What Happens When You Tax Billionaires At 90%

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

Let’s add a dash of compassion to capitalism

I agree, we need more compassion for low-skilled American workers.
Step one, boot 30 million illegal aliens. To start.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Let’s add a dash of compassion to capitalism

I agree, we need more compassion for low-skilled American workers.
Step one, boot 30 million illegal aliens. To start.

Ah, there it is The classic “Let's throw in an unrelated divisive issue” maneuver! How exciting.

So, we're now connecting the dots between compassionate capitalism and... deporting 30 million people? If we’re playing the Blame Game, let’s also blame the fall of Rome and that weird smell in your fridge for Walmart’s wages. Just as relevant.
Newsflash: Walmart’s paycheck decisions aren’t being held hostage by immigration policies. Last time I checked, their profit margins don’t hinge on a national headcount.

Walmart isn’t a confused bystander; it’s a behemoth with the means to pay a living wage right now. We don't need to send 30 million people packing for Walmart to find its moral compass. Instead of making full-time workers’ wages a hostage in a completely different debate, let's let Walmart own its choices, shall we? And let’s not use the livelihoods of millions of American workers as pawns in a bizarre game of issue-mix-and-match.

Eagerly awaiting the next debate somersault,

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ah, there it is The classic “Let's throw in an unrelated divisive issue” maneuver! How exciting.

So, we're now connecting the dots between compassionate capitalism and... deporting 30 million people? If we’re playing the Blame Game, let’s also blame the fall of Rome and that weird smell in your fridge for Walmart’s wages. Just as relevant.
Newsflash: Walmart’s paycheck decisions aren’t being held hostage by immigration policies. Last time I checked, their profit margins don’t hinge on a national headcount.

Walmart isn’t a confused bystander; it’s a behemoth with the means to pay a living wage right now. We don't need to send 30 million people packing for Walmart to find its moral compass. Instead of making full-time workers’ wages a hostage in a completely different debate, let's let Walmart own its choices, shall we? And let’s not use the livelihoods of millions of American workers as pawns in a bizarre game of issue-mix-and-match.

Eagerly awaiting the next debate somersault,

Ah, there it is The classic “Let's throw in an unrelated divisive issue” maneuver!

Unrelated? How are low wages for low-skilled Americans unrelated to the flood
of low-skilled illegal aliens competing with them for jobs?

You really have no clue how economics works.

Walmart isn’t a confused bystander; it’s a behemoth with the means to pay a living wage right now.

You haven't posted your numbers yet. How many Walmart workers are below a living wage?
How much more do they each need to reach a "living wage"?

 

[TruthNotBS]

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.

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

Well, Captain Compassion, life isn’t just about avoiding starvation. It's also about affording healthcare, housing, and, you know, not living in abject poverty. There’s a cozy spot between starvation and a living wage; it’s called misery.

2. "Better than the gulag, eh comrade?"

What a utopian dream you weave! "At least you're not in the gulag." Oh, the heights of human aspiration! Can't we set our sights a tad higher than labor camp conditions? Or is that too audacious?

3. "How much did they pay in salary in 2020?"

Well, let’s throw on the thinking cap and dive into the numbers. According to Walmart's 2021 Annual Report, they spent approximately $36 billion on wages and benefits for their U.S. employees in the fiscal year that ended in January 2021. (source). Put that against their roughly 1.5 million U.S. employees in 2020 (source) and, voilà, you get an average of about $24,000 per employee for the year. But, let’s not kid ourselves, that’s not equally distributed like candies at a parade because executives are dining on filet mignon, not ramen noodles. For a reality check, the federal poverty line for a family of four in 2020 was $26,200 (source). So, Walmart, the titan of retail, is paying wages that can’t lift a family of four out of poverty. It’s like giving someone a lifeline made of spaghetti.

And to add a dollop of perspective: Walmart had a net income of around $15.2 billion in 2020 (source). That’s the cash they have left to roll around in after all expenses. Meanwhile, a big chunk of their employees are playing financial Tetris trying to keep the lights on. It's as if Scrooge McDuck is doing the backstroke through his gold coins, while Bob Cratchit is counting pennies.

