Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to Forbes.
Walmart is shifting responsibility onto the public for ensuring their associates’ basic needs are met. One study showed that a single Walmart can cost taxpayers anywhere from $904,542 to nearly $1.75 million per year, or about $5,815 per employee for these programs all because one of the world’s most profitable retailers is paying substandard wages and benefits. The most recent report by Americans for Tax Fairness revealed that Walmart’s reliance on programs like food stamps cost federal taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion a year.
Walmart is just as dependent on the general public as a welfare recipient would be. Just a transferal of its own responsibility, to avoid responsibility.
What law of nature says that MBA employee should be paid more than GED employee? Name an equation that is used to deduct individual contributions to the bottom line? There is none. Low compensation of GED workers tells that the GED workers can be forced to work nasty jobs for less. No sane and free GED person would work for 1/10,000 th of what MBA maverick makes rain or shine given a choice. People must be forced into those labor exchange rates.
Oh, so basically you're saying hard work and dedication should not be rewarded??? Really??? And "Law of Nature"? Ever hear of survival of the fittest? Again, explain to me while people like myself who gave up the easy way out and stayed home on school nights doing our homework as opposed to hanging out on a street corner puffin some bud drinking a beer with other non achievers, should earn what I do??? And while you're at it, explain to the forum why the rest of us should subsidize single mothers? For 90% of them, they should have opened a book or two before opening their legs. AGAIN, not my problem. And in case you really do live under a rock, this country is the land of opportunity. NOBODY is FORCED to do any job. And allow me to teach you a basic fact of life. Life has consequences, where you are is the end result of the choices you made. And any sane person feels no obligation to those who made multiple poor choices. (Unless you're a democrat running for office)
Living wage is a fabricated dream. Why not just pay everyone $30per hour? Why not let everyone enjoy a nice house, good car and plenty? Living wage, another dreamt up facade to keep people dependant on handouts.
So are you OK with CEO's being paid despite their bad performance? Because that's reality. CEO's are paid incentives and if they tank the company, they still get their money. They get paid ahead of time to motivate them to do a good job. So if the philosophy here is that money makes a person a better and more valuable worker, why doesn't everyone get a little something extra as "motivation"? And CEO pay is not commensurate with performance. So "working harder" means nothing. Some CEO's destroy the company and get off with their golden parachute.
Minimum wage was always meant to be a living wage, right from its inception. It's documented in black and white and is a fact that can not be disputed.
What we have is rampant greed which prevents anyone from getting ahead. It is that greed which keeps people down and "in their place."
Oh, so basically you're saying hard work and dedication should not be rewarded??? Really??? And "Law of Nature"? Ever hear of survival of the fittest? Again, explain to me while people like myself who gave up the easy way out and stayed home on school nights doing our homework as opposed to hanging out on a street corner puffin some bud drinking a beer with other non achievers, should earn what I do??? And while you're at it, explain to the forum why the rest of us should subsidize single mothers? For 90% of them, they should have opened a book or two before opening their legs. AGAIN, not my problem. And in case you really do live under a rock, this country is the land of opportunity. NOBODY is FORCED to do any job. And allow me to teach you a basic fact of life. Life has consequences, where you are is the end result of the choices you made. And any sane person feels no obligation to those who made multiple poor choices. (Unless you're a democrat running for office)
Wow, do you not know that a man is required to make a baby? It has less to do with a woman opening her legs and more about a man being in control of where he puts his penis. And if the mother is single, it's obvious he's not around for his child, and if the single mom is poor, most likely he isn't providing any support. So way to go attacking the woman but letting the man off without a whisper.
You sound like a complete sociopath. I hope you don't call 911 in an emergency because then you would not be relying on yourself, you'd be begging someone else for help.
And everyone on earth makes poor choices at some time or another. Thank God some people have understanding, compassion, empathy and a conscience.
The whole "living wage" thing needs to be solved at a community or maybe state level because nationally it makes no sense. With cost of living ranging from some small town in rural America to NYC, Hawaii, San Fran etc. it flat out dumb.
If you are going to do that then I propose a living wage of $15 in Iowa and then scale it for cost of living.
