Why do democrats hate poor black people and want them permanently on welfare?

[Ray From Cleveland]

Reagan had a double dip recession, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and a Cold War to fight.
It's true, Reagan added $1.8 trillion to the debt, won the Cold War and had awesome GDP growth.

Obama added $9.3 trillion to the debt, lost Iraq, Syria and Libya and had sucky GDP growth.

Reagan almost tripled the debt, started incredibly stupid ME chaos with his pal Saddam, and left Booosh a corrupt S+L mega bubble. We're lucky he didn't bring back Soviet hard liners with his bs bluster. Thank god for Gorby. Then 35 years legacy of pander to the rich ruin of the middle class and our infrastructure, dupes. And the bs New BS GOP propaganda machine and the zombie racist GOP. That obstructed the Obama recovery for no reason but hate.

Reagan almost tripled the debt,

I know. Reagan added $1.8 trillion. Awful! Obama added $9.3 trillion, no big deal, eh?

Obama didn't triple it.

I know, he only added $9.3 trillion.
Made things worse in the middle east and gave us the weakest recovery in at least 70 years.

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems. The Middle East mess was made worse by Bush. Could have easily turned into a depression, I'll take a recovery.

Reagan had nothing to do with DumBama's debt. He created it all on his own.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Brain357]

Reagan almost tripled the debt, started incredibly stupid ME chaos with his pal Saddam, and left Booosh a corrupt S+L mega bubble. We're lucky he didn't bring back Soviet hard liners with his bs bluster. Thank god for Gorby. Then 35 years legacy of pander to the rich ruin of the middle class and our infrastructure, dupes. And the bs New BS GOP propaganda machine and the zombie racist GOP. That obstructed the Obama recovery for no reason but hate.

Reagan almost tripled the debt,

I know. Reagan added $1.8 trillion. Awful! Obama added $9.3 trillion, no big deal, eh?

Obama didn't triple it.

I know, he only added $9.3 trillion.
Made things worse in the middle east and gave us the weakest recovery in at least 70 years.

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems. The Middle East mess was made worse by Bush. Could have easily turned into a depression, I'll take a recovery.

Reagan had nothing to do with DumBama's debt. He created it all on his own.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

He was handed a balanced budget? Really? Bush was. Please link how Obama was handed a balanced budget.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Companies do not rely on gross profit. Companies rely on investments.

For you to understand this better, let's say you ran into a small fortune: A lottery winning, a relative that passed away, a lawsuit.

In any case, you end up (after taxes) with about 400K. Now your house is paid for, your car is paid for you have no outstanding debts. So what do you do with this 400K if you were smart? You invest it.

So you address a reputable investment company and have them do research on making your money grow. You don't want anything too aggressive, you want a conservative lower risk growth, and your company presents two options:

Company A has been around for a long time. Their growth rate is 5.5% per year. Company B is very similar, but they only have a 3.5% growth. Which company will you invest your new money in?

Before you make your final decision, I have to tell you that company A has a gross profit of 1.5 million a year. Company B has a gross profit of 2 billion a year. Does that make any difference to you when choosing who to invest your money with?

Of course not. You could care less what a company makes every year, you only care about how your money is going to grow. So if company A announces they are going to pay their employees more than their labor is worth, and that reduces their investment growth, would you still invest in their company?

I didn't think so, because nobody would.

You have quite the way of avoiding answering the question.

United States Corporate Profits | 1950-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar

I avoided nothing. I'm trying to explain to you how company profits have nothing to do with employee pay, but you wish to stay in your own world believing otherwise.

You on the left have this belief that companies look at this pile of money and then try to figure how to divide it up. Business doesn't work that way. An employee is only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same quality of work.

If you sweep floors for a living and make ten bucks an hour, you are only worth ten bucks an hour whether your company grosses one million a year or one hundred million a year. It doesn't matter how much they make. You're still only worth ten bucks an hour.

And yet ceos make way more than they are worth and that makes you happy. Please provide a link supporting your claim that high profits don't allow for high pay for workers.

I'm amazed by the support for losing from the right.

Why are you reading things in my post that I didn't say? Where did I state that higher profits preclude higher pay for workers? I never said that.

What I said is that profits are irrelevant to employee pay. If you are only worth X amount of money for your work, then that's all you're worth regardless of what the company makes or what they pay their CEO. That is unless you have profit sharing as a benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So we have had soaring profits which would allow for better wages. That is my point.

