What Happens When You Tax Billionaires At 90%

[Toddsterpatriot]

This has nothing to do with Venezuela. You're a retard.

Retard? So, my IQ is double yours? Or triple?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I already answered, your stupid question. Learn to comprehend what you read you moron.

You must have been talking out of our ass when you did.
That's why I couldn't hear you.

Try again?
Or will you be running away you commie pussy?

 

[TruthNotBS]

Retard? So, my IQ is double yours? Or triple?

Yes, you're completely retarded.

 

[TruthNotBS]

You must have been talking out of our ass when you did.
That's why I couldn't hear you.

Try again?
Or will you be running away you commie pussy?

Only in your decrypt little mind I "must have".

 

[TruthNotBS]

The government should require all companies to pay their full-time employees a living wage

How much is that?

You want bailout money for the stingy multibillion-dollar companies that refuse to pay their fulltime workers enough for them to feed and house themselves.

No, I don't.

Your flippant dismissal of these workers as merely "low-skilled" in order to devalue the work that they do is your pathetic attempt to justify Walmart's dependency on the government.

Workers who need food stamps despite working full-time?

Yeah, low-skilled fits.

Venezuela has nothing to do with the United States guaranteeing employment in the public sector, to all of its citizens. One has nothing to do with the other.

Wasn't Venezuela going to guarantee some or all of the things you desire for the US?

You're the pearl-clutching piece of shit imbecile.

Whiney twat loser says what?

Go get a new brain.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, you're completely retarded.

And your IQ is a third of mine. Got it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only in your decrypt little mind I "must have".

Why else didn't I hear the number that you feel is a "living wage"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Go get a new brain.

Ok, pussy.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Why else didn't I hear the number that you feel is a "living wage"?

For the sake of others.

There are several key points that need to be addressed regarding the responsibility of a corporation towards its employees and the community. First, let's talk about the term 'low-skilled workers'. Labeling someone as low-skilled doesn’t devalue their contribution to society or the company they work for. These employees are vital in keeping the stores running, shelves stocked, and providing customer service. They play a direct role in generating profits for the company. Todd has his head so far up his ass he fails to acknowledge this simple fact.

Second, when Todd moronically argues that Walmart is doing society a favor by employing these individuals and alleviating the burden on the government, it’s important to recognize that In effect, this means that taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart’s labor costs. As one of the wealthiest companies in the world, should Walmart not be accountable for paying its own employees a wage that reflects the cost of living in their location (wherever that might be), rather than shifting this burden onto taxpayers?

He disingenuously denies that he is for the US government bailing out Walmart every month, by handing their full-time employees food stamps and cash assistance, nonetheless, that's exactly what he's promoting irrespective of whether he recognizes it or not.

Next, let’s address the term “living wage”. While Todd is correct in stating that this term can be subjective, it essentially means a wage that is high enough to afford basic necessities like food, housing, and healthcare without needing government assistance. The cost of living varies by location, but there are benchmarks and studies that can be used to estimate a living wage in different areas.

In the US, the two most prominent tools for estimating a living wage are:

1. MIT Living Wage Calculator: Developed by Dr. Amy K. Glasmeier at MIT, this calculator estimates the living wage needed to support individuals and families, taking into account the costs of food, childcare, health insurance, housing, transportation, and other basic necessities. The calculator is location-specific and provides data for each county and metropolitan area in the United States. You can access the calculator at livingwage.mit.edu.
2. Economic Policy Institute’s Family Budget Calculator: The Family Budget Calculator provided by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) estimates how much a family needs to earn to achieve an adequate standard of living in the United States. It considers costs such as housing, food, transportation, healthcare, and education, among others. The calculator also provides location-specific data. You can access this calculator at epi.org/resources/budget.

Both of these tools take into account the regional variations in the cost of living which is important as the living wage in New York City will be significantly higher than in a rural town in the Midwest, for example.

When discussing living wages, it is also important to note the federal poverty guidelines, which are used as a benchmark for various assistance programs. While the poverty guidelines are not synonymous with a living wage, they can be a reference point for the minimum income requirements for families to meet their basic living needs. These guidelines are published annually by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Furthermore, paying full-time workers a living wage can have long-term benefits not just for employees, but for the company and society as a whole. When employees are paid fairly, they are more likely to be productive, loyal, and provide better customer service. This, in turn, can lead to increased sales and profitability for the company. Additionally, when people are able to cover their basic needs, they have more disposable income to spend in the economy, which can stimulate economic growth.