4. "It worked in Venezuela, right?"

Congratulations on unlocking the “Mention a Completely Unrelated Country” achievement! Comparing Walmart in the U.S. to Venezuela's economic crisis is like comparing apples to a space shuttle. Shall we talk about the successful mixed economies like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Canada? No? Venezuela it is then!

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

Walmart pays, sure. But when that’s not enough to live on, Uncle Sam has to step in with food stamps and Medicaid. Imagine giving someone half a sandwich and then strutting around like you’re ending world hunger.

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

Laughing at “clueless morons,” are you? It’s commendable that you can find humor in self-reflection. But be careful; too much laughter is bad for the stitches - you know, from that recent wit-ectomy, you seem to have undergone. It's all well and good to giggle, but when you’re standing in a sandbox with a shovel, you might want to aim higher than digging yourself into a hole. Let's try to elevate this banter to the shelf you can't reach without a step stool.

In Conclusion:

Let's choose to build a society where full-time work means living above the poverty line. Or, we can keep making absurd comparisons while donning a tin foil hat. I know which one I’d rather.

Toodles!

 

[TruthNotBS]

Ah, there it is The classic “Let's throw in an unrelated divisive issue” maneuver!

Unrelated? How are low wages for low-skilled Americans unrelated to the flood
of low-skilled illegal aliens competing with them for jobs?

You really have no clue how economics works.

Walmart isn’t a confused bystander; it’s a behemoth with the means to pay a living wage right now.

You haven't posted your numbers yet. How many Walmart workers are below a living wage?
How much more do they each need to reach a "living wage"?

"Unrelated? How are low wages for low-skilled Americans unrelated to the flood of low-skilled illegal aliens competing with them for jobs? You really have no clue how economics works."

Oh, dear. Is this the part where you unveil your master plan to save the economy by targeting immigrants? It’s like a broken record playing the same tired tune. Here’s an Economics 101 pop quiz: When a colossal entity like Walmart has an operating income in the billions, is their failure to pay living wages because of (A) Immigrants or (B) Their incessant greed to stack more billions? If you answered A, please return your Economics Decoder Ring; you're using it wrong.

"You haven't posted your numbers yet. How many Walmart workers are below a living wage? How much more do they each need to reach a "living wage"?"

Oh, right, numbers! Those pesky little things. Let's say, for argument’s sake, Walmart decided to pay its 1.5 million U.S. employees a mere $2 more an hour. A drop in the bucket for them but life-changing for many. We’re talking about $6 billion a year, give or take. This is a company that made an operating income of around $22 billion in 2020. But you know, let's just blame immigrants instead of acknowledging that Scrooge McDuck over here can afford to share some coins.

Your economic insight is like a toddler in a tiara – cute, but not winning any serious awards. It's time to take off the tin-foil hat and recognize that while immigration has its challenges, it's not the puppeteer controlling the Walmart wage marionette. The strings are being pulled by something else, my friend, and it’s got dollar signs in its eyes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Well, Captain Compassion, life isn’t just about avoiding starvation. It's also about affording healthcare, housing, and, you know, not living in abject poverty. There’s a cozy spot between starvation and a living wage; it’s called misery.

2. "Better than the gulag, eh comrade?"

What a utopian dream you weave! "At least you're not in the gulag." Oh, the heights of human aspiration! Can't we set our sights a tad higher than labor camp conditions? Or is that too audacious?

3. "How much did they pay in salary in 2020?"

Well, let’s throw on the thinking cap and dive into the numbers. According to Walmart's 2021 Annual Report, they spent approximately $36 billion on wages and benefits for their U.S. employees in the fiscal year that ended in January 2021. (source). Put that against their roughly 1.5 million U.S. employees in 2020 (source) and, voilà, you get an average of about $24,000 per employee for the year. But, let’s not kid ourselves, that’s not equally distributed like candies at a parade because executives are dining on filet mignon, not ramen noodles. For a reality check, the federal poverty line for a family of four in 2020 was $26,200 (source). So, Walmart, the titan of retail, is paying wages that can’t lift a family of four out of poverty. It’s like giving someone a lifeline made of spaghetti.

