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.
This is shameful. A huge company like Walmart, whose heirs are among the richest in the world, should not be relying on Government subsidies such as food stamps for it's business success. This is basically a transfer of public funds (i.e. the taxes we the working people pay) to Walmart.
Be careful what you are suggesting. Walmarts clientele includes many who are lower and lower middle class who are the ones dependent on government subsidies. Should Walmart strive for another group of shoppers and leave the low income market to Dollar General? Those with their own income shop there and are you suggesting Walmart adopt a no food stamps policy? Since this thread is about urban inequality isn't available shopping another example of urban inequality?
Be careful what you are suggesting. Walmarts clientele includes many who are lower and lower middle class who are the ones dependent on government subsidies. Should Walmart strive for another group of shoppers and leave the low income market to Dollar General? Those with their own income shop there and are you suggesting Walmart adopt a no food stamps policy? Since this thread is about urban inequality isn't available shopping another example of urban inequality?
I would shop at Walmart if it was what our regional chain stores used to be. They did not cater to the government subsidized market, but to working and middle class customers. Welfare recipients shopped at thrift stores and five and dimes, currently dollar stores. There are many dollar stores popping up, and quite accessible to many. Walmart can put in fake wood floors and redesign to look hip but it is still a low class cheap plastic junk store that encourages big government wealth redistribution. It is anti middle class, anti American values.
We've all seen and heard about the growing trend of the widening chasm between rich and not so rich households. I was first introduced to this concept when I was a student. My professor called it the 'wealth effect'. He was one of the first to openly popularize this notion and claim it would be a landmark political and social worldwide issue in each of our lives. This was about 10 years ago when I juusstt started college.
Well, guess what. Dr Mack was right. And in a big way.
It's an easy read and puts a lot of 'color' to the income inequality issue that we hear about so often now. It's incredible to see the gaps in our major cities b/w rich and poor households.
For those seeking cliff notes, here is the damning chart:
Some food for thought from a bay area resident: it's not uncommon for a late 20s married couple (both with bachelors' degrees and working at tech firms) living in the Bay Area to achieve close to that 95th percentile income listed in the chart. And I guarantee that chart doesn't account for VERY material stocks options accorded to so many of the SF techies.
You also have to figure 95 percent income in San Fran is living in a small place and probably more middle class vs being in the 95th in Texas for example. In Texas that couple would have a 4000 sq foot house and a nice lifestyle. In San Fran not to say they woudln't live comfortably but good luck ever buying a home.
I take strong umbrage with your use of the word distribution.
Whatever phrase you want to use. This problem is what it is. One can call it whatever they like.
Quote:
Before you say folks don't have the money to save consider the concept of alternative cost/opportunity cost and that every carton of cigarettes or alcohol purchase etc could be money invested.
With the improvement of technology (combined with the rise in immigration), more and more people will be out of work - irrespective of who is in the White House. And education will only help those who are the MOST educated and MOST skilled at using these machines. Automation is eliminating a lot of blue collar (and even white collar) jobs and only the MOST skilled are surviving each cut. Even fast food is increasingly automated. In 10 years, many industries will only need about half the workers they need now.
As brick and mortar retail stores continue to close, what will the lower skilled workers do for a living? Can they all work on Wall Street or Silicon Valley - especially with machines making things easier? Then on top of that, these corporations are lobbying to bring in more foreign labor to depress wages even more.
So talking points and canned statements by politicians about "growing the economy" or "creating jobs" or "cutting taxes" is not going to work and many of them KNOW IT.
Quote:
How about just a major effort at common sense distribution of what are the required inputs in life and not jargon about redistributing the outcomes!
Again, yet another strawman. No one is advocating "redistributing the outcomes". Of course some will be wildly successful while others are failures. The real argument here is that if 90-95% of the country has little to no spending power, then what are we to do with them? How will they buy the food, clothing, movie tickets, etc that the rich sell?
Another alternative is to keep "make work" jobs such as keeping a nice large military that gives lots of young people that do not attend college a way to earn money and go to college on top of creating many well paying defense contractor jobs at the top.
This "wealth redistribution" discussion is far more nuanced than presented on TV. We often think of the "welfare queen" or "Obama phones" but it is large corporations that benefit the most from "wealth redistribution". We discussed big grocers' benefit from food stamps, but what about large defense contractors and consultants (and other gov't contractors) that make billions from fat gov't contracts? Do we really want to do away with all of that? Do you know how many jobs would be eliminated? Do you know how many small businesses would fold if the federal gov't seriously cut back on its spending? If we REALLY cut gov't spending as some have called for then the economy would collapse.