Companies that generate tens of billions of dollars yearly in profits, like Walmart, have a social responsibility to contribute positively to society. Ensuring that their employees can live dignified lives without having to struggle to meet basic needs should be a fundamental part of that responsibility. It's freaking asinine how Todd fails to recognize this.

In conclusion, paying a living wage is not only economically sound but also reflects the values of fairness, dignity, and corporate responsibility that are essential for a just and thriving society. Tod doesn't care about that, because he's a pathetic punk and piece of shit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For the sake of others.

There are several key points that need to be addressed regarding the responsibility of a corporation towards its employees and the community. First, let's talk about the term 'low-skilled workers'. Labeling someone as low-skilled doesn’t devalue their contribution to society or the company they work for. These employees are vital in keeping the stores running, shelves stocked, and providing customer service. They play a direct role in generating profits for the company. Todd has his head so far up his ass he fails to acknowledge this simple fact.

Second, when Todd moronically argues that Walmart is doing society a favor by employing these individuals and alleviating the burden on the government, it’s important to recognize that In effect, this means that taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart’s labor costs. As one of the wealthiest companies in the world, should Walmart not be accountable for paying its own employees a wage that reflects the cost of living in their location (wherever that might be), rather than shifting this burden onto taxpayers?

He disingenuously denies that he is for the US government bailing out Walmart every month, by handing their full-time employees food stamps and cash assistance, nonetheless, that's exactly what he's promoting irrespective of whether he recognizes it or not.

Next, let’s address the term “living wage”. While Todd is correct in stating that this term can be subjective, it essentially means a wage that is high enough to afford basic necessities like food, housing, and healthcare without needing government assistance. The cost of living varies by location, but there are benchmarks and studies that can be used to estimate a living wage in different areas.

In the US, the two most prominent tools for estimating a living wage are:

1. MIT Living Wage Calculator: Developed by Dr. Amy K. Glasmeier at MIT, this calculator estimates the living wage needed to support individuals and families, taking into account the costs of food, childcare, health insurance, housing, transportation, and other basic necessities. The calculator is location-specific and provides data for each county and metropolitan area in the United States. You can access the calculator at livingwage.mit.edu.
2. Economic Policy Institute’s Family Budget Calculator: The Family Budget Calculator provided by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) estimates how much a family needs to earn to achieve an adequate standard of living in the United States. It considers costs such as housing, food, transportation, healthcare, and education, among others. The calculator also provides location-specific data. You can access this calculator at epi.org/resources/budget.

Both of these tools take into account the regional variations in the cost of living which is important as the living wage in New York City will be significantly higher than in a rural town in the Midwest, for example.

When discussing living wages, it is also important to note the federal poverty guidelines, which are used as a benchmark for various assistance programs. While the poverty guidelines are not synonymous with a living wage, they can be a reference point for the minimum income requirements for families to meet their basic living needs. These guidelines are published annually by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Furthermore, paying full-time workers a living wage can have long-term benefits not just for employees, but for the company and society as a whole. When employees are paid fairly, they are more likely to be productive, loyal, and provide better customer service. This, in turn, can lead to increased sales and profitability for the company. Additionally, when people are able to cover their basic needs, they have more disposable income to spend in the economy, which can stimulate economic growth.

Companies that generate tens of billions of dollars yearly in profits, like Walmart, have a social responsibility to contribute positively to society. Ensuring that their employees can live dignified lives without having to struggle to meet basic needs should be a fundamental part of that responsibility. It's freaking asinine how Todd fails to recognize this.

In conclusion, paying a living wage is not only economically sound but also reflects the values of fairness, dignity, and corporate responsibility that are essential for a just and thriving society. Tod doesn't care about that, because he's a pathetic punk and piece of shit.

For the sake of others.

You can't/won't post the numbers, "for the sake of others"?
What does that mean?

Labeling someone as low-skilled doesn’t devalue their contribution to society or the company they work for.

I didn't devalue their contribution. They just don't have many/any skills.

These employees are vital in keeping the stores running, shelves stocked, and providing customer service.

Yes, they are. So what?

Walmart is doing society a favor by employing these individuals and alleviating the burden on the government,

You're the whiney bitch talking about how sad it is that low-skilled workers get government benefits, why won't you admit they'd get a lot more if they weren't working?
It is true, society also benefits when Walmart hires these workers, reducing welfare payments.