That's why you don't understand business. Wages are not tied to profits or success unless you have profit sharing. If your company is doing well, you can exercise your option to buy stock in the company if you wish to share in their good fortunes. But in most cases, you get paid a certain wage for your particular job no matter how the company does.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reagan almost tripled the debt,

I know. Reagan added $1.8 trillion. Awful! Obama added $9.3 trillion, no big deal, eh?

Obama didn't triple it.

I know, he only added $9.3 trillion.
Made things worse in the middle east and gave us the weakest recovery in at least 70 years.

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems. The Middle East mess was made worse by Bush. Could have easily turned into a depression, I'll take a recovery.

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems.

Reagan rebuilt the military and won the Cold War. Shrunk government as % of GDP.
Freed hundreds of millions from Communism. And look at real GDP.

View attachment 120730

Obama took a stable Iraq....fucked it up. Lost Egypt and Libya.
Thank goodness the military kicked out his buddy Morsi.
Added $9.3 trillion to the debt and had crappy GDP.

View attachment 120731

Is there anything Obama was good at? I mean besides wrecking race relations?

Turned around a recession. Lowered unemployment. Got us through the housing bubble. Saved the auto industry. Didn't start any new wars. We were in much better shape when he left than when he started. But that is the same for Reagan. Both had good with bad.

Didn't start any new wars.

Yeah, great job with ISIS. $9.3 trillion more debt. Shitty recovery.

 

[Brain357]

You have quite the way of avoiding answering the question.

United States Corporate Profits | 1950-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar

I avoided nothing. I'm trying to explain to you how company profits have nothing to do with employee pay, but you wish to stay in your own world believing otherwise.

You on the left have this belief that companies look at this pile of money and then try to figure how to divide it up. Business doesn't work that way. An employee is only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same quality of work.

If you sweep floors for a living and make ten bucks an hour, you are only worth ten bucks an hour whether your company grosses one million a year or one hundred million a year. It doesn't matter how much they make. You're still only worth ten bucks an hour.

And yet ceos make way more than they are worth and that makes you happy. Please provide a link supporting your claim that high profits don't allow for high pay for workers.

I'm amazed by the support for losing from the right.

Why are you reading things in my post that I didn't say? Where did I state that higher profits preclude higher pay for workers? I never said that.

What I said is that profits are irrelevant to employee pay. If you are only worth X amount of money for your work, then that's all you're worth regardless of what the company makes or what they pay their CEO. That is unless you have profit sharing as a benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So we have had soaring profits which would allow for better wages. That is my point.

That's why you don't understand business. Wages are not tied to profits or success unless you have profit sharing. If your company is doing well, you can exercise your option to buy stock in the company if you wish to share in their good fortunes. But in most cases, you get paid a certain wage for your particular job no matter how the company does.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Sorry but it's a fact, plenty of profits for high wages. You don't understand labor. If Walmart paid more they would have a better business. But hey you are defeated. The best we can do is hope to keep bad jobs. Loser mentality.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reagan almost tripled the debt,

I know. Reagan added $1.8 trillion. Awful! Obama added $9.3 trillion, no big deal, eh?

Obama didn't triple it.

I know, he only added $9.3 trillion.
Made things worse in the middle east and gave us the weakest recovery in at least 70 years.

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems. The Middle East mess was made worse by Bush. Could have easily turned into a depression, I'll take a recovery.

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems.

Reagan rebuilt the military and won the Cold War. Shrunk government as % of GDP.
Freed hundreds of millions from Communism. And look at real GDP.

View attachment 120730

Obama took a stable Iraq....fucked it up. Lost Egypt and Libya.
Thank goodness the military kicked out his buddy Morsi.
Added $9.3 trillion to the debt and had crappy GDP.

View attachment 120731

Is there anything Obama was good at? I mean besides wrecking race relations?

Turned around a recession. Lowered unemployment. Got us through the housing bubble. Saved the auto industry. Didn't start any new wars. We were in much better shape when he left than when he started. But that is the same for Reagan. Both had good with bad.

Turned around a recession.

Bullshit. The recession ended in June 2009.
He had nothing to do with it. He certainly owns the weak recovery though.

 

[Brain357]

Obama didn't triple it.

I know, he only added $9.3 trillion.
Made things worse in the middle east and gave us the weakest recovery in at least 70 years.

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems. The Middle East mess was made worse by Bush. Could have easily turned into a depression, I'll take a recovery.

