Walmart subsidizes the U.S. government's welfare program to a tune of. $15,080 per employee a year

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wow, so your saying that the top is tremendously corrupt basically, and therefore they control all the cards on the table always ? So are we dealing with vegas style corruption in our business models & politics in all that we see now ? Otherwise they will adjust in anyway possible, but near the bottom there is no way to adjust what so ever eh ? Otherwise just eat it, because they are dealing the cards eh ? And don't give us that bull crap about someone just being able to go find another job that is better, because in a lot of cases the decks have been stacked and they have been rigged against the workers in many ways. All these companies (who are guilty mind you) have to do, is start doing better, but it ain't happening is it ? The deck has been stacked, and the house ain't gonna lose ever.

That's absolutely correct. The only time the house loses is when they can no longer sell goods or products and have to close down.

Business strategies are not corrupt in the least bit. Anybody who follows a company can see just what they are doing. Passing the buck has been one of their key strategies all of my life.

It's the Golden Rule law. The man with the gold makes the rules. The employees don't make the rules. They are not management. The customers don't make the rules, they don't work for the company. Both however can have nothing to do with the business if they don't like the way it's run, but business will always run business.

 

[Brain357]

Do they need a CEO? Yes. Do they need one who makes 8 figures while the working folks have to go on welfare to make ends meet? Not so much.

If McDonald's doesn't pay that CEO that kind of money, their competitors will, and more than likely find a way to take customers from McDonald's.

Hahaha.... Good one.

The Highest-Paid CEOs Are The Worst Performers, New Study Says

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It has to do a whole lot of other things. They have to give good service to their customers, or they won't have them for long. That's where their employees earn the wages. They have to pay their bills or their suppliers won't do business with them.

And they can't rely on government handouts to feed their employees. If your company can't afford to pay a living wage to your employees, don't expect American taxpayers to do it for you.

And that's something we can agree on. If a person is not making enough money, don't come after mine to make up the difference.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

All they have to do ? Ok, then how about not us subsidizing them any longer ? You didn't include that so it must be something extra their getting. I say stop the corporate welfare immediately.

What corporate welfare? You mean tax cuts? Taking less from somebody is not any kind of welfare at all.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The CEOs do nothing? Then how come you don't eat at Henry's, lumbs or sambos any more?

Damn Joe you stupid

There was one in wheeling Illinois

Lol, does that take me back.

When I was a child and my parents moved us out of the city into the suburbs, we had a Henry's hamburger joint. It was the only one in town.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You see, Ray, this is where you are confused. The thing isn't "how much are you willing to pay", the question is, "how should the proceeds be distributed?"

I would rather see the kid who made my lunch get a decent wage than the CEO of McDonalds, who did nothing to get me my lunch, get an eight-figure salary or the Shareholers in McDonalds, who again, did nothing to put that lunch on my table, get a dividend.

The thing is, the distribution of the proceeds of labor are skewed. But you'll whine about the pittance we pay in welfare when 43% of the wealth is going to 1% of the population which is not doing 43% of the labor.

If you don't like how their wealth is distributed, open up your own company and distribute your wealth the way you like.

So when was the last time you gave a tip to that kid behind the McDonald's counter Joe?

Company profits are distributed the way the company sees fit. It's really none of our business what a business does with their money. Our only business is we agreed to do X job for X amount of money, and that's where our business ends with the company we work for.

Now if you want to share in a companies profit, then only work for places that offer profit sharing. If you can't find a job that offers profit sharing, then buy your companies stock from a broker.

 

[Brain357]

You see, Ray, this is where you are confused. The thing isn't "how much are you willing to pay", the question is, "how should the proceeds be distributed?"

I would rather see the kid who made my lunch get a decent wage than the CEO of McDonalds, who did nothing to get me my lunch, get an eight-figure salary or the Shareholers in McDonalds, who again, did nothing to put that lunch on my table, get a dividend.