He disingenuously denies that he is for the US government bailing out Walmart every month, by handing their full-time employees food stamps and cash assistance

Yes, I deny that handouts to employees are bailing out Walmart.

As one of the wealthiest companies in the world

By what metric?

should Walmart not be accountable for paying its own employees a wage that reflects the cost of living in their location

Walmart doesn't do that? Every low-skilled employee at every location gets the same wage? Link?

rather than shifting this burden onto taxpayers?

Didn't you already agree that Walmart employment reduces the taxpayer burden?

 

[TruthNotBS]

In response to Todd's drivel...

1. "I didn't devalue their contribution. They just don't have many/any skills."
   It’s important to recognize that having "few skills" is not necessarily synonymous with low value. These employees still perform essential functions within the company. Additionally, investing in employees through fair wages can also provide them with opportunities to acquire new skills and contribute even more effectively.
2. "Yes, they are. So what?"
   The point is that if these employees are vital to the operations of Walmart, their compensation should reflect that importance. A company’s success is built on the collective efforts of its workforce, and it’s ethically and economically fair to compensate them in a way that allows for a decent standard of living.
3. "You're the whiney bitch talking about how sad it is that low-skilled workers get government benefits, why won't you admit they'd get a lot more if they weren't working? It is true, society also benefits when Walmart hires these workers, reducing welfare payments."
   While it’s true that employment can reduce the need for welfare compared to unemployment, the point is that Walmart’s wages are often so low that many of its employees still qualify for welfare benefits. A study by UC Berkeley Labor Center in 2014 found that low wages at Walmart cost taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid, and subsidized housing. Reference . If these people are working fulltime for Walmart, they shouldn't be on government assistance.
4. "Yes, I deny that handouts to employees are bailing out Walmart."
   While one might not consider it a direct bailout, the fact that Walmart pays wages that are not sufficient for many employees to meet basic needs, resulting in those employees relying on government assistance, effectively means that taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart’s labor costs. It's indeed a type of "bailout".
5. "As one of the wealthiest companies in the world" "By what metric?"
   According to Fortune, Walmart was ranked #1 in the 2021 Fortune 500 list, based on its total revenue. Walmart consistently reports tens of billions of dollars in annual profits. Fortune 500
6. "Walmart doesn't do that? Every low-skilled employee at every location gets the same wage? Link?"
   Walmart does have varying wages, but the issue is whether these wages are sufficient to meet the basic cost of living in each location. As previously mentioned, many Walmart employees receive wages that are low enough to qualify for government assistance, indicating that they are not earning a living wage.
7. "Didn't you already agree that Walmart employment reduces the taxpayer burden?"
   Employment in general reduces taxpayer burden compared to unemployment. However, when a company as profitable as Walmart pays wages that are not sufficient for basic living expenses, it leads to employees relying on government programs to fill the gap. This places a financial burden on taxpayers. Walmart should pay full-time wages that are high enough that their employees don't need to rely on government assistance, thereby truly reducing the taxpayer burden.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In response to Todd's drivel...

1. "I didn't devalue their contribution. They just don't have many/any skills."
   It’s important to recognize that having "few skills" is not necessarily synonymous with low value. These employees still perform essential functions within the company. Additionally, investing in employees through fair wages can also provide them with opportunities to acquire new skills and contribute even more effectively.
2. "Yes, they are. So what?"
   The point is that if these employees are vital to the operations of Walmart, their compensation should reflect that importance. A company’s success is built on the collective efforts of its workforce, and it’s ethically and economically fair to compensate them in a way that allows for a decent standard of living.
3. "You're the whiney bitch talking about how sad it is that low-skilled workers get government benefits, why won't you admit they'd get a lot more if they weren't working? It is true, society also benefits when Walmart hires these workers, reducing welfare payments."
   While it’s true that employment can reduce the need for welfare compared to unemployment, the point is that Walmart’s wages are often so low that many of its employees still qualify for welfare benefits. A study by UC Berkeley Labor Center in 2014 found that low wages at Walmart cost taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid, and subsidized housing. Reference . If these people are working fulltime for Walmart, they shouldn't be on government assistance.
4. "Yes, I deny that handouts to employees are bailing out Walmart."
   While one might not consider it a direct bailout, the fact that Walmart pays wages that are not sufficient for many employees to meet basic needs, resulting in those employees relying on government assistance, effectively means that taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart’s labor costs. It's indeed a type of "bailout".
5. "As one of the wealthiest companies in the world" "By what metric?"
   According to Fortune, Walmart was ranked #1 in the 2021 Fortune 500 list, based on its total revenue. Walmart consistently reports tens of billions of dollars in annual profits. Fortune 500
6. "Walmart doesn't do that? Every low-skilled employee at every location gets the same wage? Link?"
   Walmart does have varying wages, but the issue is whether these wages are sufficient to meet the basic cost of living in each location. As previously mentioned, many Walmart employees receive wages that are low enough to qualify for government assistance, indicating that they are not earning a living wage.
7. "Didn't you already agree that Walmart employment reduces the taxpayer burden?"
   Employment in general reduces taxpayer burden compared to unemployment. However, when a company as profitable as Walmart pays wages that are not sufficient for basic living expenses, it leads to employees relying on government programs to fill the gap. This places a financial burden on taxpayers. Walmart should pay full-time wages that are high enough that their employees don't need to rely on government assistance, thereby truly reducing the taxpayer burden.