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems.

Reagan rebuilt the military and won the Cold War. Shrunk government as % of GDP.
Freed hundreds of millions from Communism. And look at real GDP.

View attachment 120730

Obama took a stable Iraq....fucked it up. Lost Egypt and Libya.
Thank goodness the military kicked out his buddy Morsi.
Added $9.3 trillion to the debt and had crappy GDP.

View attachment 120731

Is there anything Obama was good at? I mean besides wrecking race relations?

Turned around a recession. Lowered unemployment. Got us through the housing bubble. Saved the auto industry. Didn't start any new wars. We were in much better shape when he left than when he started. But that is the same for Reagan. Both had good with bad.

Didn't start any new wars.

Yeah, great job with ISIS. $9.3 trillion more debt. Shitty recovery.

How long should a country deep in debt have paid to police Iraq?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know, he only added $9.3 trillion.
Made things worse in the middle east and gave us the weakest recovery in at least 70 years.

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems. The Middle East mess was made worse by Bush. Could have easily turned into a depression, I'll take a recovery.

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems.

Reagan rebuilt the military and won the Cold War. Shrunk government as % of GDP.
Freed hundreds of millions from Communism. And look at real GDP.

View attachment 120730

Obama took a stable Iraq....fucked it up. Lost Egypt and Libya.
Thank goodness the military kicked out his buddy Morsi.
Added $9.3 trillion to the debt and had crappy GDP.

View attachment 120731

Is there anything Obama was good at? I mean besides wrecking race relations?

Turned around a recession. Lowered unemployment. Got us through the housing bubble. Saved the auto industry. Didn't start any new wars. We were in much better shape when he left than when he started. But that is the same for Reagan. Both had good with bad.

Didn't start any new wars.

Yeah, great job with ISIS. $9.3 trillion more debt. Shitty recovery.

How long should a country deep in debt have paid to police Iraq?

Way to make things much worse. A real money saver that was. DERP!

 

[Brain357]

Obama didn't triple it.

I know, he only added $9.3 trillion.
Made things worse in the middle east and gave us the weakest recovery in at least 70 years.

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems. The Middle East mess was made worse by Bush. Could have easily turned into a depression, I'll take a recovery.

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems.

Reagan rebuilt the military and won the Cold War. Shrunk government as % of GDP.
Freed hundreds of millions from Communism. And look at real GDP.

View attachment 120730

Obama took a stable Iraq....fucked it up. Lost Egypt and Libya.
Thank goodness the military kicked out his buddy Morsi.
Added $9.3 trillion to the debt and had crappy GDP.

View attachment 120731

Is there anything Obama was good at? I mean besides wrecking race relations?

Turned around a recession. Lowered unemployment. Got us through the housing bubble. Saved the auto industry. Didn't start any new wars. We were in much better shape when he left than when he started. But that is the same for Reagan. Both had good with bad.

Turned around a recession.

Bullshit. The recession ended in June 2009.
He had nothing to do with it. He certainly owns the weak recovery though.

I understand you are a complete moron and partisan hack if you can't see the country was way better off after Obama.

 

[Brain357]

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems. The Middle East mess was made worse by Bush. Could have easily turned into a depression, I'll take a recovery.

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems.

Reagan rebuilt the military and won the Cold War. Shrunk government as % of GDP.
Freed hundreds of millions from Communism. And look at real GDP.

View attachment 120730

Obama took a stable Iraq....fucked it up. Lost Egypt and Libya.
Thank goodness the military kicked out his buddy Morsi.
Added $9.3 trillion to the debt and had crappy GDP.

View attachment 120731

Is there anything Obama was good at? I mean besides wrecking race relations?

Turned around a recession. Lowered unemployment. Got us through the housing bubble. Saved the auto industry. Didn't start any new wars. We were in much better shape when he left than when he started. But that is the same for Reagan. Both had good with bad.

Didn't start any new wars.

Yeah, great job with ISIS. $9.3 trillion more debt. Shitty recovery.

How long should a country deep in debt have paid to police Iraq?

Way to make things much worse. A real money saver that was. DERP!

You are great at dodging questions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know, he only added $9.3 trillion.
Made things worse in the middle east and gave us the weakest recovery in at least 70 years.

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems. The Middle East mess was made worse by Bush. Could have easily turned into a depression, I'll take a recovery.

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems.