The thing is, the distribution of the proceeds of labor are skewed. But you'll whine about the pittance we pay in welfare when 43% of the wealth is going to 1% of the population which is not doing 43% of the labor.

If you don't like how their wealth is distributed, open up your own company and distribute your wealth the way you like.

So when was the last time you gave a tip to that kid behind the McDonald's counter Joe?

Company profits are distributed the way the company sees fit. It's really none of our business what a business does with their money. Our only business is we agreed to do X job for X amount of money, and that's where our business ends with the company we work for.

Now if you want to share in a companies profit, then only work for places that offer profit sharing. If you can't find a job that offers profit sharing, then buy your companies stock from a broker.

I love how you live in fantasy land.
The myth of upward mobility: American workers who start out poor are likely to remain so


“One striking feature is the decline in upward mobility among middle-class workers, even those with a college degree,” the scholars write. “Across the distribution of educational attainment, the likelihood of moving to the top deciles of the earnings distribution for workers who start their career in the middle of the earnings distribution has declined by approximately 20 percent since the early 1980s.”

 

[beagle9]

You seem to be the stupid one. While making billions of dollars the Walton's are paying so little that employees are on welfare. Welfare increases government dependence. As long as the rich continue to pay so little the government grows. To make it worse all this inequality slows the economy.

They will always be on welfare no matter what the National minimum wage is.

If they were making more they could not collect welfare. Why do you want the wealthy creating more government dependence?

Are we talking one person or one company paying more? Then the answer would be yes the would get off welfare.


Or

Are we talking raising the national minimum wage? The answer would be no, the welfare eligibility would have to be raised..because they are still making mw and still would be poor

I'm saying the rich paying so little while making billions increases government dependence. If you are for smaller government we need the rich to pay a living wage. How to make that happen can be debated, but there is no debate the Walton's paying so little increases government dependence. How "conservatives" can applaud them for increasing the size of government I have no clue. If we had lots of good paying jobs with good benefits people could be more independent and government would shrink. We'd have no obamacare if companies were giving good benefits.

Do you voluntarily pay more for something than you have to? Consumer desires to pay as little as possible make Walmart possible, and if you force them to pay more, they have to raise prices, because their profit margin is too small to absorb much. End of story.

. You say that people desire to pay as little as possible right ? I disagree with that assessment, where as if a company begins offering something for a little less or even a lot less, then of course consumers are going to check it out, and then see what kind of bargain it might be.

It has to meet certain requirements by their assessment, and if it meets those requirements, then they will purchase it. This does not in anyway stereotype a consumer as if they are cheapscapes, but instead shows that if you offer up a deal, then they will check it out.

When people go into a parts store, there usually are 3 quality levels of starters in which they can buy for their car, and some might opt for the cheap one maybe, but if they get burned, then they won't try that again because they got burned going cheap.

Corporations gamble on poor people being forced to buy their cheap products, because then they can make billions off of their desperate situation, and then the question remains as to WHO is growing the poor by the millions, and this in order to keep the gravy train's going ? Is government & corporations working united or hand in hand in order to create the entrenched poor consumer, and then the government becomes the financier of those poor consumers ? Are the lobbyist the connection between the two in which in turn makes the corporations filthy rich, and allows the government officials to then be voted in over and over again by the ignorant who don't realize the situation that's been going on ?

 

[beagle9]

We're not talking about the unemployed. We're talking about people who have a full time job or multiple part time jobs, which pay minimum wage, which has not been increased since Clinton was in power.

I just said to cancel earned income credits and have employers assume the subsidies currently being paid by American taxpayers. That would reduce welfare for the 47%, down to 14%. These large corporations have the profits to support their own workers and should not expect taxpayers do it.