And to add a dollop of perspective: Walmart had a net income of around $15.2 billion in 2020 (source). That’s the cash they have left to roll around in after all expenses. Meanwhile, a big chunk of their employees are playing financial Tetris trying to keep the lights on. It's as if Scrooge McDuck is doing the backstroke through his gold coins, while Bob Cratchit is counting pennies.

4. "It worked in Venezuela, right?"

Congratulations on unlocking the “Mention a Completely Unrelated Country” achievement! Comparing Walmart in the U.S. to Venezuela's economic crisis is like comparing apples to a space shuttle. Shall we talk about the successful mixed economies like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Canada? No? Venezuela it is then!

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

Walmart pays, sure. But when that’s not enough to live on, Uncle Sam has to step in with food stamps and Medicaid. Imagine giving someone half a sandwich and then strutting around like you’re ending world hunger.

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

Laughing at “clueless morons,” are you? It’s commendable that you can find humor in self-reflection. But be careful; too much laughter is bad for the stitches - you know, from that recent wit-ectomy, you seem to have undergone. It's all well and good to giggle, but when you’re standing in a sandbox with a shovel, you might want to aim higher than digging yourself into a hole. Let's try to elevate this banter to the shelf you can't reach without a step stool.

In Conclusion:

Let's choose to build a society where full-time work means living above the poverty line. Or, we can keep making absurd comparisons while donning a tin foil hat. I know which one I’d rather.

Toodles!

According to Walmart's 2021 Annual Report, they spent approximately $36 billion on wages and benefits for their U.S. employees in the fiscal year that ended in January 2021. (source).

Your link is bad. Try again?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Well, Captain Compassion, life isn’t just about avoiding starvation. It's also about affording healthcare, housing, and, you know, not living in abject poverty. There’s a cozy spot between starvation and a living wage; it’s called misery.

2. "Better than the gulag, eh comrade?"

What a utopian dream you weave! "At least you're not in the gulag." Oh, the heights of human aspiration! Can't we set our sights a tad higher than labor camp conditions? Or is that too audacious?

3. "How much did they pay in salary in 2020?"

Well, let’s throw on the thinking cap and dive into the numbers. According to Walmart's 2021 Annual Report, they spent approximately $36 billion on wages and benefits for their U.S. employees in the fiscal year that ended in January 2021. (source). Put that against their roughly 1.5 million U.S. employees in 2020 (source) and, voilà, you get an average of about $24,000 per employee for the year. But, let’s not kid ourselves, that’s not equally distributed like candies at a parade because executives are dining on filet mignon, not ramen noodles. For a reality check, the federal poverty line for a family of four in 2020 was $26,200 (source). So, Walmart, the titan of retail, is paying wages that can’t lift a family of four out of poverty. It’s like giving someone a lifeline made of spaghetti.

And to add a dollop of perspective: Walmart had a net income of around $15.2 billion in 2020 (source). That’s the cash they have left to roll around in after all expenses. Meanwhile, a big chunk of their employees are playing financial Tetris trying to keep the lights on. It's as if Scrooge McDuck is doing the backstroke through his gold coins, while Bob Cratchit is counting pennies.

4. "It worked in Venezuela, right?"

Congratulations on unlocking the “Mention a Completely Unrelated Country” achievement! Comparing Walmart in the U.S. to Venezuela's economic crisis is like comparing apples to a space shuttle. Shall we talk about the successful mixed economies like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Canada? No? Venezuela it is then!

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

Walmart pays, sure. But when that’s not enough to live on, Uncle Sam has to step in with food stamps and Medicaid. Imagine giving someone half a sandwich and then strutting around like you’re ending world hunger.

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

Laughing at “clueless morons,” are you? It’s commendable that you can find humor in self-reflection. But be careful; too much laughter is bad for the stitches - you know, from that recent wit-ectomy, you seem to have undergone. It's all well and good to giggle, but when you’re standing in a sandbox with a shovel, you might want to aim higher than digging yourself into a hole. Let's try to elevate this banter to the shelf you can't reach without a step stool.

