic hardships Americans face, companies like Walmart can afford to pay more, employ more, give their workers more hours and make plenty of profit which it seems to me is that the Walton Family's 150 billion dollar combined worth is what you are really concerned about. Here is a link to an article by Fortune which i posted earlier which explains why Walmart can afford to pay its workers more.

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise.
Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50 raise - Fortune

WalMart's net income last year was less than 3.5% of sales.
What would a fair percentage be?

The Walton Family owns over 50% of the shares of Walmart and has a combined worth of over 150 billion dollars. Don't talk to me about them wanting for anything. Did you read the article on why Wal-Mart can afford to pay its workers more? The journalist who wrote the article consulted with renowned economists when writing his article and this article come from Fortune magazine not some left wing liberal paper so keep that in mind as well.

I don't care what the Waltons own, or what their net worth is.

Hint.... Warren Buffet being worth $64 Billion, doesn't mean you are.

The only reason why someone, or anyone, cares how much someone else is worth, is because they are greedy and envious.

If it wasn't for the Walton's, 2.2 million people wouldn't have jobs at all. Is that better? If it wasn't for the Walton's, millions of people across this entire country would not be able to afford they goods they can, because Walmart has lower, more affordable prices.

Yes, I did read the article. That guy is a complete and total idiot.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

[
You' re willing to volunteer to raise other people's taxes to pay out more to keep people dependent on the government.
Just so we're clear here.

Yup.

And you guys created that dependency for us. You were in such a hurry to dismantle the Middle class you created the government dependency you hate.

Good job.

Proving that leftists are not able to do math.

Do tell... how exactly have we dismantled the middle class? Is it even possible, using 'math' to eliminate the middle class? Think for yourself for once, before making statements that prove your stupidity.

Now perhaps you'd like to argue WHY those numbers rose and fell when they did, but there is no arguing that they HAVE rose and fallen, mostly fallen.

Isn't it interesting however that the highest high was when a Rep was in the WH and the lowest low was when a Dem was in the WH.

I would argue these numbers are largely meaningless. What these numbers don't account for, is unemployed.

No one who lived through the 70s and the 90s, is going to argue that the 70s were superior to the 90s. Has nothing to do with who is president.

If you included all the unemployed, factoring into the average, those zero wages, most of that graph, not all, but most would completely flip.

Then you have inflation, and while the CPI is a better index than nothing, it certainly isn't a perfect measurement.

But between 1971 and 1973, the unemployment rate doubled. And unsurprisingly, the average wage went up.

Who is most likely to be laid off? The lowest income workers. The people with the least experience, and least time on the job. So during any economic slow down, whether it is a recession or not, the people most likely to be laid off, are the lowest income people.

Just like when I worked at Wendy's and the minimum wage went up, they laid off 3 employees. Which employees? The three lowest paid part time people. Without question the average hourly wage at the store would have gone up drastically, for no other reason, than the lowest 3 wages were cut out. If you had counted them, with their new wage of zero, the average wage would have gone down.

So Reagan comes into office, and there is a huge recession, with unemployment spiking up to 11%. Notice in 1980 to 1982-3, the average wage is... ticking up slightly.

Then 1983 rolls around, and the Reagan tax cuts are in place, the recession is over, and the economy start moving faster. What happens? Unemployment drops to less than half, from 11% to 5% in 5 years, and what does the average wage do? It drops.

People who were earning ZERO, are now earning a wage. But you don't hire people off the street, for $100,000 a year. They start out at the bottom, like all of us. Thus the vast majority of the millions of people moving into the work force, are all starting out at the lowest pay, thus dropping the average wage.

So my view.... those numbers don't mean a whole lot.

In short, the numbers don't say what you want them to say, so you dismiss them out of hand. That is pathetic.

Here's another graph for you

CLEARLY the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation and thus one can NOT buy with it what they could in years past.

No wages have kept up with inflation. So what? Min wage is a starting/training wage, not something a head of household aspires to.
So the choice is not jobs at 7/hr vs jobs at 10/hr. The choice is jobs at 7/hr vs no job at all. Since most people who start at min wage spend less than a year on it before getting raises, the min wage is an entry way to the work world. When you raise that wage, the entry way is slammed shut on many people.
Do I need to repost for the umpteenth time the chart of min wage and black teenage unemployment?