Food stamps too should be cancelled as well. This has to be the most expensive program to manage because it duplicates the states' work in deciding welfare eligibility, but is paid federally. The average benefit is less than $150.00 a month. I seriously wonder how much it actually costs each month to pay out this amount, given the convoluted manner in which it's paid. This will not only reduce welfare, but also the size of government.

You have 5,000,000 jobs which are going unfilled, because workers lack the skills. Teach them the skills, pay them while they're learning. Solve two problems at once.

There are lots of ways of reducing the need for wage subsidies, none of which involve giving full time workers one cent of middle class taxpayers' money. Make the corporations pay their own damn workers.

Would you pay $42.00 to see a movie at a movie theater?

Would you pay $35.00 at the car wash to have a clean car?

Would you pay $7.50 for a can of pop out of the pop machine?

Then why should employers pay a person who is only worth minimum wage more than minimum wage?

Companies do not "support" workers. That's not what companies do nor are they obligated to do so. You don't get paid by how much you want or need, you get paid by how much you're work is worth.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Providing training to people who don't want it nor are interested in it won't work. There are plenty of schools out there that provide financial aid. If a person wants to better themselves, they can pay for it like everybody else. Nobody is stopping them. But you have to be qualified to take many courses which I'm sure many of these people are not.

In my line of work, companies do offer free training. They will get you your license, guarantee you a job, and all you have to do is apply and sign a year contract. Guess what? They can't even get workers that way.

For some of these people, as long as government is willing to support them, there is no need for them to work. Why should they? They don't want much out of life, just a roof over their head and plenty of food in the fridge. They have no ambition to advance themselves beyond that point.

I knew a guy at a factory I where I worked that was like that. He'd did a good job and had experience, so he was approached about being a supervisor. He turned it down because he did not want the responsibility or the headache of dealing with others. He wanted to simply do his job and be left alone. Some people don't want to leave their confortable zone.

Yes, and that is A-ok... However, it doesn't apply to what is considered the over all problem being looked at or is faced by so many today. We need a strong America, and not an America that is operated like a communist or socialist utopia. We all must unite for a better America, and those who look down on the lower classes need to be challenged as to why they are doing so in every case that is found. If the lower classes are exhibiting bad behaviours, then seek to help them, and not destroy them. There is a reason behind everything.

Does that mean you are against government controlled wages in the private sector?

. Yes I am against government controlled wages in the private sector, but I'm not against the government having an "add campaign of shame" against the low down dirty scum who are destroying this nation.

Decide to screw over America, then you will be outed, and then routed.

 

[beagle9]

Wow, so your saying that the top is tremendously corrupt basically, and therefore they control all the cards on the table always ? So are we dealing with vegas style corruption in our business models & politics in all that we see now ? Otherwise they will adjust in anyway possible, but near the bottom there is no way to adjust what so ever eh ? Otherwise just eat it, because they are dealing the cards eh ? And don't give us that bull crap about someone just being able to go find another job that is better, because in a lot of cases the decks have been stacked and they have been rigged against the workers in many ways. All these companies (who are guilty mind you) have to do, is start doing better, but it ain't happening is it ? The deck has been stacked, and the house ain't gonna lose ever.

That's absolutely correct. The only time the house loses is when they can no longer sell goods or products and have to close down.

Business strategies are not corrupt in the least bit. Anybody who follows a company can see just what they are doing. Passing the buck has been one of their key strategies all of my life.

It's the Golden Rule law. The man with the gold makes the rules. The employees don't make the rules. They are not management. The customers don't make the rules, they don't work for the company. Both however can have nothing to do with the business if they don't like the way it's run, but business will always run business.

. You ever heard the old saying that "they put their pants on one leg at a time just like I do" ? So where do they get off thinking that they should be able to do me any way they choose, and especially once they have stacked the deck against me ? Small locally owned businesses came with accountability to the consumers they served, and the towns or cities they operated in. Corporations enjoy themselves being like a giant that feels nothing when a consumer is at it's feet wanting his or her money back after being screwed by the corporation now.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Once again you fall back on your Communist principles. That is not how we do things in this country. Why don't you seek out a country where they do these sort of things? I here Venezuela is nice this time of year if you don't mind starving to death.