In Conclusion:

Let's choose to build a society where full-time work means living above the poverty line. Or, we can keep making absurd comparisons while donning a tin foil hat. I know which one I’d rather.

Toodles!

Comparing Walmart in the U.S. to Venezuela's economic crisis is like comparing apples to a space shuttle.

You want the government to tell Walmart what they have to pay their employees.
Venezuela tried that. Did it work?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Walmart pays, sure. But when that’s not enough to live on, Uncle Sam has to step in with food stamps and Medicaid. Imagine giving someone half a sandwich and then strutting around like you’re ending world hunger.

Imagine giving half a sandwich and some commie twat whines that it's not filet.

 

[TruthNotBS]

According to Walmart's 2021 Annual Report, they spent approximately $36 billion on wages and benefits for their U.S. employees in the fiscal year that ended in January 2021. (source).

Your link is bad. Try again?

Let me crunch some numbers for you: According to Walmart's 2021 Annual Report, they spent around $36 billion on wages and benefits for their U.S. employees in the fiscal year ending in January 2021.

Now, if we talk about paying each of Walmart’s 1.5 million U.S. employees, say, $2 more per hour, that’s an additional $6.24 billion annually. Mind you, this is a company with an operating income of around $22 billion in 2020. So, to clarify, Walmart could feasibly provide a significant raise to all of its employees and still swim in billions.

To answer your second question, the living wage varies depending on the location.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Well, Captain Compassion, life isn’t just about avoiding starvation. It's also about affording healthcare, housing, and, you know, not living in abject poverty. There’s a cozy spot between starvation and a living wage; it’s called misery.

2. "Better than the gulag, eh comrade?"

What a utopian dream you weave! "At least you're not in the gulag." Oh, the heights of human aspiration! Can't we set our sights a tad higher than labor camp conditions? Or is that too audacious?

3. "How much did they pay in salary in 2020?"

Well, let’s throw on the thinking cap and dive into the numbers. According to Walmart's 2021 Annual Report, they spent approximately $36 billion on wages and benefits for their U.S. employees in the fiscal year that ended in January 2021. (source). Put that against their roughly 1.5 million U.S. employees in 2020 (source) and, voilà, you get an average of about $24,000 per employee for the year. But, let’s not kid ourselves, that’s not equally distributed like candies at a parade because executives are dining on filet mignon, not ramen noodles. For a reality check, the federal poverty line for a family of four in 2020 was $26,200 (source). So, Walmart, the titan of retail, is paying wages that can’t lift a family of four out of poverty. It’s like giving someone a lifeline made of spaghetti.

And to add a dollop of perspective: Walmart had a net income of around $15.2 billion in 2020 (source). That’s the cash they have left to roll around in after all expenses. Meanwhile, a big chunk of their employees are playing financial Tetris trying to keep the lights on. It's as if Scrooge McDuck is doing the backstroke through his gold coins, while Bob Cratchit is counting pennies.

4. "It worked in Venezuela, right?"

Congratulations on unlocking the “Mention a Completely Unrelated Country” achievement! Comparing Walmart in the U.S. to Venezuela's economic crisis is like comparing apples to a space shuttle. Shall we talk about the successful mixed economies like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Canada? No? Venezuela it is then!

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

Walmart pays, sure. But when that’s not enough to live on, Uncle Sam has to step in with food stamps and Medicaid. Imagine giving someone half a sandwich and then strutting around like you’re ending world hunger.

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

Laughing at “clueless morons,” are you? It’s commendable that you can find humor in self-reflection. But be careful; too much laughter is bad for the stitches - you know, from that recent wit-ectomy, you seem to have undergone. It's all well and good to giggle, but when you’re standing in a sandbox with a shovel, you might want to aim higher than digging yourself into a hole. Let's try to elevate this banter to the shelf you can't reach without a step stool.

In Conclusion:

Let's choose to build a society where full-time work means living above the poverty line. Or, we can keep making absurd comparisons while donning a tin foil hat. I know which one I’d rather.

Toodles!

Laughing at “clueless morons,” are you?

Yes. Every time you open your mouth you spew more ignorant inanities.

Let's choose to build a society where full-time work means living above the poverty line.

