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

[initforme]

But corporations make america great. Lmao

 

[beagle9]

Maybe we need to encourage young people, working or not, not to have kids? Even ray agrees walmart is a heinous place to work.

. That would tell the story, otherwise if young folks quit having children in poverty. What would the exploiters of the poor do then ?

 

[JoeB131]

. Did Bush fight those wars because he just Willy nilly wanted to or was it because the nation was attacked shortly after he became the President ?

Well, let's see now. He stopped going after the people who attacked us to invade a country that had nothing to do with that attack. I think that pretty much defines "Willy-Nilly".

Who was the enabler of the housing bubble that crashed the economy ? The Democrat's were that's who. Yes the Republicans made money off the idiocy in which the Dems created, but can you blame them ?

Well, yeah, I can blame them. The Crash wasn't caused by a correction in housing prices. The Crash was caused because banks were taking those bad loans they still never should have made and then selling them as worthless investments. The housing bubble was not caused by poor people being able to buy houses under the CRA. It was middle class folks who got scammed into buying McMansions they thought they could flip at a profit a few years later.

Who supported the Intel, and went into Iraq with Bush ? You know who.

I think there can be an argument to be made the Democrats were indeed cowardly, but it was Bush who whipped up the hysteria in the early oughts. Come on, they were the ones who compared a triple amputee War Veteran to Bin Laden and Saddam because he wouldn't vote to strip Homeland Security Workers of their union rights.

So it wasn't easy for someone of intergrity to say, "This intel is bullshit and Saddam is not really our problem."

 

[JoeB131]

The only thing you explained is that you don't want to face facts. Fact one is that the reason DumBama's unemployment numbers are so low IS BECAUSE OF THE PARTICIPATION RATE!

Uh, guh, again- The LPR has been declining since 1999. it will continue to decline as long as the population keeps getting older. That's the fact you don't want to get.

You see, when people who are not working claim they are not looking for work either, the BLS doesn't consider them unemployed. Given the fact that's over 1/3 of our working population, of course the unemployment numbers are going to drop even though these people are not employed.

Yes, but you have to look at whose not looking for work- answer- People who are over 65, of whom there are a lot more now than there were in 1999, when the LPR Peaked at 67.5%. We've ALWAYS had about a third of the adult population who doesn't participate in the labor market due to being students, retired or stay at home spouses.

The thing that you want to ignore is that AS the population ages, the non-participants increase.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe, the Baby Boomers started retiring in 2005, when they hit 60. Not the big numbers that started in 2010 when the first of us hit age 65, but enough that the numbers began increasing steadily.

Which is something i pointed out to Racist from Cleveland, that the Labor Participation rate started declining in 1999. But he'll ignore the 3% decline under Bush when he claims the economy was good and play up the 2% decline under Obama.

 

[JoeB131]

My point was that the participation rate is not solely due to retirement. More and more of our retired people are working--some even full time. I work for a small company, and we have two full-time workers that have been retired the last several years.

If you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised when you have more irresponsible people.

Again- The Rate started declining in 1999, not 2009.

Kids are living with their parents longer than ever before. Government goodies has never been so generous before. People are finding ways not to work because there are alternatives. We don't have a society of work or starve unfortunately. Now we are a society of work if you want, and if not, the taxpayers will work for you.

But here's the thing. The problem is not "There are jobs out there and people arent' taking them because the government is giving them goodies."

In fact, there are jobs out there, the people providing them don't pay shit, and the government has to give out goodies.

Let's take your wonderful example of kids living at home. Why is that? because these kids are "irresponsible', or because they often find themselves burdended down in student debt and working jobs that don't provide health benefits so they have to go on their parent's coverage?

Now, back in the oldy days, you hit 18, you went down to the union hall and you got an apprenticeship and you made good money.

Now you don't really hit your stride as an adult until your Mid-20's, which is why we have so many desperate women starting families in their 30s when they should have in their 20s when their bodies were ready.

 

[beagle9]

. Did Bush fight those wars because he just Willy nilly wanted to or was it because the nation was attacked shortly after he became the President ?