You aren't very smart are you

The minimum wage law was meant to provide a basis from which one person working 40 hours a week could support themselves. As such the wage should always have kept up with inflation.

No other factors matter in determining what the minimum wage should be.

For someone who thinks he's really smart you show your ignorance over and over.
THe min wage was not meant to be the basis from which one person working 40 hrs could support himself. Nothing anywhere supports that ridiculous notion.
But how do people support themselves without jobs? Because that's what raising the min wage does.

It certainly does not cost jobs when the minimum wage goes up. post ANY proof of that.

 

[Andylusion]

Socialism and communism are two completely different animals.

You are so naive.

Socialism and communism are both just different flavors of collectivism which puts the individual in a subservient relationship to the state.

Thank You, am also getting bored with the tired arguments. Both systems require a large centralized government that squashes human spirit and productivity. Redistribution of wealth is what it really comes down to. There is no incentive in any collective system to better your future or get ahead when the governing body will just take what you earn.

There needs to be a redistribution of wealth when economic inequality is at an all time high and gets worse every day. The tax policies of the country were a lot more socialists in our past and the rich were taxed at a much higher rate and the economic inequality between the classes was much less. Some inequality is good it is what drives people to do better and incentivises them to improve their lives. The level of inequality which exists today is unacceptable and will lead to the breakdown of society and democracy. We have a huge welfare system in place for the rich, just look at how much Wal-Mart is subsidized and the tax rates of the wealthy. By supporting the current system you are in fact supporting policies which benefit the rich and welfare for the rich.

Yeah, because the 1970s were so much better than the 1990s. You are nutz.

Inequality has always existed. We might not have been able to quantify it as much as we do today, but it has always been there. You compare how the poor lived in the 1800s verses the rich of the 1800s, it's just as vastly different as today.

Yet the lowest class of people today lives 1,000 X better than they did back then.

The current system is largely a creation of the left. We don't support welfare for the wealthy. Leftists do. Right-wing didn't pay rich people at Solyndra, leftists did.

The biggest thing that his holding people down, is the programs that incentives people to not work. When you pay people to sit at home, and take away that pay when they work, you are in effect promoting the very inequality you claim to be against.

 

[Progressivedude2014]

It is not 400 posts it is one post, this post! You can't read the replies and see what was said? Why would I waste my time answering a question I already answered? Stop trolling and say something intelligent, read the entire post and the information provided before opening your mouth.

No, you did not answer my question in this post.
Try again?

Why don't you tell me specifically with points and highlights how I did not answer this question about the costs of welfare and Walmarts policies in previous replies. Come back with a detailed, articulated answer and I will address your points.

I don't care if you answered my question somewhere else in the thread.
If you want to discuss my post further, answer my question again.
Here it is. Highlighted even.
Those poor underpaid workers should quit and stay home.
If they did, would the government spend more or less on foodstamps and other programs for the poor?

Or else run away, Sir Robin.

You don't care that is great, you are lazy. I do not support companies that contribute to economic hardships Americans face, companies like Walmart can afford to pay more, employ more, give their workers more hours and make plenty of profit which it seems to me is that the Walton Family's 150 billion dollar combined worth is what you are really concerned about. Here is a link to an article by Fortune which i posted earlier which explains why Walmart can afford to pay its workers more.

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise.
Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50 raise - Fortune

WalMart's net income last year was less than 3.5% of sales.
What would a fair percentage be?

The Walton Family owns over 50% of the shares of Walmart and has a combined worth of over 150 billion dollars. Don't talk to me about them wanting for anything. Did you read the article on why Wal-Mart can afford to pay its workers more? The journalist who wrote the article consulted with renowned economists when writing his article and this article come from Fortune magazine not some left wing liberal paper so keep that in mind as well.

I don't care what the Waltons own, or what their net worth is.

Hint.... Warren Buffet being worth $64 Billion, doesn't mean you are.

The only reason why someone, or anyone, cares how much someone else is worth, is because they are greedy and envious.

If it wasn't for the Walton's, 2.2 million people wouldn't have jobs at all. Is that better? If it wasn't for the Walton's, millions of people across this entire country would not be able to afford they goods they can, because Walmart has lower, more affordable prices.

Yes, I did read the article. That guy is a complete and total idiot.