It is very much how things are done in the US. Have you never heard of Anti-Trust Laws? Reagan gutted anti-trust legislation and merger mania began. And while merger mania has been very good for those at the top, the rest of the economy has suffered. Wages have stagnated. New companies can't compete.Back at the turn of the last century, when the monopolies were broken up, MORE jobs were created. Better paying jobs.This is a very American thing to do. Read your own history.

Walmart has tons of competition, so your example falls flat on its face. It is not a monopoly. Within a half mile of each other, my town has a Kmart, Target, and Walmart. You need to educate yourself in reality and get your head out of the Communist Manifesto.

. Ok, now go back in history for a second, and then name off the thousands of small businesses that were in play before the several you listed above took over in each town or city that you can name today in America. They don't call it consolidated corporate row for nothing anymore right? Corporations by there very nature are socialist/communist style operations anymore, and the government is falling lock step in with them.

Why should I do that? Before those businesses came to town this was just another place that you prayed to God that the military would not send you!

Just in case you are wondering, the same applies for hardware and farm supply stores. We have two major hardware chain stores and the third is on the way. The same is true for farm supply stores, as two are already thriving and another will open soon. These businesses are running no one out of town, but bringing in more businesses to the high traffic areas around the stores.

Major chain restaurants are closing because they are being outdone by smaller operations. A major restaurant recently opened the same time that a much smaller business did, and they both are doing fine, but the smaller chain is probably doing better.

Your assumptions are simply not jiving with reality. Sorry!

 

[Wyatt earp]

The CEOs do nothing? Then how come you don't eat at Henry's, lumbs or sambos any more?

Damn Joe you stupid

There was one in wheeling Illinois

Lol, does that take me back.

When I was a child and my parents moved us out of the city into the suburbs, we had a Henry's hamburger joint. It was the only one in town.

When I accuatly googled it, I found one in Michigan somewhere.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Would you pay $42.00 to see a movie at a movie theater?

Would you pay $35.00 at the car wash to have a clean car?

Would you pay $7.50 for a can of pop out of the pop machine?

Then why should employers pay a person who is only worth minimum wage more than minimum wage?

You see, Ray, this is where you are confused. The thing isn't "how much are you willing to pay", the question is, "how should the proceeds be distributed?"

I would rather see the kid who made my lunch get a decent wage than the CEO of McDonalds, who did nothing to get me my lunch, get an eight-figure salary or the Shareholers in McDonalds, who again, did nothing to put that lunch on my table, get a dividend.

The thing is, the distribution of the proceeds of labor are skewed. But you'll whine about the pittance we pay in welfare when 43% of the wealth is going to 1% of the population which is not doing 43% of the labor.

So McDonald's doesn't need a CEO?

Distributing the CEO's salary to all the low wage earners at the McDonald's franchises would make little impact on their salaries. Probably less than a nickel an hour.

Actually, that would probably be closer to a nickel a week.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What I don't understand is why conservatives want to continue donating $4,000 per year of their income to subsidize these behemouths.

If your business cannot afford to pay a living wage to its employees first and foremost, then they have no right to be in business.

And who made those rights, you?

A business has the right to be open provided it meets government and safety standards, and that they have customers willing to deal with them. That's all a business has to do.

It has to do a whole lot of other things. They have to give good service to their customers, or they won't have them for long. That's where their employees earn the wages. They have to pay their bills or their suppliers won't do business with them.

And they can't rely on government handouts to feed their employees. If your company can't afford to pay a living wage to your employees, don't expect American taxpayers to do it for you.

. What you wrote above may have meant something years ago, but these days the decks are stacked, so bad service from disgruntled workers it will be. That's what the new norm has become, and as for the monopolies... well ... they could care less, because they have all but laid waist to the competition.
.