You just showed that a single full-time Walmart employee is well above the poverty line.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Imagine giving half a sandwich and some commie twat whines that it's not filet.

But let’s unpack your ‘half a sandwich’ metaphor. It’s not about demanding filet mignon, it’s about ensuring the sandwich is wholesome enough not to necessitate a hospital visit after consumption. So, I guess by your logic, if we find a dollar on the street, we should thank the heavens for not making it a penny, and never aspire for anything more. I shall coin this “The Grateful for Crumbs Economic Theory”. Nobel Prize, here you come!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Unrelated? How are low wages for low-skilled Americans unrelated to the flood of low-skilled illegal aliens competing with them for jobs? You really have no clue how economics works."

Oh, dear. Is this the part where you unveil your master plan to save the economy by targeting immigrants? It’s like a broken record playing the same tired tune. Here’s an Economics 101 pop quiz: When a colossal entity like Walmart has an operating income in the billions, is their failure to pay living wages because of (A) Immigrants or (B) Their incessant greed to stack more billions? If you answered A, please return your Economics Decoder Ring; you're using it wrong.

"You haven't posted your numbers yet. How many Walmart workers are below a living wage? How much more do they each need to reach a "living wage"?"

Oh, right, numbers! Those pesky little things. Let's say, for argument’s sake, Walmart decided to pay its 1.5 million U.S. employees a mere $2 more an hour. A drop in the bucket for them but life-changing for many. We’re talking about $6 billion a year, give or take. This is a company that made an operating income of around $22 billion in 2020. But you know, let's just blame immigrants instead of acknowledging that Scrooge McDuck over here can afford to share some coins.

Your economic insight is like a toddler in a tiara – cute, but not winning any serious awards. It's time to take off the tin-foil hat and recognize that while immigration has its challenges, it's not the puppeteer controlling the Walmart wage marionette. The strings are being pulled by something else, my friend, and it’s got dollar signs in its eyes.

Oh, dear. Is this the part where you unveil your master plan to save the economy by targeting immigrants?

This is where I show how to raise wages for low-skilled American citizens.

Let's say, for argument’s sake, Walmart decided to pay its 1.5 million U.S. employees a mere $2 more an hour. A drop in the bucket for them but life-changing for many. We’re talking about $6 billion a year, give or take.

Going from $24K to $28K a year solves all their problems?

let's just blame immigrants instead of acknowledging that Scrooge McDuck over here can afford to share some coins.

Removing millions of low-skilled illegal aliens from the job market isn't going to
force Scrooge McDuck to raise wages? Are you sure?

 

[TruthNotBS]

Laughing at “clueless morons,” are you?

Yes. Every time you open your mouth you spew more ignorant inanities.

Let's choose to build a society where full-time work means living above the poverty line.

You just showed that a single full-time Walmart employee is well above the poverty line.

Ah, the sweet nectar of "gotcha" moments. But hold your horses. You see, being “well above the poverty line” is like being the tallest kid in kindergarten; it doesn't mean much in the real world.

Here's the catch: The federal poverty line is a remarkably low bar. For a single individual, it's around $13,000 per year. Could you live comfortably on that? Heck, could you live on double that without sweating about bills?

So, when we talk about a living wage, we're not talking about just clawing one's way over an outdated poverty threshold. We're talking about earning enough to afford basic needs, a semblance of financial security, and not having to choose between buying medicine or putting food on the table.

It’s kind of like aiming for graduating high school rather than just celebrating not being held back in kindergarten. The bar, my friend, should be set a little higher. At least high enough so one doesn’t need a stepladder to see it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let me crunch some numbers for you: According to Walmart's 2021 Annual Report, they spent around $36 billion on wages and benefits for their U.S. employees in the fiscal year ending in January 2021.

Your link is to the 2023 Annual report. What page had this supposed $36 billion figure?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But let’s unpack your ‘half a sandwich’ metaphor. It’s not about demanding filet mignon, it’s about ensuring the sandwich is wholesome enough not to necessitate a hospital visit after consumption. So, I guess by your logic, if we find a dollar on the street, we should thank the heavens for not making it a penny, and never aspire for anything more. I shall coin this “The Grateful for Crumbs Economic Theory”. Nobel Prize, here you come!