Then when people in NYC, San Fran etc. see people working at McDonalds or the GAP with $40/hr living wages maybe they'll stop and realize how stupid they're being with their one-size fits all living wage.
at my company, almost every raise I have been given has been followed by a raise in my medical copays or a decrease in benefits...basically I get a few grand a year and they take back 5 or 6 grand a year a month later...duh...no one is fooled
You know how many folks here on C-D tell folks with crappy jobs to work hard and improve their skills so they can get better paying jobs? You may want to follow a page of that, as a company that's tricking you into what's practically a pay cut should be seen as much of a red flag as many MW jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky2balive
exactly
people....it is NOT even economics 101...it should be common sense that even the most dense homosapien should be able to figure out...the cost of raising minimum wage WILL NOT COME FROM SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY...THE BIG DOGS WILL NOT EAT THIS COST...YOU ARE NOT STICKING IT TO THE MAN...YOU ARE NOT HITTING THE FAT CAT EXCUTIVES IN THEIR POCKETBOOKS...someone else will eat this cost...whos left??
customers
debtors
employees
oh, the debtors wont eat this cost either...
why is this so hard to comprehend...
You do realize that in this passage of text, you're the employee? Do you not see the irony that making excuses for "the big dogs", "fat cat executives", and "debtors", but are the one getting shafted? At least Walmart employees know their plight, and are fighting for themselves!
So are you OK with CEO's being paid despite their bad performance? Because that's reality. CEO's are paid incentives and if they tank the company, they still get their money. They get paid ahead of time to motivate them to do a good job. So if the philosophy here is that money makes a person a better and more valuable worker, why doesn't everyone get a little something extra as "motivation"? And CEO pay is not commensurate with performance. So "working harder" means nothing. Some CEO's destroy the company and get off with their golden parachute.
Minimum wage was always meant to be a living wage, right from its inception. It's documented in black and white and is a fact that can not be disputed.
What we have is rampant greed which prevents anyone from getting ahead. It is that greed which keeps people down and "in their place."
They are because to them the rich are their god. They worship them and think they can do no wrong. They are also hypocrites because they see no problem with the rich getting raises for no reason, getting bailouts, and paying their employees very little even though the company profit is going up but when a poor person needs food stamps, unemployment, a raise they have a tantrum about it. The sad thing is they think that championing for the rich means they will get some benefit from the rich when the rich could care less about them.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,551 posts, read 81,085,957 times
Reputation: 57739
Quote:
Originally Posted by LolaSonner
So are you OK with CEO's being paid despite their bad performance? Because that's reality. CEO's are paid incentives and if they tank the company, they still get their money. They get paid ahead of time to motivate them to do a good job. So if the philosophy here is that money makes a person a better and more valuable worker, why doesn't everyone get a little something extra as "motivation"? And CEO pay is not commensurate with performance. So "working harder" means nothing. Some CEO's destroy the company and get off with their golden parachute.
Minimum wage was always meant to be a living wage, right from its inception. It's documented in black and white and is a fact that can not be disputed.
What we have is rampant greed which prevents anyone from getting ahead. It is that greed which keeps people down and "in their place."
The CEO is paid handsomely in order to attract the best available from another company. Whether or not they succeed they have a track record at other companies and once they have that contract, they have to be paid, whether they fail or not. It's the competition for the CEO that drives their pay so high, just like the star football, basketball or football player when a free agent. A bidding war. The job of the CEO is to increase profits for the shareholders, overpaying employees does not help meet that goal.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,935,179 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140
The CEO is paid handsomely in order to attract the best available from another company. Whether or not they succeed they have a track record at other companies and once they have that contract, they have to be paid, whether they fail or not. It's the competition for the CEO that drives their pay so high, just like the star football, basketball or football player when a free agent. A bidding war. The job of the CEO is to increase profits for the shareholders, overpaying employees does not help meet that goal.
Except it really doesn't work like this, in the real world. CEOs are chosen by the Board, who select their buddies/friends/peers. They don't go after the best available talent, or even the person that is most likely to lead the company to success, they select safe candidates and people they like. Their friends. I've seen it time and time again on Boards as they make their selections on other Board members or C level execs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
