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.
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.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.
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
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.
Look at inequality in other industrialized developed first class nations, it is much lower, it is funny you dont give a dam about inequality you should, it affects you just as much as everyone else/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.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.
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
I don't give a damn if they CEO is making a billion times what their average worker makes. I only care that the average worker doesn't qualify for welfare, other than that is none of your business unless you own a stake in the business.
Again, this proves that what the left really cares about is bitching about the "boss man" no real concern for the little man , else they would modify their argument.
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.
It is funny you attempt to characterize me as supporting the rich, our current president wants to end subsidies for oil and gas companies the Replublican right does, our current president wants to end the offshoring of capital by changing the laws the Republican right does not. Bush was so far to the right its not even funny and plenty of people will tell you the policies of his administration supported the rich and powerful. I am a spoiled american because I support policies which benefit the middle and lower classes, I do not think so. I am not spoiled at all I wokr just like everyone else yet I come from a lower to middle class family and know all too well hardships that have been faced by my family and others. I suppose you think supporting the healthcare law which attempts to control costs and gives tens of millions more people access to healthcare is supporting the rich as well? Yes, fact, people did have more buying power in the past and had to work less for the same level of equality and yes the rich were taxed at a much igher rate.
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
Look at inequality in other industrialized developed first class nations, it is much lower, it is funny you dont give a dam about inequality you should, it affects you just as much as everyone else/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.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.
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
I don't give a damn if they CEO is making a billion times what their average worker makes. I only care that the average worker doesn't qualify for welfare, other than that is none of your business unless you own a stake in the business.
Again, this proves that what the left really cares about is bitching about the "boss man" no real concern for the little man , else they would modify their argument.
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
Why do I have to post anything, when you just made my point? YOU posted proof of my claim.
I'll use your research. Your citation just proved the point. They show that increasing the minimum wage kills jobs.
The question is only how much. The CBO says very little. Others say much more. BUT... they ALL SAY THAT THE MW KILLS JOBS. *ALL* of them do.
It's a yes or no question. Does the minimum wage kill jobs? yes? or no?
YES it does. That point before was not a strawman at all. If you say the minimum wage does not kill jobs.... then why not $15/hr? Why not $30/hr? Why not $100/hr? Why not whatever we want?
Because......THE MW KILLS JOBS. Period.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/04/b...cery-aisles-stocked.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&
Before the recession, at the start of 2007, Walmart had an average of 338 employees per store at its United States stores and Sam’s Club locations. Now, it has 281 per store, having cut the number of United States employees while adding hundreds of stores.
The recession didn't cause the loss of Walmart jobs. Walmart sales actually went up. Go look it up. Sales went up during the recession. People stopped going out to eat, and bought food from Walmart.
The loss of jobs is due to the minimum wage.
The minimum wage kills jobs. EVERY research into it shows that. Even the reports that support the minimum wage, if you dig into them, they show jobs losses.
The only question is how much they kill jobs. But *ALL* say they kill jobs. Post whatever research you want. Whatever you want to cite. I'll dig into it, and show you. I have challenged minimum wage supporters for a decade now. Since 2004. To date, never, not one time has a MW supporter been able to show any research which shows the MW does not kill jobs.
IT DOES. Period. I dare you to try and prove otherwise. Give it your best shot.
The ACA law does attempt to control healthcare costs in part by saying that 80% of profits have to be reinvested into the organization and into providing better healthcare it also attempts to control costs by giving the government more oversight and strengthening medicaid / medicare and it also attempts to control costs to the consumer by making sure they can afford health insurance through vouchers or subsidies, what a thought! Try paying for an operation or major healthcare if you didnt have insurance, its a false argument, healthcare costs are through the roof, everyone needs insurance to make it a lot more affordable. Much to the chagrin of the left Obama maintained a private system of health insurance with the ACA yet you rail against it like the law is completely against a market based system.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.
