U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 03-10-2018, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
2,999 posts, read 1,017,500 times
Reputation: 3813

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
For some definitions of economics.
Economics is the art of consensus opinion about wealth. Presently defined by and for those who hold a disproportionate amount of the wealth and seek justification for acquiring and keeping it. Oh, plus really, really elaborate accounting.

Quote:
As for Costco, don't be cynical about companies that really do better.
I guess we have to take our victories where we find them, but if you step back from the micro-issues, the lines between Costco, Trader Joe's, WalMart, Target et al. really get a little blurry. Even Costco doesn't pay most of its employees a truly living wage - they're just better about it than the Waltons.

 
Old 03-10-2018, 01:45 PM
 
6,997 posts, read 6,632,415 times
Reputation: 5274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
This is insanity. It's one more example of entitlements for the rich. Walmart gets to make millions of dollars in profits on the backs of the workers and government programs to support them. They would still be nicely profitable if they doubled the wages they pay, but they have a nice scam going and aren't going to change until they are forced to.

Shop at Costco instead.
SS is essentially the same as 401k and IRA if you provided the safety net feature for those couldn't put as much in. Bush II proposed such an overhaul for 401ks and IRAs with forced annuities and minimum guarantees. It's also been proposed by Democrats.
 
Old 03-10-2018, 02:44 PM
 
Location: Oregon, formerly Texas
5,242 posts, read 3,395,295 times
Reputation: 8783
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Once again for those who missed it the first time. . .

We as a society have decided that we need a social safety net to provide for those “less fortunate.” For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that the value of that comprehensive array of benefits is $30,000 per year. One can access those benefits just be existing - nothing more needs to be done.

Let’s look at the example of Bob. . .

Now, when Bob is on the dole, ALL of us pay for that comprehensive array of benefits that Bob is receiving (well, all of us that pay taxes, that is). Why? Because as a society, we decided it was important for us to do so.

Now Bob decides that he wants to get a job. Who-hoo! So Bob starts looking, but he is unsuccessful. It turns out that Bob spent his formative years smoking pot and playing video games. He didn’t graduate from high school, he has no skills, and no work ethic. Bob has nothing to offer an employer. However, Wal-Mart, a great American company with a wonderful sense of social responsibility steps up and gives Bob a job. Now remember, Bob can’t actually do anything. So he becomes one of those Wal-Mart employees that just wanders around with a dazed look on their face, and clogging up the aisles, and occasionally picking an item up off the floor where it has fallen and puts it back on the shelf. Wal-Mart, being a very socially responsible company, pays Bob $7.50/hour, $.25/hour more than the Federal Minimum wage, and allows him to work 40 hours per week.

Let’s review the financials and make sure everyone’s on the same page. . .

While on the public dole, Bob got $30,000/year in benefits, paid for by the taxpayer. Working for Wal-Mart, Bob gets $15,000 year, paid for by Wal-Mart.

Now, since Bob only makes $15,000 at his job, but we as a society have determined that Bob deserves $30,000, we as a society provide him with $15,000 in benefits to make up the difference.

The perverse result of all this is that you and others of your ilk believe that since Wal-Mart was gracious enough to give Bob a job, that Wal-Mart should now assume 100% of society’s obligation to Bob, even though Bob only provides $15,000 in value to Wal-Mart. And worse still, you accuse Wal-Mart of being subsidized for this little scenario, when nothing could be further from the truth (it is impossible for Wal-Mart to be subsidized for its labor when, in every instance, it pays a market rate for labor).

The reality is that by giving Bob a job, Wal-Mart has SAVED the taxpayers $15,000 a year. And your response to this is to excoriate Wal-Mart at every turn. You, and the rest of your ilk that share such misguided beliefs, should be ashamed of yourselves.
Stop lying.

I worked for Wal-Mart for 4 years. It did not become the massively successful company it is with labor practices like that. It is not in the work-fare business. Jobs where associates "just wander around with a dazed look on their face, and clogging up the aisles, and occasionally picking an item up off the floor where it has fallen and puts it back on the shelf" do not exist.

When have you EVER been to a Wal-Mart store where associates are so numerous they "clog the aisles?" Maybe in the middle of the night when the stocking team is in full force, but they are usually pretty efficient. Wal-Mart makes it a point to run the store with as few associates as possible.