It’s important to recognize that having "few skills" is not necessarily synonymous with low value.

It is synonymous with low value and low wages.

The point is that if these employees are vital to the operations of Walmart, their compensation should reflect that importance.

If their job can be taught in a short time, their low compensation reflects their importance.

While it’s true that employment can reduce the need for welfare compared to unemployment, the point is that Walmart’s wages are often so low that many of its employees still qualify for welfare benefits.

Low skilled workers who can be easily replaced will always earn low wages.
If you don't like paying them welfare, stop paying them welfare.

A study by UC Berkeley Labor Center in 2014 found that low wages at Walmart cost taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps,

What study shows how much those workers will collect in assistance if they were fired tomorrow?

According to Fortune, Walmart was ranked #1 in the 2021 Fortune 500 list, based on its total revenue.

Revenue? LOL! What's their profit as a percentage of sales?

Walmart does have varying wages,

Thanks for admitting your error. I'm glad to help even a moron such as yourself.

However, when a company as profitable as Walmart pays wages that are not sufficient for basic living expenses, it leads to employees relying on government programs to fill the gap. This places a financial burden on taxpayers.

How much more are Chicago taxpayers about to be burdened since Walmart closed all 4 Chicago
locations because rampant shoplifting made them unprofitable?

 

[TruthNotBS]

It’s important to recognize that having "few skills" is not necessarily synonymous with low value.

It is synonymous with low value and low wages.

The point is that if these employees are vital to the operations of Walmart, their compensation should reflect that importance.

If their job can be taught in a short time, their low compensation reflects their importance.

While it’s true that employment can reduce the need for welfare compared to unemployment, the point is that Walmart’s wages are often so low that many of its employees still qualify for welfare benefits.

Low skilled workers who can be easily replaced will always earn low wages.
If you don't like paying them welfare, stop paying them welfare.

A study by UC Berkeley Labor Center in 2014 found that low wages at Walmart cost taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps,

What study shows how much those workers will collect in assistance if they were fired tomorrow?

According to Fortune, Walmart was ranked #1 in the 2021 Fortune 500 list, based on its total revenue.

Revenue? LOL! What's their profit as a percentage of sales?

Walmart does have varying wages,

Thanks for admitting your error. I'm glad to help even a moron such as yourself.

However, when a company as profitable as Walmart pays wages that are not sufficient for basic living expenses, it leads to employees relying on government programs to fill the gap. This places a financial burden on taxpayers.

How much more are Chicago taxpayers about to be burdened since Walmart closed all 4 Chicago
locations because rampant shoplifting made them unprofitable?