What was their income before Walmart? What is it after? Sounds like an improvement over stale government cheese.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ah, the sweet nectar of "gotcha" moments. But hold your horses. You see, being “well above the poverty line” is like being the tallest kid in kindergarten; it doesn't mean much in the real world.

Here's the catch: The federal poverty line is a remarkably low bar. For a single individual, it's around $13,000 per year. Could you live comfortably on that? Heck, could you live on double that without sweating about bills?

So, when we talk about a living wage, we're not talking about just clawing one's way over an outdated poverty threshold. We're talking about earning enough to afford basic needs, a semblance of financial security, and not having to choose between buying medicine or putting food on the table.

It’s kind of like aiming for graduating high school rather than just celebrating not being held back in kindergarten. The bar, my friend, should be set a little higher. At least high enough so one doesn’t need a stepladder to see it.

Ah, the sweet nectar of "gotcha" moments. But hold your horses. You see, being “well above the poverty line” is like being the tallest kid in kindergarten; it doesn't mean much in the real world.

You brought it up, now it makes you cry?

 

[TruthNotBS]

Oh, dear. Is this the part where you unveil your master plan to save the economy by targeting immigrants?

This is where I show how to raise wages for low-skilled American citizens.

Let's say, for argument’s sake, Walmart decided to pay its 1.5 million U.S. employees a mere $2 more an hour. A drop in the bucket for them but life-changing for many. We’re talking about $6 billion a year, give or take.

Going from $24K to $28K a year solves all their problems?

let's just blame immigrants instead of acknowledging that Scrooge McDuck over here can afford to share some coins.

Removing millions of low-skilled illegal aliens from the job market isn't going to
force Scrooge McDuck to raise wages? Are you sure?

"This is where I show how to raise wages for low-skilled American citizens."

Ah, the classic slight of hand trick: divert attention to a different topic so no one notices the rabbit being stuffed into the hat. But I’ve got my eyes on that rabbit, my friend.

"Going from $24K to $28K a year solves all their problems?"

Well, an extra $4,000 a year might not sound like a golden ticket to you, but for someone struggling, it can mean the difference between putting food on the table or not, keeping the lights on, or even affording much-needed medication. It’s a step in the right direction, and sometimes that step can feel like a leap for those on the edge.

"Removing millions of low-skilled illegal aliens from the job market isn't going to force Scrooge McDuck to raise wages? Are you sure?"

Oh, we're back to the “immigrants are the source of all our troubles” chapter, I see. The issue with this claim is that it’s as shallow as a kiddie pool. Wages aren’t stagnant just because of an influx of immigrant labor; it's also about the concentration of power and wealth at the top.

Here’s the thing, wages have been stagnant for decades, and during this time, corporate profits have skyrocketed. So while it’s tempting to paint the picture with broad strokes and blame immigrants, it’s not the full canvas.

Let’s focus on Walmart, the protagonist of our story. They could choose to pay their workers more. They can afford it. This wouldn’t just be good for the workers; it’s good for the economy. It’s like a magical potion: more money for workers means more spending, which translates into more demand and growth. Economics 101.

So instead of channeling energies into rounding up millions of people (which, by the way, is logistically impossible and morally dubious), why not focus on the corporations swimming in pools of gold? Sharing a few coins won’t leave them in rags. Maybe Scrooge McDuck can afford to lose a coin or two from his vault.

 

[TruthNotBS]

What was their income before Walmart? What is it after? Sounds like an improvement over stale government cheese.

"What was their income before Walmart? What is it after? Sounds like an improvement over stale government cheese."

Ah, I see we're now setting the benchmark for employment success at “slightly better than eating stale government cheese”. Bravo on the ambition! Yes, having a job is better than not having a job. But we’re not talking about mere employment here; we’re talking about a living wage.

Imagine running a marathon, and someone gives you a single potato chip at the end. Sure, it's better than absolutely nothing, but is it sufficient? No.