No I do not mention the Waltons worth because I am greedy or envious, I cite it to show that they are not hurting for money and to show the inequality which exists, Wal - Mart can afford to pay their workers more, give them regular schedules and full time work instead of part time. Just because Wal-Mart is one of the largest employers in the country does not mean that somehow we should be thankful to them for supporting low wages part time hours and little advancement opportunities for their workforce, quite the contrary. They have a responsibility to their communities and to the country to be a good corporate citizen and treat their workers fairly with dignity and respect in hours and pay and advancement opportunities.

 

[Andylusion]

It certainly does not cost jobs when the minimum wage goes up. post ANY proof of that.

Unbelievable. The only people who say stuff like that, are ignorant people.

EVERY..... let me repeat that.... *EVERY* study or research into the effects of the minimum wage, shows it kills jobs.

If you really believe that... then why not just raise the minimum wage to $1 Million a year minimum? It doesn't kill jobs right? So let's make the minimum wage $1 Million a year. Next time you have an oil change, or replace a tire... hope that $200K price tag doesn't bother you too much. Moron.

 

[Progressivedude2014]

Socialism and communism are two completely different animals.

You are so naive.

Socialism and communism are both just different flavors of collectivism which puts the individual in a subservient relationship to the state.

Thank You, am also getting bored with the tired arguments. Both systems require a large centralized government that squashes human spirit and productivity. Redistribution of wealth is what it really comes down to. There is no incentive in any collective system to better your future or get ahead when the governing body will just take what you earn.

There needs to be a redistribution of wealth when economic inequality is at an all time high and gets worse every day. The tax policies of the country were a lot more socialists in our past and the rich were taxed at a much higher rate and the economic inequality between the classes was much less. Some inequality is good it is what drives people to do better and incentivises them to improve their lives. The level of inequality which exists today is unacceptable and will lead to the breakdown of society and democracy. We have a huge welfare system in place for the rich, just look at how much Wal-Mart is subsidized and the tax rates of the wealthy. By supporting the current system you are in fact supporting policies which benefit the rich and welfare for the rich.

Yeah, because the 1970s were so much better than the 1990s. You are nutz.

Inequality has always existed. We might not have been able to quantify it as much as we do today, but it has always been there. You compare how the poor lived in the 1800s verses the rich of the 1800s, it's just as vastly different as today.

Yet the lowest class of people today lives 1,000 X better than they did back then.

The current system is largely a creation of the left. We don't support welfare for the wealthy. Leftists do. Right-wing didn't pay rich people at Solyndra, leftists did.

The biggest thing that his holding people down, is the programs that incentives people to not work. When you pay people to sit at home, and take away that pay when they work, you are in effect promoting the very inequality you claim to be against.

Republicans and the right are all for policies which benefit the wealthy from tax rates on income and dividends and subsidies to major corporations (yes both parties are guilty of doing this, you cite Solyndra) but the Republicans represent the interest of the rich much more and the laws in place today only encourage the offshoring of capital and taking steps to address it like President Obama has attempted to do have been resisted by the right. To say that inequality nowadays is less than it was in the past is false, peoples buying power with their money was much more in the past and people only needed one full time job to sup[port their families, people lived better and there was less inequality. Families did not have both spouses working full time or one or two or three jobs. Incomes adjusted for inflation was higher inequality in this country today is at an all time high.

 

[Andylusion]

No I do not mention the Waltons worth because I am greedy or envious, I cite it to show that they are not hurting for money and to show the inequality which exists, Wal - Mart can afford to pay their workers more, give them regular schedules and full time work instead of part time. Just because Wal-Mart is one of the largest employers in the country does not mean that somehow we should be thankful to them for supporting low wages part time hours and little advancement opportunities for their workforce, quite the contrary. They have a responsibility to their communities and to the country to be a good corporate citizen and treat their workers fairly with dignity and respect in hours and pay and advancement opportunities.

I don't care if the are hurting or not. Does not matter.

Completely IRRELEVANT to the conversation.

No, Walmart can not just pay people more.

First, you don't even know if the employee WANTS to work full time or not. Not everyone does. Making judgements based on information you don't have. Stop it.

Second, you don't grasp how chain companies work, do you?

Any chain company, each store operates as an independent business. Each store, has to make or break on their own. They have to make payroll with their own revenue.