1. "It is synonymous with low value and low wages."
   It’s important to differentiate between market value and societal value. While it's true that low-skilled jobs often pay lower wages due to supply and demand, this does not mean that the individuals in these roles are of low value to society. These jobs are essential for the functioning of retail operations and the people in these roles contribute to the economy and communities.
2. "If their job can be taught in a short time, their low compensation reflects their importance."
   The ease of training for a job isn’t the sole factor in determining its importance. For instance, emergency medical technicians are trained relatively quickly compared to doctors, but their role in saving lives is undeniably critical. Similarly, retail workers ensure that people have access to necessary goods. Fair compensation is a recognition of the role they play in the smooth operation of commerce.
3. "Low skilled workers who can be easily replaced will always earn low wages. If you don't like paying them welfare, stop paying them welfare."
   This is a perspective that doesn't consider the broader implications on society. Low wages that don't meet basic living needs can contribute to poverty, which in turn can affect healthcare, education, and crime rates, creating costs for society as a whole.
4. "What study shows how much those workers will collect in assistance if they were fired tomorrow?"
   The point is not about workers being fired, but rather that a company with substantial resources is in a position to offer wages that would eliminate the need for government assistance. This is about corporate responsibility and the ethical treatment of workers.
5. "Revenue? LOL! What's their profit as a percentage of sales?"
   Walmart's net profit margin typically ranges between 2-4%. While this might not seem high in percentage terms, it translates to billions of dollars in absolute terms. For example, in 2020, Walmart’s net income was over $15 billion.
6. "Thanks for admitting your error. I'm glad to help even a moron such as yourself."
   The emphasis is on whether those wages are sufficient for a living wage in their respective locations, so you're clearly confused.
7. "How much more are Chicago taxpayers about to be burdened since Walmart closed all 4 Chicago locations because rampant shoplifting made them unprofitable?"
   Store closures can indeed have negative effects on local economies and employment. This underscores the complexity of these issues. It’s not just about wages, but also about broader social and economic policies, including law enforcement, that create environments where businesses can thrive while also supporting the well-being of employees and communities.

In conclusion, the discussion is about finding a balance that acknowledges the value of all workers, encourages responsible corporate citizenship, and considers the broader implications on society. Corporate profitability and community well-being are not mutually exclusive, despite Tod's inability or unwillingness to recognize it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1. "It is synonymous with low value and low wages."
   It’s important to differentiate between market value and societal value. While it's true that low-skilled jobs often pay lower wages due to supply and demand, this does not mean that the individuals in these roles are of low value to society. These jobs are essential for the functioning of retail operations and the people in these roles contribute to the economy and communities.
2. "If their job can be taught in a short time, their low compensation reflects their importance."
   The ease of training for a job isn’t the sole factor in determining its importance. For instance, emergency medical technicians are trained relatively quickly compared to doctors, but their role in saving lives is undeniably critical. Similarly, retail workers ensure that people have access to necessary goods. Fair compensation is a recognition of the role they play in the smooth operation of commerce.
3. "Low skilled workers who can be easily replaced will always earn low wages. If you don't like paying them welfare, stop paying them welfare."
   This is a perspective that doesn't consider the broader implications on society. Low wages that don't meet basic living needs can contribute to poverty, which in turn can affect healthcare, education, and crime rates, creating costs for society as a whole.
4. "What study shows how much those workers will collect in assistance if they were fired tomorrow?"
   The point is not about workers being fired, but rather that a company with substantial resources is in a position to offer wages that would eliminate the need for government assistance. This is about corporate responsibility and the ethical treatment of workers.
5. "Revenue? LOL! What's their profit as a percentage of sales?"
   Walmart's net profit margin typically ranges between 2-4%. While this might not seem high in percentage terms, it translates to billions of dollars in absolute terms. For example, in 2020, Walmart’s net income was over $15 billion.
6. "Thanks for admitting your error. I'm glad to help even a moron such as yourself."
   The emphasis is on whether those wages are sufficient for a living wage in their respective locations, so you're clearly confused.
7. "How much more are Chicago taxpayers about to be burdened since Walmart closed all 4 Chicago locations because rampant shoplifting made them unprofitable?"
   Store closures can indeed have negative effects on local economies and employment. This underscores the complexity of these issues. It’s not just about wages, but also about broader social and economic policies, including law enforcement, that create environments where businesses can thrive while also supporting the well-being of employees and communities.

In conclusion, the discussion is about finding a balance that acknowledges the value of all workers, encourages responsible corporate citizenship, and considers the broader implications on society. Corporate profitability and community well-being are not mutually exclusive, despite Tod's inability or unwillingness to recognize it.

It’s important to differentiate between market value and societal value.

LOL!

The ease of training for a job isn’t the sole factor in determining its importance.

Obviously. But it is a HUGE factor.

emergency medical technicians are trained relatively quickly compared to doctors, but their role in saving lives is undeniably critical.

And if they could be trained as quickly as a guy putting cans from a box onto a shelf, they'd
be making what a Walmart stocker makes.

Low wages that don't meet basic living needs can contribute to poverty,

Low wages reduce poverty more than no wages.

Walmart's net profit margin typically ranges between 2-4%. While this might not seem high in percentage terms,

Only because it's not. What's their salary expense as a percentage of sales?