Well, let's see now. He stopped going after the people who attacked us to invade a country that had nothing to do with that attack. I think that pretty much defines "Willy-Nilly".

Who was the enabler of the housing bubble that crashed the economy ? The Democrat's were that's who. Yes the Republicans made money off the idiocy in which the Dems created, but can you blame them ?

Well, yeah, I can blame them. The Crash wasn't caused by a correction in housing prices. The Crash was caused because banks were taking those bad loans they still never should have made and then selling them as worthless investments. The housing bubble was not caused by poor people being able to buy houses under the CRA. It was middle class folks who got scammed into buying McMansions they thought they could flip at a profit a few years later.

Who supported the Intel, and went into Iraq with Bush ? You know who.

I think there can be an argument to be made the Democrats were indeed cowardly, but it was Bush who whipped up the hysteria in the early oughts. Come on, they were the ones who compared a triple amputee War Veteran to Bin Laden and Saddam because he wouldn't vote to strip Homeland Security Workers of their union rights.

So it wasn't easy for someone of intergrity to say, "This intel is bullshit and Saddam is not really our problem."

. Couldn't it be said that the banks were taking the bad loans, and doing bad things with them because the Democrats were forcing them to make bad loans to people who could never repay the loans back, and they knew it ? Actually the Democrats were making the banks corrupt with their idiocy, because the banks began figuring out ways to make money off a bad situation in which they knew the government was way in over their heads on. Democrats do idiotic things, and the private sector makes money on the idiocy, then the Democrats point fingers afterwards. It's like a set up is what it is, and then the accusations fly from the idiot left over onto the targeted right.

 

[Brain357]

That's because the percentage of people 65 and older is going up. It's called the "Baby Boomer Effect". Our demographic is so large, it's like a cow going through a python. It creates a visible bulge as it moves through the snake. More of us are working past the age of 65, so those numbers are now going up.

In the 50's and 60's, schools were built to accommodate us all. Now they're building retirement communities, assisted care facilities, and nursing homes for us. And really, we're just getting started in terms of retirement. Oh and those schools they built for us - they're closing due to declining enrolment.

My point was that the participation rate is not solely due to retirement. More and more of our retired people are working--some even full time. I work for a small company, and we have two full-time workers that have been retired the last several years.

If you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised when you have more irresponsible people.

Kids are living with their parents longer than ever before. Government goodies has never been so generous before. People are finding ways not to work because there are alternatives. We don't have a society of work or starve unfortunately. Now we are a society of work if you want, and if not, the taxpayers will work for you.

Or work at Walmart and make the Walton's billions while the government has to subsidize the crappy pay.

Damn Brian the government makes the rules on welfare, why don't you get that?

The market calls the shots, that's why you had people being hired on at walmart in some places in the Dakota's at $17 bucks an hour.

Even subsidized they are very poor. The people making the billions need to pay up and lower government dependence.

 

[Brain357]

Or work at Walmart and make the Walton's billions while the government has to subsidize the crappy pay?

Now tell us, why does government have to do anything? Can you point to me one place in the Constitution where it says that our federal government is charged with subsidizing people that don't make enough money?

This is the exact practice our founders were against.

Well they are. If employers don't take care of people the government does. So the poor wages you applaud leads to bigger government. If you want small government, employers need to pay up.

 

[Brain357]

Maybe we need to encourage young people, working or not, not to have kids? Even ray agrees walmart is a heinous place to work.

Sure and let's do that by attacking planned parenthood who supplies lots of birth control.

 

[Wyatt earp]

My point was that the participation rate is not solely due to retirement. More and more of our retired people are working--some even full time. I work for a small company, and we have two full-time workers that have been retired the last several years.

If you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised when you have more irresponsible people.

Again- The Rate started declining in 1999, not 2009.

Kids are living with their parents longer than ever before. Government goodies has never been so generous before. People are finding ways not to work because there are alternatives. We don't have a society of work or starve unfortunately. Now we are a society of work if you want, and if not, the taxpayers will work for you.