What size belt do you wear?

 

[beagle9]

Once again you fall back on your Communist principles. That is not how we do things in this country. Why don't you seek out a country where they do these sort of things? I here Venezuela is nice this time of year if you don't mind starving to death.

It is very much how things are done in the US. Have you never heard of Anti-Trust Laws? Reagan gutted anti-trust legislation and merger mania began. And while merger mania has been very good for those at the top, the rest of the economy has suffered. Wages have stagnated. New companies can't compete.Back at the turn of the last century, when the monopolies were broken up, MORE jobs were created. Better paying jobs.This is a very American thing to do. Read your own history.

Walmart has tons of competition, so your example falls flat on its face. It is not a monopoly. Within a half mile of each other, my town has a Kmart, Target, and Walmart. You need to educate yourself in reality and get your head out of the Communist Manifesto.

. Ok, now go back in history for a second, and then name off the thousands of small businesses that were in play before the several you listed above took over in each town or city that you can name today in America. They don't call it consolidated corporate row for nothing anymore right? Corporations by there very nature are socialist/communist style operations anymore, and the government is falling lock step in with them.

Why should I do that? Before those businesses came to town this was just another place that you prayed to God that the military would not send you!

Just in case you are wondering, the same applies for hardware and farm supply stores. We have two major hardware chain stores and the third is on the way. The same is true for farm supply stores, as two are already thriving and another will open soon. These businesses are running no one out of town, but bringing in more businesses to the high traffic areas around the stores.

Major chain restaurants are closing because they are being outdone by smaller operations. A major restaurant recently opened the same time that a much smaller business did, and they both are doing fine, but the smaller chain is probably doing better.

Your assumptions are simply not jiving with reality. Sorry!

. Ok, then maybe the tide is turning. That's great.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

We're not talking about the unemployed. We're talking about people who have a full time job or multiple part time jobs, which pay minimum wage, which has not been increased since Clinton was in power.

I just said to cancel earned income credits and have employers assume the subsidies currently being paid by American taxpayers. That would reduce welfare for the 47%, down to 14%. These large corporations have the profits to support their own workers and should not expect taxpayers do it.

Food stamps too should be cancelled as well. This has to be the most expensive program to manage because it duplicates the states' work in deciding welfare eligibility, but is paid federally. The average benefit is less than $150.00 a month. I seriously wonder how much it actually costs each month to pay out this amount, given the convoluted manner in which it's paid. This will not only reduce welfare, but also the size of government.

You have 5,000,000 jobs which are going unfilled, because workers lack the skills. Teach them the skills, pay them while they're learning. Solve two problems at once.

There are lots of ways of reducing the need for wage subsidies, none of which involve giving full time workers one cent of middle class taxpayers' money. Make the corporations pay their own damn workers.

Would you pay $42.00 to see a movie at a movie theater?

Would you pay $35.00 at the car wash to have a clean car?

Would you pay $7.50 for a can of pop out of the pop machine?

Then why should employers pay a person who is only worth minimum wage more than minimum wage?

Companies do not "support" workers. That's not what companies do nor are they obligated to do so. You don't get paid by how much you want or need, you get paid by how much you're work is worth.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Providing training to people who don't want it nor are interested in it won't work. There are plenty of schools out there that provide financial aid. If a person wants to better themselves, they can pay for it like everybody else. Nobody is stopping them. But you have to be qualified to take many courses which I'm sure many of these people are not.

In my line of work, companies do offer free training. They will get you your license, guarantee you a job, and all you have to do is apply and sign a year contract. Guess what? They can't even get workers that way.

For some of these people, as long as government is willing to support them, there is no need for them to work. Why should they? They don't want much out of life, just a roof over their head and plenty of food in the fridge. They have no ambition to advance themselves beyond that point.