It is funny you attempt to characterize me as supporting the rich, our current president wants to end subsidies for oil and gas companies the Replublican right does, our current president wants to end the offshoring of capital by changing the laws the Republican right does not. Bush was so far to the right its not even funny and plenty of people will tell you the policies of his administration supported the rich and powerful. I am a spoiled american because I support policies which benefit the middle and lower classes, I do not think so. I am not spoiled at all I wokr just like everyone else yet I come from a lower to middle class family and know all too well hardships that have been faced by my family and others. I suppose you think supporting the healthcare law which attempts to control costs and gives tens of millions more people access to healthcare is supporting the rich as well? Yes, fact, people did have more buying power in the past and had to work less for the same level of equality and yes the rich were taxed at a much igher rate.
My God what an ignorant post.
Let's just start with this , the ACA did not give anyone access to healthcare. Every American already had that, it merely provided so that every American could have healthcare INSURANCE.
And it did so in absolutely the most expensive manner possible, and oh yeah did absolutely NOTHING to lower healthcare costs, it merely had the goal of lowering healthcare INSURANCE costs.
And since you didn't even know that, I will dismiss the rest of your post as tripe.
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.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.
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
AMEN TO THAT!!!!Look at inequality in other industrialized developed first class nations, it is much lower, it is funny you dont give a dam about inequality you should, it affects you just as much as everyone else/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.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.
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
I don't give a damn if they CEO is making a billion times what their average worker makes. I only care that the average worker doesn't qualify for welfare, other than that is none of your business unless you own a stake in the business.
Again, this proves that what the left really cares about is bitching about the "boss man" no real concern for the little man , else they would modify their argument.
Reread our founding documents. NOWHERE , absolutely NOWHERE does it say that all men WILL have equal money.
I'm fairly well off, I won't deny. I've worked my ass off to get there, and for you to tell me that I should worry about making other people who don't work as hard as I do more equal to me is just ludicrous. That IS socialism my friend. I'm sorry but the guy who isn't working as hard as me doesn't deserve to live as well as me.
Your dealing in absolutes, I think some inequality is good, it is a driver of innovation and competition and success, the LEVEL of inequality that exists today is completely out of proportion.Look at inequality in other industrialized developed first class nations, it is much lower, it is funny you dont give a dam about inequality you should, it affects you just as much as everyone else/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.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.
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
I don't give a damn if they CEO is making a billion times what their average worker makes. I only care that the average worker doesn't qualify for welfare, other than that is none of your business unless you own a stake in the business.
Again, this proves that what the left really cares about is bitching about the "boss man" no real concern for the little man , else they would modify their argument.
Reread our founding documents. NOWHERE , absolutely NOWHERE does it say that all men WILL have equal money.
I'm fairly well off, I won't deny. I've worked my ass off to get there, and for you to tell me that I should worry about making other people who don't work as hard as I do more equal to me is just ludicrous. That IS socialism my friend. I'm sorry but the guy who isn't working as hard as me doesn't deserve to live as well as me.
You seem to have it in your head that I want someone else's money and that I am greedy. Cuba is a communist state, we are a capitalist, there is a happy medium between the two called dare I say Socialism, inequality affects everyone even you, like I just said a minute ago, I am not against all inequality, its what drives people to pursue more, I am against the LEVEL of inequality which exists today.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.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.
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
None of that matters.
What if it was 403530945823 times the average worker? I don't care. Does not matter.
If you have a job.... then you "partake in that success". Are you saying Greece is better off, because they don't have CEOs making 1,000 times more than the typical worker? They are BEGGING for a job there. Being able to partake in the success of Walmart is why people come here from all over the world.
If it is so bad... why are people not swimming to cuba? They don't have so much inequality there.... right?
The only reason a person has to compare CEO pay to worker pay, is if they are greedy and envious. That's all there is to it.
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
Why do I have to post anything, when you just made my point? YOU posted proof of my claim.
I'll use your research. Your citation just proved the point. They show that increasing the minimum wage kills jobs.
The question is only how much. The CBO says very little. Others say much more. BUT... they ALL SAY THAT THE MW KILLS JOBS. *ALL* of them do.
It's a yes or no question. Does the minimum wage kill jobs? yes? or no?
YES it does. That point before was not a strawman at all. If you say the minimum wage does not kill jobs.... then why not $15/hr? Why not $30/hr? Why not $100/hr? Why not whatever we want?
Because......THE MW KILLS JOBS. Period.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/04/b...cery-aisles-stocked.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&
Before the recession, at the start of 2007, Walmart had an average of 338 employees per store at its United States stores and Sam’s Club locations. Now, it has 281 per store, having cut the number of United States employees while adding hundreds of stores.