But here's the thing. The problem is not "There are jobs out there and people arent' taking them because the government is giving them goodies."

In fact, there are jobs out there, the people providing them don't pay shit, and the government has to give out goodies.

Let's take your wonderful example of kids living at home. Why is that? because these kids are "irresponsible', or because they often find themselves burdended down in student debt and working jobs that don't provide health benefits so they have to go on their parent's coverage?

Now, back in the oldy days, you hit 18, you went down to the union hall and you got an apprenticeship and you made good money.

Now you don't really hit your stride as an adult until your Mid-20's, which is why we have so many desperate women starting families in their 30s when they should have in their 20s when their bodies were ready.

and the government has to give out goodies.


Why does the government have to give out goodies?

 

[Brain357]

My point was that the participation rate is not solely due to retirement. More and more of our retired people are working--some even full time. I work for a small company, and we have two full-time workers that have been retired the last several years.

If you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised when you have more irresponsible people.

Again- The Rate started declining in 1999, not 2009.

Kids are living with their parents longer than ever before. Government goodies has never been so generous before. People are finding ways not to work because there are alternatives. We don't have a society of work or starve unfortunately. Now we are a society of work if you want, and if not, the taxpayers will work for you.

But here's the thing. The problem is not "There are jobs out there and people arent' taking them because the government is giving them goodies."

In fact, there are jobs out there, the people providing them don't pay shit, and the government has to give out goodies.

Let's take your wonderful example of kids living at home. Why is that? because these kids are "irresponsible', or because they often find themselves burdended down in student debt and working jobs that don't provide health benefits so they have to go on their parent's coverage?

Now, back in the oldy days, you hit 18, you went down to the union hall and you got an apprenticeship and you made good money.

Now you don't really hit your stride as an adult until your Mid-20's, which is why we have so many desperate women starting families in their 30s when they should have in their 20s when their bodies were ready.

and the government has to give out goodies.


Why does the government have to give out goodies?

Because you will never find an elected official to cut them.

 

[Wyatt earp]

My point was that the participation rate is not solely due to retirement. More and more of our retired people are working--some even full time. I work for a small company, and we have two full-time workers that have been retired the last several years.

If you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised when you have more irresponsible people.

Again- The Rate started declining in 1999, not 2009.

Kids are living with their parents longer than ever before. Government goodies has never been so generous before. People are finding ways not to work because there are alternatives. We don't have a society of work or starve unfortunately. Now we are a society of work if you want, and if not, the taxpayers will work for you.

But here's the thing. The problem is not "There are jobs out there and people arent' taking them because the government is giving them goodies."

In fact, there are jobs out there, the people providing them don't pay shit, and the government has to give out goodies.

Let's take your wonderful example of kids living at home. Why is that? because these kids are "irresponsible', or because they often find themselves burdended down in student debt and working jobs that don't provide health benefits so they have to go on their parent's coverage?

Now, back in the oldy days, you hit 18, you went down to the union hall and you got an apprenticeship and you made good money.

Now you don't really hit your stride as an adult until your Mid-20's, which is why we have so many desperate women starting families in their 30s when they should have in their 20s when their bodies were ready.

and the government has to give out goodies.


Why does the government have to give out goodies?

Because you will never find an elected official to cut them.

Then as a business owner their is no reason to raise wages.

 

[Brain357]

My point was that the participation rate is not solely due to retirement. More and more of our retired people are working--some even full time. I work for a small company, and we have two full-time workers that have been retired the last several years.

If you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised when you have more irresponsible people.

Again- The Rate started declining in 1999, not 2009.

Kids are living with their parents longer than ever before. Government goodies has never been so generous before. People are finding ways not to work because there are alternatives. We don't have a society of work or starve unfortunately. Now we are a society of work if you want, and if not, the taxpayers will work for you.

But here's the thing. The problem is not "There are jobs out there and people arent' taking them because the government is giving them goodies."

In fact, there are jobs out there, the people providing them don't pay shit, and the government has to give out goodies.