The emphasis is on whether those wages are sufficient for a living wage in their respective locations, so you're clearly confused.

You can't live on your low-skilled paycheck? Get a roommate. Get some skills.

Store closures can indeed have negative effects on local economies and employment

What about the positive effects? Fewer jobs that don't pay a living wage.
Has to be good, eh comrade?

 

[TruthNotBS]

It’s important to differentiate between market value and societal value.

LOL!

The ease of training for a job isn’t the sole factor in determining its importance.

Obviously. But it is a HUGE factor.

emergency medical technicians are trained relatively quickly compared to doctors, but their role in saving lives is undeniably critical.

And if they could be trained as quickly as a guy putting cans from a box onto a shelf, they'd
be making what a Walmart stocker makes.

Low wages that don't meet basic living needs can contribute to poverty,

Low wages reduce poverty more than no wages.

Walmart's net profit margin typically ranges between 2-4%. While this might not seem high in percentage terms,

Only because it's not. What's their salary expense as a percentage of sales?

The emphasis is on whether those wages are sufficient for a living wage in their respective locations, so you're clearly confused.

You can't live on your low-skilled paycheck? Get a roommate. Get some skills.

Store closures can indeed have negative effects on local economies and employment

What about the positive effects? Fewer jobs that don't pay a living wage.
Has to be good, eh comrade?

1. "LOL!"
   Ah, "LOL!" The battle cry of keyboard warriors when words fail. But enough with the pleasantries, let’s address the points.
2. "Obviously. But it is a HUGE factor."
   Oh, we’re playing the oversimplification game? Yeah, ease of training is a factor, but just because something is easier to learn doesn’t mean we should pay people less than what it takes to live.
3. "And if they could be trained as quickly as a guy putting cans from a box onto a shelf, they'd be making what a Walmart stocker makes."
   That’s some dystopian race-to-the-bottom logic. How about we try not to create a society where people have to choose between eating and paying rent?
4. "Low wages reduce poverty more than no wages."
   How generous, giving people crumbs instead of nothing. Can’t we aspire for a little more? Like, I don't know, a wage that allows someone to live without deciding between medication and food?
5. "Only because it's not. What's their salary expense as a percentage of sales?"
   Alright, let's not pretend Walmart is a lemonade stand running on nickels and dimes. They made an operating income of around $22 billion in 2020. They’ve got room to lift people out of poverty.
6. "You can't live on your low-skilled paycheck? Get a roommate. Get some skills."
   Maybe we can also imagine a society where people aren't driven into the ground by companies making billions.
7. "What about the positive effects? Fewer jobs that don't pay a living wage. Has to be good, eh comrade?"
   Yes, let’s break out the “comrade” – we’re one step away from a black-and-white McCarthy-era PSA. But here’s an idea: let's have jobs that do pay living wages!
8. Time to take the gloves off: Walmart’s wages are essentially the equivalent of your “LOL” – low effort. If Walmart doesn't want to pay living wages, then, by all means, let’s bring in Big Government to either make them or do it for them. Because right now, what we have is essentially Welfare for the Wealthy: Walmart gets all the profits, and the taxpayer picks up the tab for the workforce. But society can choose not to play this game. We can set the rules.
9. On Prices and Government Regulation: Before you jump to the “higher wages will make prices skyrocket,” let’s not forget, the government can employ price controls or subsidies on essentials. It’s like chess, my friend, and the checkmate could be the government ensuring that companies like Walmart can’t have their subsidized labor cake and eat it too.

So, while you "LOL" at the market devaluing humans, the rest of us will be over here trying to make a society that works for everyone, not just the Walmarts of the world.

 

[Redfish]

No more government payouts, you parasite. Pay your employees a living wage or you won't have any employees working in those positions. More, the government can ensure all Americans have a job that pays a living wage, in the public sector. If you can't find a job in the private sector that will allow you to pay your bills and live, you can come to work for the government. We have plenty of work to do, paving highways, building and maintaining bridges and national infrastructure, and many other tasks and projects. If you want to be a capitalist asshole, the government will employ everyone that needs a job and can't get one in the private sector that pays a living wage.

The government will also provide everyone with an education in its public schools, from kinder to Ph.D. Vocational job training as well.

your ignorance is amazing, you have no idea how this world works. you are advocating for socialism. tell us where socialism has actually worked to benefit the people, give us a list.

 

[Redfish]

For the sake of others.