If your store, that you work for, doesn't have the money to pay you more.... then it doesn't matter if McDonald's Corporate or Walmart Corporate, or Wendy's or Hertz, or any Corporate HQ has BILLIONS. Corporate HQ does not subsidize stores. If the store is losing money.... they close. Corporate doesn't blow money on a dying store to keep it open.

What that means is, any time you look at the profits of Corporate HQ... you already failed. If you want to know if a store can pay their employees more, you need to look at the profits of THAT STORE.

Third, Walmart is treating their employees fairly. No, they don't have a 'responsibility as a blaw blaw (insert progressive BS here)'.

It's not yours. Do you not get this? Can I come to your home, and demand you let me sleep there, because you have a "responsibility to your community and to the country to be a good citizen"? Of course not. You and I both know, you wouldn't buy that.

But when it's someone else's property, suddenly you are full of BS excuses why you should dictate how other people use their property.

That company is the property of the owners. It's not yours. You don't have any right to say jack about it. Cut the BS.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

It certainly does not cost jobs when the minimum wage goes up. post ANY proof of that.

Unbelievable. The only people who say stuff like that, are ignorant people.

EVERY..... let me repeat that.... *EVERY* study or research into the effects of the minimum wage, shows it kills jobs.

If you really believe that... then why not just raise the minimum wage to $1 Million a year minimum? It doesn't kill jobs right? So let's make the minimum wage $1 Million a year. Next time you have an oil change, or replace a tire... hope that $200K price tag doesn't bother you too much. Moron.

My God , strawman much?

We're talking about REASONABLE increases here
And if EVERY study shows that, why don't you just post the studies?

Here, the CBO predicts that an increase to $10/Hr would result in a .3% increase in unemployment. Three tenths of a percent .

Now go ahead and spin that .3% is killing jobs.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf

 

[Andylusion]

Republicans and the right are all for policies which benefit the wealthy from tax rates on income and dividends and subsidies to major corporations (yes both parties are guilty of doing this, you cite Solyndra) but the Republicans represent the interest of the rich much more and the laws in place today only encourage the offshoring of capital and taking steps to address it like President Obama has attempted to do have been resisted by the right. To say that inequality nowadays is less than it was in the past is false, peoples buying power with their money was much more in the past and people only needed one full time job to sup[port their families, people lived better and there was less inequality. Families did not have both spouses working full time or one or two or three jobs. Incomes adjusted for inflation was higher inequality in this country today is at an all time high.

Funny, back in 2002, when Bush cut taxes, *I* got a tax cut. I guess my $20,000 income, makes me the wealthy. If that's what you mean by the right being in favor of policies that benefit the wealthy.... then yes, and I'm proudly for it. That makes you against the working people, because you are apparently against me getting a tax cut. That makes you the elitist.

I am against all taxes. I want the tax rate as low as possible.

No, I am not for subsidies. You people on the left are the ones who push subsidies.

Do you realize that a couple working minimum wage, is the top 1% of wage earners in the world?

The standard of living in our country, even for the lowest class of people, is higher than 99% of the rest of the planet. You keep acting like it's so bad, and yet things are better than they have ever been. Stop acting like a spoiled brat American. When Americans go around the world, the number one criticism is they are so spoiled and have no respect.

Dividends benefit the very middle class you claim to support. *I* am a share holder. Most 401K, and IRAs, not to mention Pension funds, are all invested in stocks and bonds. The very things you are complaining about not being taxed enough.

Who is for the middle class? Apparently not you. The right-wing is. We're the ones defending people who have their investments tied in stocks.

See, you are so greedy and envious, you would screw over the middle class and lower class, in your effort to tax the rich. And here's the kicker... capital is liquid. If you really did increase taxes on the wealthy... they'd move their money.

The only people you would really screw over is the people who can't afford to move their investments. The lower and middle class. You'd screw us, and not even hurt the wealthy.

 

[Progressivedude2014]

No I do not mention the Waltons worth because I am greedy or envious, I cite it to show that they are not hurting for money and to show the inequality which exists, Wal - Mart can afford to pay their workers more, give them regular schedules and full time work instead of part time. Just because Wal-Mart is one of the largest employers in the country does not mean that somehow we should be thankful to them for supporting low wages part time hours and little advancement opportunities for their workforce, quite the contrary. They have a responsibility to their communities and to the country to be a good corporate citizen and treat their workers fairly with dignity and respect in hours and pay and advancement opportunities.