The recession didn't cause the loss of Walmart jobs. Walmart sales actually went up. Go look it up. Sales went up during the recession. People stopped going out to eat, and bought food from Walmart.
The loss of jobs is due to the minimum wage.
The minimum wage kills jobs. EVERY research into it shows that. Even the reports that support the minimum wage, if you dig into them, they show jobs losses.
The only question is how much they kill jobs. But *ALL* say they kill jobs. Post whatever research you want. Whatever you want to cite. I'll dig into it, and show you. I have challenged minimum wage supporters for a decade now. Since 2004. To date, never, not one time has a MW supporter been able to show any research which shows the MW does not kill jobs.
IT DOES. Period. I dare you to try and prove otherwise. Give it your best shot.
.3% is not KILLING jobs as you well know. Now , I simply do not debate with dishonest people. So good evening.
To be decided by who? The likes of you?Your dealing in absolutes, I think some inequality is good, it is a driver of innovation and competition and success, the LEVEL of inequality that exists today is completely out of proportion.Look at inequality in other industrialized developed first class nations, it is much lower, it is funny you dont give a dam about inequality you should, it affects you just as much as everyone else/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.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.
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
I don't give a damn if they CEO is making a billion times what their average worker makes. I only care that the average worker doesn't qualify for welfare, other than that is none of your business unless you own a stake in the business.
Again, this proves that what the left really cares about is bitching about the "boss man" no real concern for the little man , else they would modify their argument.
Reread our founding documents. NOWHERE , absolutely NOWHERE does it say that all men WILL have equal money.
I'm fairly well off, I won't deny. I've worked my ass off to get there, and for you to tell me that I should worry about making other people who don't work as hard as I do more equal to me is just ludicrous. That IS socialism my friend. I'm sorry but the guy who isn't working as hard as me doesn't deserve to live as well as me.
How about you FUCK OFF, I didn't bother replying to your fucking posts to have you call me shit, bitch ass!To be decided by who? The likes of you?Your dealing in absolutes, I think some inequality is good, it is a driver of innovation and competition and success, the LEVEL of inequality that exists today is completely out of proportion.Look at inequality in other industrialized developed first class nations, it is much lower, it is funny you dont give a dam about inequality you should, it affects you just as much as everyone else/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.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.
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
I don't give a damn if they CEO is making a billion times what their average worker makes. I only care that the average worker doesn't qualify for welfare, other than that is none of your business unless you own a stake in the business.
Again, this proves that what the left really cares about is bitching about the "boss man" no real concern for the little man , else they would modify their argument.
Reread our founding documents. NOWHERE , absolutely NOWHERE does it say that all men WILL have equal money.
I'm fairly well off, I won't deny. I've worked my ass off to get there, and for you to tell me that I should worry about making other people who don't work as hard as I do more equal to me is just ludicrous. That IS socialism my friend. I'm sorry but the guy who isn't working as hard as me doesn't deserve to live as well as me.
Simply put...FUCK OFF.
Time to move on. Can't take the Bullshit.
Your dealing in absolutes, I think some inequality is good, it is a driver of innovation and competition and success, the LEVEL of inequality that exists today is completely out of proportion.Look at inequality in other industrialized developed first class nations, it is much lower, it is funny you dont give a dam about inequality you should, it affects you just as much as everyone else/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.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.
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
I don't give a damn if they CEO is making a billion times what their average worker makes. I only care that the average worker doesn't qualify for welfare, other than that is none of your business unless you own a stake in the business.
Again, this proves that what the left really cares about is bitching about the "boss man" no real concern for the little man , else they would modify their argument.
Reread our founding documents. NOWHERE , absolutely NOWHERE does it say that all men WILL have equal money.
I'm fairly well off, I won't deny. I've worked my ass off to get there, and for you to tell me that I should worry about making other people who don't work as hard as I do more equal to me is just ludicrous. That IS socialism my friend. I'm sorry but the guy who isn't working as hard as me doesn't deserve to live as well as me.