There are several key points that need to be addressed regarding the responsibility of a corporation towards its employees and the community. First, let's talk about the term 'low-skilled workers'. Labeling someone as low-skilled doesn’t devalue their contribution to society or the company they work for. These employees are vital in keeping the stores running, shelves stocked, and providing customer service. They play a direct role in generating profits for the company. Todd has his head so far up his ass he fails to acknowledge this simple fact.

Second, when Todd moronically argues that Walmart is doing society a favor by employing these individuals and alleviating the burden on the government, it’s important to recognize that In effect, this means that taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart’s labor costs. As one of the wealthiest companies in the world, should Walmart not be accountable for paying its own employees a wage that reflects the cost of living in their location (wherever that might be), rather than shifting this burden onto taxpayers?

He disingenuously denies that he is for the US government bailing out Walmart every month, by handing their full-time employees food stamps and cash assistance, nonetheless, that's exactly what he's promoting irrespective of whether he recognizes it or not.

Next, let’s address the term “living wage”. While Todd is correct in stating that this term can be subjective, it essentially means a wage that is high enough to afford basic necessities like food, housing, and healthcare without needing government assistance. The cost of living varies by location, but there are benchmarks and studies that can be used to estimate a living wage in different areas.

In the US, the two most prominent tools for estimating a living wage are:

1. MIT Living Wage Calculator: Developed by Dr. Amy K. Glasmeier at MIT, this calculator estimates the living wage needed to support individuals and families, taking into account the costs of food, childcare, health insurance, housing, transportation, and other basic necessities. The calculator is location-specific and provides data for each county and metropolitan area in the United States. You can access the calculator at livingwage.mit.edu.
2. Economic Policy Institute’s Family Budget Calculator: The Family Budget Calculator provided by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) estimates how much a family needs to earn to achieve an adequate standard of living in the United States. It considers costs such as housing, food, transportation, healthcare, and education, among others. The calculator also provides location-specific data. You can access this calculator at epi.org/resources/budget.

Both of these tools take into account the regional variations in the cost of living which is important as the living wage in New York City will be significantly higher than in a rural town in the Midwest, for example.

When discussing living wages, it is also important to note the federal poverty guidelines, which are used as a benchmark for various assistance programs. While the poverty guidelines are not synonymous with a living wage, they can be a reference point for the minimum income requirements for families to meet their basic living needs. These guidelines are published annually by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Furthermore, paying full-time workers a living wage can have long-term benefits not just for employees, but for the company and society as a whole. When employees are paid fairly, they are more likely to be productive, loyal, and provide better customer service. This, in turn, can lead to increased sales and profitability for the company. Additionally, when people are able to cover their basic needs, they have more disposable income to spend in the economy, which can stimulate economic growth.

Companies that generate tens of billions of dollars yearly in profits, like Walmart, have a social responsibility to contribute positively to society. Ensuring that their employees can live dignified lives without having to struggle to meet basic needs should be a fundamental part of that responsibility. It's freaking asinine how Todd fails to recognize this.

In conclusion, paying a living wage is not only economically sound but also reflects the values of fairness, dignity, and corporate responsibility that are essential for a just and thriving society. Tod doesn't care about that, because he's a pathetic punk and piece of shit.

move to north korea, they have the systems you are asking for.

 

[TruthNotBS]

move to north korea, they have the systems you are asking for.

Ah, the sweet, dulcet tones of intellectual discourse, and then the strident, off-key clang of “move to North Korea.” The classic and rather tired rejoinder, trundled out whenever one dares to suggest that rampant, unchecked capitalism might need a pinch of humanity and responsibility.

When corporations recognize the vitality of paying employees a living wage, they are investing in the society that allows them to prosper. Yes, I dare say ‘invest’ without a single mention of stock options or market portfolios. They are ensuring that their workforce can live with dignity, and that society doesn't bear the cost through welfare programs. Quite ironically, by the way, this is reducing the sort of ‘socialism’ that critics often rail against. Yes, corporations taking responsibility reduces the need for government intervention.

Henry Ford, hardly a ‘commie’ by any stretch of the imagination, doubled his workers’ wages in 1914. He did so partly to reduce employee turnover, but also because he realized that better-paid employees could afford to buy the cars they were making. Eureka! A capitalist recognizing that his workers are also paying consumers. They are part of the very economy upon which the corporate citadels are built.

 

[TruthNotBS]

your ignorance is amazing, you have no idea how this world works. you are advocating for socialism. tell us where socialism has actually worked to benefit the people, give us a list.