Reagan rebuilt the military and won the Cold War. Shrunk government as % of GDP.
Freed hundreds of millions from Communism. And look at real GDP.

View attachment 120730

Obama took a stable Iraq....fucked it up. Lost Egypt and Libya.
Thank goodness the military kicked out his buddy Morsi.
Added $9.3 trillion to the debt and had crappy GDP.

View attachment 120731

Is there anything Obama was good at? I mean besides wrecking race relations?

Turned around a recession. Lowered unemployment. Got us through the housing bubble. Saved the auto industry. Didn't start any new wars. We were in much better shape when he left than when he started. But that is the same for Reagan. Both had good with bad.

Turned around a recession.

Bullshit. The recession ended in June 2009.
He had nothing to do with it. He certainly owns the weak recovery though.

I understand you are a complete moron and partisan hack if you can't see the country was way better off after Obama.

Duh. Recession then recovery.
Weakest in at least 70 years.
$9.3 trillion, that's about 50% of GDP, more debt!!!!!

What a failure.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems.

Reagan rebuilt the military and won the Cold War. Shrunk government as % of GDP.
Freed hundreds of millions from Communism. And look at real GDP.

View attachment 120730

Obama took a stable Iraq....fucked it up. Lost Egypt and Libya.
Thank goodness the military kicked out his buddy Morsi.
Added $9.3 trillion to the debt and had crappy GDP.

View attachment 120731

Is there anything Obama was good at? I mean besides wrecking race relations?

Turned around a recession. Lowered unemployment. Got us through the housing bubble. Saved the auto industry. Didn't start any new wars. We were in much better shape when he left than when he started. But that is the same for Reagan. Both had good with bad.

Didn't start any new wars.

Yeah, great job with ISIS. $9.3 trillion more debt. Shitty recovery.

How long should a country deep in debt have paid to police Iraq?

Way to make things much worse. A real money saver that was. DERP!

You are great at dodging questions.

And you're great at ignoring his many failures.
Do you think he saved money by withdrawing from Iraq like he did?

 

[Brain357]

Turned around a recession. Lowered unemployment. Got us through the housing bubble. Saved the auto industry. Didn't start any new wars. We were in much better shape when he left than when he started. But that is the same for Reagan. Both had good with bad.

Didn't start any new wars.

Yeah, great job with ISIS. $9.3 trillion more debt. Shitty recovery.

How long should a country deep in debt have paid to police Iraq?

Way to make things much worse. A real money saver that was. DERP!

You are great at dodging questions.

And you're great at ignoring his many failures.
Do you think he saved money by withdrawing from Iraq like he did?

Sorry but you haven't answered my question. I don't have time for your dodging.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Didn't start any new wars.

Yeah, great job with ISIS. $9.3 trillion more debt. Shitty recovery.

How long should a country deep in debt have paid to police Iraq?

Way to make things much worse. A real money saver that was. DERP!

You are great at dodging questions.

And you're great at ignoring his many failures.
Do you think he saved money by withdrawing from Iraq like he did?

Sorry but you haven't answered my question. I don't have time for your dodging.

The answer is, as long as it takes. Moron!

Keep explaining how Obama's weak ass recovery was so awesome.

 

[Brain357]

How long should a country deep in debt have paid to police Iraq?

Way to make things much worse. A real money saver that was. DERP!

You are great at dodging questions.

And you're great at ignoring his many failures.
Do you think he saved money by withdrawing from Iraq like he did?

Sorry but you haven't answered my question. I don't have time for your dodging.

The answer is, as long as it takes. Moron!

Keep explaining how Obama's weak ass recovery was so awesome.

So indefinitely we pay to police Iraq. Amazing.

 

[danielpalos]

Employment is at-will. EDD should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

too much irony for hypocrites? it is about being legal to our own laws instead of merely, "harassing" less fortunate illegals for their illegalities.

it is about being legal to our own laws

Exactly!
Our laws say, unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

can you cite a State labor code that states that?

Requirements in IL

In order to be eligible for Illinois unemployment benefits you must meet the following standards:

• You must meet the wage requirement by having earned enough wages from an employer covered by the unemployment law in the past 18 months
• You must be unemployed through no fault of your own.
• You must be able and available to work
• You must be allowed to work in the US legally and be an Illinois resident

You must meet the wage requirement. Then, the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) examiners will look at the circumstances of your dismissal and other issues to determine eligibility. When you file for benefits, you must register with the IDES’s job search website.