I knew a guy at a factory I where I worked that was like that. He'd did a good job and had experience, so he was approached about being a supervisor. He turned it down because he did not want the responsibility or the headache of dealing with others. He wanted to simply do his job and be left alone. Some people don't want to leave their confortable zone.

Yes, and that is A-ok... However, it doesn't apply to what is considered the over all problem being looked at or is faced by so many today. We need a strong America, and not an America that is operated like a communist or socialist utopia. We all must unite for a better America, and those who look down on the lower classes need to be challenged as to why they are doing so in every case that is found. If the lower classes are exhibiting bad behaviours, then seek to help them, and not destroy them. There is a reason behind everything.

Does that mean you are against government controlled wages in the private sector?

. Yes I am against government controlled wages in the private sector, but I'm not against the government having an "add campaign of shame" against the low down dirty scum who are destroying this nation.

Decide to screw over America, then you will be outed, and then routed.

Do you support subtract campaigns? Proofread. Your posts sound like you are in middle school.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

. You ever heard the old saying that "they put their pants on one leg at a time just like I do" ? So where do they get off thinking that they should be able to do me any way they choose, and especially once they have stacked the deck against me ? Small locally owned businesses came with accountability to the consumers they served, and the towns or cities they operated in. Corporations enjoy themselves being like a giant that feels nothing when a consumer is at it's feet wanting his or her money back after being screwed by the corporation now.

I don't see it that way because I've never had a problem returning something to big box or otherwise. In fact I just returned a couple of mini-blinds back to Home Depot a few months ago. Just sign here, let us see your ID, and do you want cash back or store credit? They even sent out a person that worked in that department so I could explain the problem I had with the blinds.

So where do they get off thinking that they should be able to do me any way they choose

Well.....because you need them more than they need you. Sure, you can find another job, but depending on the job you have, it may not be that easy whereas if you quit your job, you are replaced in a couple of days.

Now that works both ways as well. For instance if you are an over-the-road truck driver, you can get away with telling your company F-U and there is little they can do about it because they need you more than you need them. An over-the-road driver can go to his employer on Tuesday, piss on his desk, and he will have another job by Wednesday.

 

[beagle9]

Would you pay $42.00 to see a movie at a movie theater?

Would you pay $35.00 at the car wash to have a clean car?

Would you pay $7.50 for a can of pop out of the pop machine?

Then why should employers pay a person who is only worth minimum wage more than minimum wage?

Companies do not "support" workers. That's not what companies do nor are they obligated to do so. You don't get paid by how much you want or need, you get paid by how much you're work is worth.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Providing training to people who don't want it nor are interested in it won't work. There are plenty of schools out there that provide financial aid. If a person wants to better themselves, they can pay for it like everybody else. Nobody is stopping them. But you have to be qualified to take many courses which I'm sure many of these people are not.

In my line of work, companies do offer free training. They will get you your license, guarantee you a job, and all you have to do is apply and sign a year contract. Guess what? They can't even get workers that way.

For some of these people, as long as government is willing to support them, there is no need for them to work. Why should they? They don't want much out of life, just a roof over their head and plenty of food in the fridge. They have no ambition to advance themselves beyond that point.

I knew a guy at a factory I where I worked that was like that. He'd did a good job and had experience, so he was approached about being a supervisor. He turned it down because he did not want the responsibility or the headache of dealing with others. He wanted to simply do his job and be left alone. Some people don't want to leave their confortable zone.

Yes, and that is A-ok... However, it doesn't apply to what is considered the over all problem being looked at or is faced by so many today. We need a strong America, and not an America that is operated like a communist or socialist utopia. We all must unite for a better America, and those who look down on the lower classes need to be challenged as to why they are doing so in every case that is found. If the lower classes are exhibiting bad behaviours, then seek to help them, and not destroy them. There is a reason behind everything.

Does that mean you are against government controlled wages in the private sector?