Allow me to hand you a flashlight as we navigate the murky waters of your understanding. No, advocating for a living wage and education isn't the spooky “socialism” you dread; it’s more like Capitalism 2.0 , now with added humanity.

If saying “Hey, maybe don't let people starve” stamps a socialist label on Canada, Germany, and most of Western Europe, then maybe we need a dictionary more than an economics textbook. These places are rockin’ mixed economies, where capitalism shakes hands with social responsibility.

Now let’s talk Walmart. Telling them to pay their full-timers enough to live isn't a communist manifesto; it's “Economics: The Basics”. Get this: if Walmart pays its people properly, guess who doesn't have to? The government! Cue the fireworks, that's less government intervention.

So, let’s chill on the socialism scare tactics. Let’s add a dash of compassion to capitalism, because believe it or not, when people do well, the economy does too. Crazy, right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1. "LOL!"
   Ah, "LOL!" The battle cry of keyboard warriors when words fail. But enough with the pleasantries, let’s address the points.
2. "Obviously. But it is a HUGE factor."
   Oh, we’re playing the oversimplification game? Yeah, ease of training is a factor, but just because something is easier to learn doesn’t mean we should pay people less than what it takes to live.
3. "And if they could be trained as quickly as a guy putting cans from a box onto a shelf, they'd be making what a Walmart stocker makes."
   That’s some dystopian race-to-the-bottom logic. How about we try not to create a society where people have to choose between eating and paying rent?
4. "Low wages reduce poverty more than no wages."
   How generous, giving people crumbs instead of nothing. Can’t we aspire for a little more? Like, I don't know, a wage that allows someone to live without deciding between medication and food?
5. "Only because it's not. What's their salary expense as a percentage of sales?"
   Alright, let's not pretend Walmart is a lemonade stand running on nickels and dimes. They made an operating income of around $22 billion in 2020. They’ve got room to lift people out of poverty.
6. "You can't live on your low-skilled paycheck? Get a roommate. Get some skills."
   Maybe we can also imagine a society where people aren't driven into the ground by companies making billions.
7. "What about the positive effects? Fewer jobs that don't pay a living wage. Has to be good, eh comrade?"
   Yes, let’s break out the “comrade” – we’re one step away from a black-and-white McCarthy-era PSA. But here’s an idea: let's have jobs that do pay living wages!
8. Time to take the gloves off: Walmart’s wages are essentially the equivalent of your “LOL” – low effort. If Walmart doesn't want to pay living wages, then, by all means, let’s bring in Big Government to either make them or do it for them. Because right now, what we have is essentially Welfare for the Wealthy: Walmart gets all the profits, and the taxpayer picks up the tab for the workforce. But society can choose not to play this game. We can set the rules.
9. On Prices and Government Regulation: Before you jump to the “higher wages will make prices skyrocket,” let’s not forget, the government can employ price controls or subsidies on essentials. It’s like chess, my friend, and the checkmate could be the government ensuring that companies like Walmart can’t have their subsidized labor cake and eat it too.

So, while you "LOL" at the market devaluing humans, the rest of us will be over here trying to make a society that works for everyone, not just the Walmarts of the world.

just because something is easier to learn doesn’t mean we should pay people less than what it takes to live.

How many low-skilled Walmart employees have been dying of starvation recently?

That’s some dystopian race-to-the-bottom logic. How about we try not to create a society where people have to choose between eating and paying rent?

You had me at "that's some logic". Why don't you tell me how many Walmart workers are making "less than what it takes to live" and how much more a year they should be paid?

How generous, giving people crumbs instead of nothing.

Better than the gulag, eh comrade?

Can’t we aspire for a little more?

Absolutely!!! More skills, more training, more education will get you more income.

They made an operating income of around $22 billion in 2020.

How much did they pay in salary in 2020?

we’re one step away from a black-and-white McCarthy-era PSA.

You're first on the list, comrade!

let’s bring in Big Government to either make them or do it for them.

Let's not.

Walmart gets all the profits, and the taxpayer picks up the tab for the workforce.

Picks up the tab? Walmart doesn't pay any salary? Are you sure?

But society can choose not to play this game. We can set the rules.

It worked in Venezuela, right? The stores were "gouging" and now they aren't, right?

So, while you "LOL" at the market devaluing humans,

That's not what I'm laughing at, I'm laughing at clueless morons like you.