Eligibility Requirements Explained
Able and Available to Work
You must be physically and mentally able to work when you file your initial claim. You must be available to accept suitable employment; a job you are trained to do, capable of performing and one that pays a similar salary to your own. The longer you’re unemployed, you’ll be expected to accept jobs that pay less.

Unemployed Through No Fault of Your Own
Your actions or decisions cannot be the cause of your separation from work. If the shop moved to a new city or the employer had no work for you, you may be qualified if otherwise eligible.

Wage Requirement and the Base Period

The IDES will observe if you have any wages from “covered employers.” Covered employers are businesses required to pay unemployment insurance taxes. Some occupations and employers are not covered. If you worked for one of these employers, you will not be eligible to collect unemployment insurance.

The state will look at your wages over a 12-month period called “the base period.” Your base period will be the first four out of the last five quarters you worked prior to the date you filed your initial claim for benefits.


This chart shows the base period.

Additionally:

• You must earn at least $1,600 during the base period
• Excluding the quarter where you earned the most money, you must have earned at least $440.

The IDES may require additional information from you regarding your claim if there are separation issues and your employer protests the benefit award, or you provided information they could not confirm. You may even be called after a weekly certification. You must respond when they request to speak with you in person or face loosing benefits.

Unemployment Benefit Amount in Illinois
The IDES will use the base period wages to calculate your weekly benefit amount (WBA). The amount will equal 47% of the average of your wages in the two highest earning quarters of the base period divided by 26 (the maximum amount of weeks you may receive benefits is 26).

You may claim dependents on your claim, just as you would for taxes. However, you can only claim either a spouse as a dependent or children, not both.

The state provides a chart to allow you to estimate your Illinois WBA. This chart includes the maximum amount you can receive. As of 2017, the max WBA for an individual is $449. The max with a spousal dependent is $535. The max WBA using children as dependents is $613.

Illinois Unemployment – Know Your Rights

Administrative law is subject to the supreme law of the land of the State, and any necessary and proper statutes legislated by your elected representatives to office.

Yes, Illinois really is an employment-at-will state. To that point, Illinois courts follow the employment-at-will legal doctrine in deciding "discharge cases."

"Employment at will" means there is mutual freedom by both the employer and the employee to end the employment relationship....Yes, Illinois is Still an Employment-At-Will State! | Wessels Sherman Joerg Liszka Laverty Seneczko P.C.

 

[danielpalos]

You have failed to respond to who pays the workers. You send them to random businesses, do they pay for the labor? How much?

dudette, are you really this naive or are you just playing dumb?

So the argument is about working welfare. WELFARE. what part of that word confuses you?

it is a social safety net because capitalism failed in 1929, and we need socialism to bailout capitalism like usual, in modern times.

Capitalism didn't fail in 1929.

Yes, it did.

Nope.

yup.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I avoided nothing. I'm trying to explain to you how company profits have nothing to do with employee pay, but you wish to stay in your own world believing otherwise.

You on the left have this belief that companies look at this pile of money and then try to figure how to divide it up. Business doesn't work that way. An employee is only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same quality of work.

If you sweep floors for a living and make ten bucks an hour, you are only worth ten bucks an hour whether your company grosses one million a year or one hundred million a year. It doesn't matter how much they make. You're still only worth ten bucks an hour.

And yet ceos make way more than they are worth and that makes you happy. Please provide a link supporting your claim that high profits don't allow for high pay for workers.

I'm amazed by the support for losing from the right.

Why are you reading things in my post that I didn't say? Where did I state that higher profits preclude higher pay for workers? I never said that.

What I said is that profits are irrelevant to employee pay. If you are only worth X amount of money for your work, then that's all you're worth regardless of what the company makes or what they pay their CEO. That is unless you have profit sharing as a benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So we have had soaring profits which would allow for better wages. That is my point.

That's why you don't understand business. Wages are not tied to profits or success unless you have profit sharing. If your company is doing well, you can exercise your option to buy stock in the company if you wish to share in their good fortunes. But in most cases, you get paid a certain wage for your particular job no matter how the company does.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Sorry but it's a fact, plenty of profits for high wages. You don't understand labor. If Walmart paid more they would have a better business. But hey you are defeated. The best we can do is hope to keep bad jobs. Loser mentality.

So Walmart and all it's success doesn't know of your little secret? Sorry, but why don't I believe that?