You seem to have it in your head that I want someone else's money and that I am greedy. Cuba is a communist state, we are a capitalist, there is a happy medium between the two called dare I say Socialism, inequality affects everyone even you, like I just said a minute ago, I am not against all inequality, its what drives people to pursue more, I am against the LEVEL of inequality which exists today.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.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.
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
None of that matters.
What if it was 403530945823 times the average worker? I don't care. Does not matter.
If you have a job.... then you "partake in that success". Are you saying Greece is better off, because they don't have CEOs making 1,000 times more than the typical worker? They are BEGGING for a job there. Being able to partake in the success of Walmart is why people come here from all over the world.
If it is so bad... why are people not swimming to cuba? They don't have so much inequality there.... right?
The only reason a person has to compare CEO pay to worker pay, is if they are greedy and envious. That's all there is to it.
You seem to have it in your head that I want someone else's money and that I am greedy. Cuba is a communist state, we are a capitalist, there is a happy medium between the two called dare I say Socialism, inequality affects everyone even you, like I just said a minute ago, I am not against all inequality, its what drives people to pursue more, I am against the LEVEL of inequality which exists today.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.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.
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
None of that matters.
What if it was 403530945823 times the average worker? I don't care. Does not matter.
If you have a job.... then you "partake in that success". Are you saying Greece is better off, because they don't have CEOs making 1,000 times more than the typical worker? They are BEGGING for a job there. Being able to partake in the success of Walmart is why people come here from all over the world.
If it is so bad... why are people not swimming to cuba? They don't have so much inequality there.... right?
The only reason a person has to compare CEO pay to worker pay, is if they are greedy and envious. That's all there is to it.
If you care about CEO pay... then yes. You are greedy and you want someone else's money. I have never in my life even worried, or considered how much my CEO was paid. If I want to earn more, it's my job to increase the value of my labor. Not worry about how much the CEO is paid.
If Warren Buffet triples his income... what is that to me? If Warren Buffet goes broke, and works as a Walmart greeter, what is that to me?
I want *EVERYONE* to be wealthy. Whenever someone earns more... I think that's good. The more someone earns, good for them.
That is great and that is how things should work in a democracy whether you are voting on a measure or voting with your money and protesting but I disagree that the government should not be an avenue for making your voice heard on issues that affect you and your community. If the courts became involved in this matter which could have easily happened that would have been the government getting involved.Your dealing in absolutes, I think some inequality is good, it is a driver of innovation and competition and success, the LEVEL of inequality that exists today is completely out of proportion.Look at inequality in other industrialized developed first class nations, it is much lower, it is funny you dont give a dam about inequality you should, it affects you just as much as everyone else/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.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.
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
I don't give a damn if they CEO is making a billion times what their average worker makes. I only care that the average worker doesn't qualify for welfare, other than that is none of your business unless you own a stake in the business.
Again, this proves that what the left really cares about is bitching about the "boss man" no real concern for the little man , else they would modify their argument.
Reread our founding documents. NOWHERE , absolutely NOWHERE does it say that all men WILL have equal money.
I'm fairly well off, I won't deny. I've worked my ass off to get there, and for you to tell me that I should worry about making other people who don't work as hard as I do more equal to me is just ludicrous. That IS socialism my friend. I'm sorry but the guy who isn't working as hard as me doesn't deserve to live as well as me.
It doesn't matter that it is out of proportion though . Not as far as the government is concerned. Our government is NOT empowered to make things more equal. Do you understand that?
You want things to be more equal. Petition your local McDonald's to pay more, or boycott them.
I have done exactly that. I live in a small town, a personal friend (used to be anyway) owns the McDonalds. One day last year he was forced by McD corporate to remodel, he had to close for two weeks to do so. He waited until the day before closing to inform his employees that they wold be closed for two weeks and that none of them would be receiving a paycheck , not one penny. Now, this guy made somewhere around $350K in profits on that store last year, it certainly wouldn't have killed him to pay his workers for those two weeks, and I didn't think it was fair at all. I told him so , and told him that he lost my business over it. Things got heated and eventually about 200 other people told him the same thing.
Now this is a small town, 200 people stop being your customer you're going to be hurt. Within FOUR days of our boycott he sent all every employee a check for full wages.
THAT is how you effect a change in this country, not running to daddy government every time you think something isn't fair.