I don't care if the are hurting or not. Does not matter.

Completely IRRELEVANT to the conversation.

No, Walmart can not just pay people more.

First, you don't even know if the employee WANTS to work full time or not. Not everyone does. Making judgements based on information you don't have. Stop it.

Second, you don't grasp how chain companies work, do you?

Any chain company, each store operates as an independent business. Each store, has to make or break on their own. They have to make payroll with their own revenue.

If your store, that you work for, doesn't have the money to pay you more.... then it doesn't matter if McDonald's Corporate or Walmart Corporate, or Wendy's or Hertz, or any Corporate HQ has BILLIONS. Corporate HQ does not subsidize stores. If the store is losing money.... they close. Corporate doesn't blow money on a dying store to keep it open.

What that means is, any time you look at the profits of Corporate HQ... you already failed. If you want to know if a store can pay their employees more, you need to look at the profits of THAT STORE.

Third, Walmart is treating their employees fairly. No, they don't have a 'responsibility as a blaw blaw (insert progressive BS here)'.

It's not yours. Do you not get this? Can I come to your home, and demand you let me sleep there, because you have a "responsibility to your community and to the country to be a good citizen"? Of course not. You and I both know, you wouldn't buy that.

But when it's someone else's property, suddenly you are full of BS excuses why you should dictate how other people use their property.

That company is the property of the owners. It's not yours. You don't have any right to say jack about it. Cut the BS.

BS? The workers who contribute to the success of the company should be able to partake in that success. The workers are the backbone of the company and maybe profit benchmarks that stores have to meet need to be reassessed to consider their workers more, I will not say the level of inequality that exists between a companies a workers bees and heads of the company is fair. A CEO's pay compared to the pay of its base workforce is extremely gross and distorted and has become more and more distorted with time. Here are links to a couple articles which support this.

Fast Food CEO's Make 1,000 Time More Than Their Typical Workers: Report
The Pros And Cons Of Union Jobs Bankrate.com

Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners
Report CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners - Forbes

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Republicans and the right are all for policies which benefit the wealthy from tax rates on income and dividends and subsidies to major corporations (yes both parties are guilty of doing this, you cite Solyndra) but the Republicans represent the interest of the rich much more and the laws in place today only encourage the offshoring of capital and taking steps to address it like President Obama has attempted to do have been resisted by the right. To say that inequality nowadays is less than it was in the past is false, peoples buying power with their money was much more in the past and people only needed one full time job to sup[port their families, people lived better and there was less inequality. Families did not have both spouses working full time or one or two or three jobs. Incomes adjusted for inflation was higher inequality in this country today is at an all time high.

Funny, back in 2002, when Bush cut taxes, *I* got a tax cut. I guess my $20,000 income, makes me the wealthy. If that's what you mean by the right being in favor of policies that benefit the wealthy.... then yes, and I'm proudly for it. That makes you against the working people, because you are apparently against me getting a tax cut. That makes you the elitist.

I am against all taxes. I want the tax rate as low as possible.

No, I am not for subsidies. You people on the left are the ones who push subsidies.

Do you realize that a couple working minimum wage, is the top 1% of wage earners in the world?

The standard of living in our country, even for the lowest class of people, is higher than 99% of the rest of the planet. You keep acting like it's so bad, and yet things are better than they have ever been. Stop acting like a spoiled brat American. When Americans go around the world, the number one criticism is they are so spoiled and have no respect.

Dividends benefit the very middle class you claim to support. *I* am a share holder. Most 401K, and IRAs, not to mention Pension funds, are all invested in stocks and bonds. The very things you are complaining about not being taxed enough.

Who is for the middle class? Apparently not you. The right-wing is. We're the ones defending people who have their investments tied in stocks.

See, you are so greedy and envious, you would screw over the middle class and lower class, in your effort to tax the rich. And here's the kicker... capital is liquid. If you really did increase taxes on the wealthy... they'd move their money.

The only people you would really screw over is the people who can't afford to move their investments. The lower and middle class. You'd screw us, and not even hurt the wealthy.

The Republicans are no more interested in the little guy than the Democrats are.
We, the middle class don't matter any more.We're a minority, and therefor can't influence elections, so neither party cares, beyond lip service.