Let's take your wonderful example of kids living at home. Why is that? because these kids are "irresponsible', or because they often find themselves burdended down in student debt and working jobs that don't provide health benefits so they have to go on their parent's coverage?

Now, back in the oldy days, you hit 18, you went down to the union hall and you got an apprenticeship and you made good money.

Now you don't really hit your stride as an adult until your Mid-20's, which is why we have so many desperate women starting families in their 30s when they should have in their 20s when their bodies were ready.

and the government has to give out goodies.


Why does the government have to give out goodies?

Because you will never find an elected official to cut them.

Then as a business owner their is no reason to raise wages.

Then the government will continue to grow. Only way to stop it is for employers to pay up. The inequality you love is feeding the government.

 

[beagle9]

Maybe we need to encourage young people, working or not, not to have kids? Even ray agrees walmart is a heinous place to work.

Sure and let's do that by attacking planned parenthood who supplies lots of birth control.

. Abortions are not a form of proper birth control (it's murder), and not the proper form of birth control. Preventive forms are the best, and that would lend more credence to a term called "planned parenthood", instead of the idiocy of the term used as a cover for murder after the fact.

 

[Brain357]

Maybe we need to encourage young people, working or not, not to have kids? Even ray agrees walmart is a heinous place to work.

Sure and let's do that by attacking planned parenthood who supplies lots of birth control.

. Abortions are not a form of proper birth control (it's murder), and not the proper form of birth control. Preventive forms are the best, and that would lend more credence to a term called "planned parenthood", instead of the idiocy of the term used as a cover for murder after the fact.

Yes they give out lots of preventative forms.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well they are. If employers don't take care of people the government does. So the poor wages you applaud leads to bigger government. If you want small government, employers need to pay up.

No, just elect officials that promise to cut these wasteful programs already. That's how you make government smaller.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But here's the thing. The problem is not "There are jobs out there and people arent' taking them because the government is giving them goodies."

In fact, there are jobs out there, the people providing them don't pay shit, and the government has to give out goodies.

Let's take your wonderful example of kids living at home. Why is that? because these kids are "irresponsible', or because they often find themselves burdended down in student debt and working jobs that don't provide health benefits so they have to go on their parent's coverage?

Now, back in the oldy days, you hit 18, you went down to the union hall and you got an apprenticeship and you made good money.

Now you don't really hit your stride as an adult until your Mid-20's, which is why we have so many desperate women starting families in their 30s when they should have in their 20s when their bodies were ready.

Not those welfare people. They are still having kids while in their teens. The more kids you have, the more Democrats will pay you.

Even though I have said this repeatedly, anybody who's looking for a job join the transportation industry. We have thousands of jobs Americans won't take, and they don't pay all that badly. In fact, industry is forced to bringing in foreigners because Americans won't get off their lazy ass and go to work. They have their Obama phone, a generous food stamp card, maybe a house in the suburb....... why work? And if you're a liberal, why work when you can keep making excuses why you shouldn't work?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Which is something i pointed out to Racist from Cleveland, that the Labor Participation rate started declining in 1999. But he'll ignore the 3% decline under Bush when he claims the economy was good and play up the 2% decline under Obama.

You're going to have to quit drinking so early in the morning Joe. Need that chart yet again? You show me where the decline under Bush was even close to DumBama's.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, but you have to look at whose not looking for work- answer- People who are over 65, of whom there are a lot more now than there were in 1999, when the LPR Peaked at 67.5%. We've ALWAYS had about a third of the adult population who doesn't participate in the labor market due to being students, retired or stay at home spouses.

The thing that you want to ignore is that AS the population ages, the non-participants increase.

Joe, you must hold a record for being wrong all the time.

In 2000, the senior citizen population in this country was around 35 million people. In 2016 the Senior citizen population is now around 45 million. That's a change of 10 million people Joe. Given the fact a lot of Senior citizens continue to work after retirement age, we'll split the difference and say we've only added 5 million to those not in the workforce or looking for a job.

Keeping that figure in mind, we now have over 93 million people not working or looking for a job. As this chart shows, the Senior Citizens added to the labor participation rate is minimal in the overall picture.