I saw people like that get hired very rarely & when they were, they got laid off in a few months at most. Typically they just stopped showing up for work after a few weeks. The asst manager who made the hire would be chastised & then fired if he/she made multiple hires like that.

Walmart actually demurs from hiring people without HS diplomas or GEDs if they can help it.

So your entire scenario is b.s.

As for general labor practices of Wal-Mart... I am the first to criticize them but to be honest they are not the worst of the retail sector by a long-shot. They pay better than min wage and usually support or are neutral on state efforts to raise it. They would actually prefer for states to raise their workers wages so that the workers don't demand it from themselves, opening the spectre of unionization they fear so much.

Wal-Mart fears its workers demanding decent health insurance, not a few dollars more in wages they can easily afford.

In some ways they are actually one of the better players in the retail labor game. Competent workers can easily move up in Wal-Mart, pretty quickly.

How they treat their store workers is actually a distraction from the more significant damage they do to the economy at large and their environmental impacts, which we should be more concerned about.

Last edited by redguard57; 03-10-2018 at 03:10 PM..
 
Old 03-10-2018, 04:27 PM
 
218 posts, read 69,333 times
Reputation: 553
It's simple. Insurance company business plan is to collect premiums and avoid paying claims.

Congress' "business" plan is to spend money and avoid accountability.

Congress has an 11% approval rating. We re-elect 91% of them.

They ain't gonna fix nuthin' 'til it's too late.

We're done. Soon.
 
Old 03-10-2018, 04:54 PM
 
1,589 posts, read 768,039 times
Reputation: 2125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
We can always end SNAP benefits. People can either adjust their life-styles or emigrate to another country for better employment opportunities, coupled with lower Cost-of-Living.
How are people supposed to afford moving to another country? Other countries have stricter immigration. They don't allow it unless you can prove you are self supporting.
 
Old 03-10-2018, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Paranoid State
12,685 posts, read 9,425,981 times
Reputation: 14933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
I posted a bunch of loopholes, but the consensus was they were not loopholes, they were entitlements. The rich are entitled to lower tax rates and a subsidy for their losses. My mistake.
Sure, Donny. Sure.

 
Old 03-10-2018, 05:30 PM
 
5,221 posts, read 2,377,031 times
Reputation: 5111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
This is insanity. It's one more example of entitlements for the rich. Walmart gets to make millions of dollars in profits on the backs of the workers and government programs to support them. They would still be nicely profitable if they doubled the wages they pay, but they have a nice scam going and aren't going to change until they are forced to.

Shop at Costco instead.
That is a nice emotionally driven rant, but why donít you calm down, take a breath, and take a crack at actually addressing the issues in the post?
 
Old 03-10-2018, 05:36 PM
 
5,221 posts, read 2,377,031 times
Reputation: 5111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
Why is Wal-Mart's burden now society's?
It isnít. Now pay close attention, as this part is important, and it is key to understanding the rest. In EVERY case, Wal-Mart employees are paid either a market based wage, or in the case of their minimum wage employees, a wage that EXCEEDS the market driven rate. Wal-Mart fully compensates their employees, and as such, Wal-Mart bears the burden of 100% of their labor.

Quote:
It's their business, and they can easily afford to double their hourly wages.
Whether they can or canít is irrelevant. The fact remains that they pay 100% of the agreed upon wage.

Quote:
Why should the general public subsidize a bunch of rich people? It's a scam and they know it. You apparently haven't figured it out yet.
It simply isnít happening.
 
Old 03-10-2018, 05:37 PM
 
5,221 posts, read 2,377,031 times
Reputation: 5111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
You are the one who tries to end every discussion with an ad hominem.
I generally donít engage in logical fallacies. If you believe otherwise, post the links to the threads and note the post numbers.
 
Old 03-10-2018, 05:38 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
11,047 posts, read 11,455,634 times
Reputation: 17205
Quote:
Originally Posted by lchoro View Post
SS is essentially the same as 401k and IRA if you provided the safety net feature for those couldn't put as much in. Bush II proposed such an overhaul for 401ks and IRAs with forced annuities and minimum guarantees. It's also been proposed by Democrats.
The irony of that is not lost on me. The reason the SSA is not allowed to invest in private investments is the spectre of communism. The $2.6 trillion SS trust fund could easily be $50 trillion by now, with government officials controlling the boards of many companies and the government owning the means of production. The vision of Republicans setting up a communist state in America was just too funny.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top