Here’s a thought: what if the giant corporations, making billions in profits, paid their employees enough so that they could buy their own cheese, fresh, and maybe throw in some bread and veggies too? Revolutionary, I know!

The issue isn’t just that Walmart provides jobs, it’s that Walmart, a company that made around $22 billion in operating income in 2020, pays such low wages that many of its employees have to rely on government assistance. So, in essence, taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart’s workforce because the company doesn’t pay them enough to live on.

This isn’t just an issue of “better than nothing.” It’s an issue of economic fairness and basic human dignity. When a corporation has the means to pay a living wage but doesn’t, it’s not just the employees who lose; society as a whole picks up the tab.

So, how about we aspire to something a little higher than "better than stale government cheese"? Let’s aim for “able to support oneself and live with dignity.” It’s a wild idea, but I think it might just catch on.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Ah, the sweet nectar of "gotcha" moments. But hold your horses. You see, being “well above the poverty line” is like being the tallest kid in kindergarten; it doesn't mean much in the real world.

You brought it up, now it makes you cry?

Oh, good heavens, no tears here, my friend. Just a slight facepalm at the sight of another attempt to dodge the actual issue. I brought up the poverty line to point out that skirting just above it isn't exactly a crowning achievement. It's like getting a participation trophy and declaring yourself the MVP. Let's not pop the champagne over "barely making it".

What we're discussing is the ability to not just survive, but to thrive. To not have to choose between medicine or groceries. To be able to have a little safety net for when life throws curveballs, because it will.

The idea is not just to allow people to scrape by, but to build a society where working full-time means you can live with a modicum of security and dignity. If that concept is making someone cry, maybe it's tears of frustration at the sheer resistance to basic human empathy. Or maybe they're tears of joy for the day when “well above the poverty line” means something more than "still struggling to make ends meet." One can hope.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"This is where I show how to raise wages for low-skilled American citizens."

Ah, the classic slight of hand trick: divert attention to a different topic so no one notices the rabbit being stuffed into the hat. But I’ve got my eyes on that rabbit, my friend.

"Going from $24K to $28K a year solves all their problems?"

Well, an extra $4,000 a year might not sound like a golden ticket to you, but for someone struggling, it can mean the difference between putting food on the table or not, keeping the lights on, or even affording much-needed medication. It’s a step in the right direction, and sometimes that step can feel like a leap for those on the edge.

"Removing millions of low-skilled illegal aliens from the job market isn't going to force Scrooge McDuck to raise wages? Are you sure?"

Oh, we're back to the “immigrants are the source of all our troubles” chapter, I see. The issue with this claim is that it’s as shallow as a kiddie pool. Wages aren’t stagnant just because of an influx of immigrant labor; it's also about the concentration of power and wealth at the top.

Here’s the thing, wages have been stagnant for decades, and during this time, corporate profits have skyrocketed. So while it’s tempting to paint the picture with broad strokes and blame immigrants, it’s not the full canvas.

Let’s focus on Walmart, the protagonist of our story. They could choose to pay their workers more. They can afford it. This wouldn’t just be good for the workers; it’s good for the economy. It’s like a magical potion: more money for workers means more spending, which translates into more demand and growth. Economics 101.

So instead of channeling energies into rounding up millions of people (which, by the way, is logistically impossible and morally dubious), why not focus on the corporations swimming in pools of gold? Sharing a few coins won’t leave them in rags. Maybe Scrooge McDuck can afford to lose a coin or two from his vault.

Oh, we're back to the “immigrants are the source of all our troubles” chapter, I see.

We're back to the, "millions of low-skilled illegal aliens competing for jobs will reduce the wages for low-skilled Americans" chapter. I realize, as a commie, you're clueless when it comes to economics and incentives, but I'll still try to educate you.

It’s like a magical potion: more money for workers means more spending, which translates into more demand and growth. Economics 101.

Less money for owners means less spending, which translates into less demand and growth. Economics 101.

So instead of channeling energies into rounding up millions of people (which, by the way, is logistically impossible and morally dubious),

Impossible? Ike did it in the 50s, can’t we aspire for a little more?
Besides, after you deport the first 10 or 15 million, they start to deport themselves.