. Yes I am against government controlled wages in the private sector, but I'm not against the government having an "add campaign of shame" against the low down dirty scum who are destroying this nation.

Decide to screw over America, then you will be outed, and then routed.

Do you support subtract campaigns? Proofread. Your posts sound like you are in middle school.

Belittle me if you will, but millions of Americans are not all wrong about this stuff. They are voicing their concerns every election, but then getting screwed over and over again.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I knew a guy at a factory I where I worked that was like that. He'd did a good job and had experience, so he was approached about being a supervisor. He turned it down because he did not want the responsibility or the headache of dealing with others. He wanted to simply do his job and be left alone. Some people don't want to leave their confortable zone.

Yes, and that is A-ok... However, it doesn't apply to what is considered the over all problem being looked at or is faced by so many today. We need a strong America, and not an America that is operated like a communist or socialist utopia. We all must unite for a better America, and those who look down on the lower classes need to be challenged as to why they are doing so in every case that is found. If the lower classes are exhibiting bad behaviours, then seek to help them, and not destroy them. There is a reason behind everything.

Does that mean you are against government controlled wages in the private sector?

. Yes I am against government controlled wages in the private sector, but I'm not against the government having an "add campaign of shame" against the low down dirty scum who are destroying this nation.

Decide to screw over America, then you will be outed, and then routed.

Do you support subtract campaigns? Proofread. Your posts sound like you are in middle school.

Belittle me if you will, but millions of Americans are not all wrong about this stuff. They are voicing their concerns every election, but then getting screwed over and over again.

Yes, I will especially belittle people who do not have the God-given sense to know that ad campaigns are not a function of the federal government to interfere in business. If you want businesses run by the government, I suggest a trip to Cuba or Venezuela. Keep your hands in your own pockets.

 

[beagle9]

. You ever heard the old saying that "they put their pants on one leg at a time just like I do" ? So where do they get off thinking that they should be able to do me any way they choose, and especially once they have stacked the deck against me ? Small locally owned businesses came with accountability to the consumers they served, and the towns or cities they operated in. Corporations enjoy themselves being like a giant that feels nothing when a consumer is at it's feet wanting his or her money back after being screwed by the corporation now.

I don't see it that way because I've never had a problem returning something to big box or otherwise. In fact I just returned a couple of mini-blinds back to Home Depot a few months ago. Just sign here, let us see your ID, and do you want cash back or store credit? They even sent out a person that worked in that department so I could explain the problem I had with the blinds.

So where do they get off thinking that they should be able to do me any way they choose

Well.....because you need them more than they need you. Sure, you can find another job, but depending on the job you have, it may not be that easy whereas if you quit your job, you are replaced in a couple of days.

Now that works both ways as well. For instance if you are an over-the-road truck driver, you can get away with telling your company F-U and there is little they can do about it because they need you more than you need them. An over-the-road driver can go to his employer on Tuesday, piss on his desk, and he will have another job by Wednesday.

You describe dependency going in both directions, but why does it have to be about either one being dependent ? Why not just treating each other right ? Is that so bad of a concept anymore ? I remember my first experience with a big box tech store as opposed to the smaller local store where I knew the owners name, and he knew if I would lie about the return or not. He made out because I didn't break the product, and then try to send it back as a defect. Now, I purchased a printer that was defected, and they told me that I was not to deal with them, but instead deal with the manufacturer of the product instead. Ok, so I called the manufacturer where I was put on hold for almost an hour so I hung up. I tried again, and got the run around. After really being aggressive with the situation, I finally got them to take the printer back. They then sent me a box, and I had to ship it to them. I felt like the situation was set up in hopes that I would have given up due the aggravation of it all. A feller I know bought a tool box for his pick up from K-Mart at a deal because it was damaged. He then went to Walmart and exchanged it for a brand new one without a receipt. He said that he told them he purchased it there, and they let him exchange it with no questions ask ? Wow, now how stupid was that situation ?