Call it what you want ("wealth redistribution", "income inequality", whatever), but without it, the economy folds and takes us (all of us) down with it - not simply the poor.
Those on top need to pay more in taxes to be redistributed into the economy and look at it as the price for maintaining an orderly society. If those of lower income can't buy stuff, then the rich don't benefit either. And besides, the money will come back to them anyway.
This is shameful. A huge company like Walmart, whose heirs are among the richest in the world, should not be relying on Government subsidies such as food stamps for it's business success. This is basically a transfer of public funds (i.e. the taxes we the working people pay) to Walmart.
You do realize Walmart is a publicly traded company, don't you? The Walmart heirs own shares of stock (less than 50%) it's not like they run the company. Warren Buffett owns a large stake in Walmart too so make sure you throw him under the bus too.
Also, every grocery store and grocery store chain relies strongly on food stamps. Walmart may rely slightly more because of their size and their locations, but it's not as if they are the only grocery store/retailer that excepts food stamps.
You do realize Walmart is a publicly traded company, don't you? The Walmart heirs own shares of stock (less than 50%) it's not like they run the company. Warren Buffett owns a large stake in Walmart too so make sure you throw him under the bus too.
Also, every grocery store and grocery store chain relies strongly on food stamps. Walmart may rely slightly more because of their size and their locations, but it's not as if they are the only grocery store/retailer that excepts food stamps.
While throwing folks under the bus for owning Walmart should include pension funds, mutual funds and those of us who own and benefit from.
You do realize Walmart is a publicly traded company, don't you? The Walmart heirs own shares of stock (less than 50%) it's not like they run the company. Warren Buffett owns a large stake in Walmart too so make sure you throw him under the bus too.
The point here is not to attack Walmart or any other grocer (big or small) that accepts food stamps. My point was to demonstrate how so-called "wealth re-distribution" actually benefits the entire economy and ultimately the rich themselves.
The point here is not to attack Walmart or any other grocer (big or small) that accepts food stamps. My point was to demonstrate how so-called "wealth re-distribution" actually benefits the entire economy and ultimately the rich themselves.
I have a hunch many would prefer to just not pay the tax and keep their money rather than be taxed and wait for it to trickle back up to them. I understand the point of your suggestion but consider that many of the rich are well educated and fairly intelligent folks they probably already have a good idea what is in their best interest. For some it is more equitable distribution for others it is Texas or a Swiss bank account.
I have a hunch many would prefer to just not pay the tax and keep their money rather than be taxed and wait for it to trickle back up to them. I understand the point of your suggestion but consider that many of the rich are well educated and fairly intelligent folks they probably already have a good idea what is in their best interest. For some it is more equitable distribution for others it is Texas or a Swiss bank account.
The issue of tax evasion is another issue altogether. The question here is whether we want a feudal society or an economy that works for everyone and where upward mobility is possible? Do we want an economy where the vast majority of wealth being frozen at the top and not circulating in the economy? The answer is no. The rich can not sustain the entire economy alone. Only so many yachts, private jets and Ferraris can be purchased by a small sliver of the population. While there is nothing wrong with high end consumption, an entire economy based on zero-sum status competition games rather than genuine innovation does not bode well. The bread and butter of a strong economy is in the middle class.
But we are sadly headed toward being a society where most people either do not make much money with several menial jobs or do not work at all with most of the consumption being on the higher end (and little to no "middle class"). There is a major misunderstanding that has gained ground that what is good for the uber-wealthy is good for the entire nation. Then they mislabel it "free enterprise".
Social mobility is getting tougher because of cronyism. Being a member of today’s financial elite depends largely on access to Congressmen and other powerful bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. There is no tech giant, large investment bank, mega-pharmaceutical company, physicians or lawyers association, etc without an office on K St.
While politicians grumble about "welfare queens", know that as we speak, restaurants are lobbying to someday be able to accept food stamps. Big corporations want ON the gravy train.
The point here is not to attack Walmart or any other grocer (big or small) that accepts food stamps. My point was to demonstrate how so-called "wealth re-distribution" actually benefits the entire economy and ultimately the rich themselves.
Exactly!—& without the FED/USGovt/virtual taxpayer welfare, the elitists wouldn't be able to isolate themselves from the ups & downs of the economy. IOW, ubiquitous welfare(s) is allowing Big Business/the financial apparatus to escape from their responsibility in the economy.
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.
Tag: Capitalism needs periodic recessions