I'll tell you why, it's because the unions told Democrat leaders to spread the word around that all Walmart jobs are low paying garbage jobs. What they don't tell you is Walmart offers the best possibility for advancement. Low level Walmart jobs pay the same as Target or K-Mart. Walmart pays their management pretty well, they pay their truck drivers pretty well, they pay their office staff pretty well, they pay their warehouse people pretty well.

Don't believe Democrat politicians, they are all born liars.

As for what a company pays their employees, yes they could pay better wages, but why should they? They can get the same work done for less money and keep their investments attractive at the same time.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Brain357]

And yet ceos make way more than they are worth and that makes you happy. Please provide a link supporting your claim that high profits don't allow for high pay for workers.

I'm amazed by the support for losing from the right.

Why are you reading things in my post that I didn't say? Where did I state that higher profits preclude higher pay for workers? I never said that.

What I said is that profits are irrelevant to employee pay. If you are only worth X amount of money for your work, then that's all you're worth regardless of what the company makes or what they pay their CEO. That is unless you have profit sharing as a benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So we have had soaring profits which would allow for better wages. That is my point.

That's why you don't understand business. Wages are not tied to profits or success unless you have profit sharing. If your company is doing well, you can exercise your option to buy stock in the company if you wish to share in their good fortunes. But in most cases, you get paid a certain wage for your particular job no matter how the company does.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Sorry but it's a fact, plenty of profits for high wages. You don't understand labor. If Walmart paid more they would have a better business. But hey you are defeated. The best we can do is hope to keep bad jobs. Loser mentality.

So Walmart and all it's success doesn't know of your little secret? Sorry, but why don't I believe that?

I'll tell you why, it's because the unions told Democrat leaders to spread the word around that all Walmart jobs are low paying garbage jobs. What they don't tell you is Walmart offers the best possibility for advancement. Low level Walmart jobs pay the same as Target or K-Mart. Walmart pays their management pretty well, they pay their truck drivers pretty well, they pay their office staff pretty well, they pay their warehouse people pretty well.

Don't believe Democrat politicians, they are all born liars.

As for what a company pays their employees, yes they could pay better wages, but why should they? They can get the same work done for less money and keep their investments attractive at the same time.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I think they are starting to get it, they have recently made improvements.

So yes they could pay more, thank you. Now do you agree this would strengthen the economy? Imagine people having more to spend. Imagine fewer on welfare. Imagine more people paying income tax and appreciating the ideas of small gov and lower taxes.

 

[Redfish]

Why are you reading things in my post that I didn't say? Where did I state that higher profits preclude higher pay for workers? I never said that.

What I said is that profits are irrelevant to employee pay. If you are only worth X amount of money for your work, then that's all you're worth regardless of what the company makes or what they pay their CEO. That is unless you have profit sharing as a benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So we have had soaring profits which would allow for better wages. That is my point.

That's why you don't understand business. Wages are not tied to profits or success unless you have profit sharing. If your company is doing well, you can exercise your option to buy stock in the company if you wish to share in their good fortunes. But in most cases, you get paid a certain wage for your particular job no matter how the company does.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Sorry but it's a fact, plenty of profits for high wages. You don't understand labor. If Walmart paid more they would have a better business. But hey you are defeated. The best we can do is hope to keep bad jobs. Loser mentality.

So Walmart and all it's success doesn't know of your little secret? Sorry, but why don't I believe that?

I'll tell you why, it's because the unions told Democrat leaders to spread the word around that all Walmart jobs are low paying garbage jobs. What they don't tell you is Walmart offers the best possibility for advancement. Low level Walmart jobs pay the same as Target or K-Mart. Walmart pays their management pretty well, they pay their truck drivers pretty well, they pay their office staff pretty well, they pay their warehouse people pretty well.

Don't believe Democrat politicians, they are all born liars.

As for what a company pays their employees, yes they could pay better wages, but why should they? They can get the same work done for less money and keep their investments attractive at the same time.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I think they are starting to get it, they have recently made improvements.

So yes they could pay more, thank you. Now do you agree this would strengthen the economy? Imagine people having more to spend. Imagine fewer on welfare. Imagine more people paying income tax and appreciating the ideas of small gov and lower taxes.

so if walmart pays its employees more, what happens next? They have to raise prices. When they raise prices they sell less stuff. When they sell less stuff they don't need as many employees. So the end result is more people collecting unemployment.

economics is not complicated.