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.
You didn't answer the question. Are our elected officials communists?
Maybe they are.
Our politicians and companies love to do business with the communists and are best friends with China's communist government.
US politicians are no friends of American labor.
With half of the children of WALMART employees getting their Health Care from the Government and Food Stamps while thw WALTONS pocket your money. It seems the taxpayer is paying
The taxpayers pay for every child of every working parent on welfare. They also pay for the ones not working. Wal-Mart employees don't get preferential treatment. If you meet the income criteria, you can apply for benefits.
WM wages are higher than Target, Home Depot, Lowes, 7-11, or many other retailers. At least according to published pay scales and reports from their workers. To single out Wal-Mart indicates there is another motive. Political most likely.
I have an in-law who works for Wal-Mart. She started in the early-80's. She is about 55, and has never had another job since then. She makes around $45,000 a year, and has benefits for herself. She has not taken a single educational class. Has no college education. She raised her kids, along with her husband, on two similar jobs. They struggled at times. Considering their situation, they have done pretty well. Now that their kids are gone, they are doing very well compared to many. He also has a $20/hour job on a high school education.
I don't understand the hatred toward Wal-Mart. I've done pretty darn well in life, and I shop there. There is no reason to pay more for the exact same product.
Anyone can open a store. He or she is free to compete. They can pay higher wages than WM, and compete on something other than price.
Nobody forces anyone to work there. My in-law thinks WM is the best thing that ever happened to her. She has old profit sharing plan money, and the new plan also. I only see her a few times a year, but she likes her job.
My path was different. I worked in industry and eventually bought a company. It was far more stressful and risky than working at Wal-Mart. I risked my home and retirement at times. My in-law and her husband worked their 40 hours and went home. There were a couple years they did better than me. I took a huge pay cut when I went from industry to owner. At least at first.
Wal-Mart pays its employees a wage consistent with what the market will bear. If the government were to quit offering SNAP or other benefits to working moms and dads, wages would actually rise. Econ 101, my forum friend.
How about they start by paying them enough so that they don't have to go on public assistance. As an American taxpayer, I don't like subsidizing the Waltons' cheap labor force. You do?
Walmart is doing business legally. I don't agree with picking on Walmart exclusively. What we need to see is an increase in the minimum wage for all large and highly profitable companies.
Walmart is doing business legally. I don't agree with picking on Walmart exclusively. What we need to see is an increase in the minimum wage for all large and highly profitable companies.
I don't single out WalMart exclusively. I have a problem with any company that employs people who need public assistance to survive. What that amounts to is taxpayers subsidizing a cheap labor force for businesses. That's wrong. Companies need to pay workers enough for workers to sustain themselves. If they can't afford to do so, they need to go out of business and make way for companies that don't have to rely on taxpayer money to operate.
How about they start by paying them enough so that they don't have to go on public assistance. As an American taxpayer, I don't like subsidizing the Waltons' cheap labor force. You do?
A) Where are all of these people who work at Walmart and still need welfare?
B) They have absolutely no responsibility to pay higher wages than the positions require. They have absolutely no problem filling a workforce.
I don't single out WalMart exclusively. I have a problem with any company that employs people who need public assistance to survive. What that amounts to is taxpayers subsidizing a cheap labor force for businesses. That's wrong. Companies need to pay workers enough for workers to sustain themselves. If they can't afford to do so, they need to go out of business and make way for companies that don't have to rely on taxpayer money to operate.
I'm sure you know that you cannot trust businesses to always do the right thing. I agree with you that taxpayers are funding employees of Walmart. That's why Congress needs to raise the minimum wage and put an end to it.
Wal-Mart pays its employees a wage consistent with what the market will bear. If the government were to quit offering SNAP or other benefits to working moms and dads, wages would actually rise. Econ 101, my forum friend.
I agree. Wages remain artificially low because taxpayers subsidize workers.
I see it a bit differently than you. I think that some contracts are too much of a public nuisance to be legal. I don't like subsidizing the Waltons by paying for the upkeep of their workers. If their employees are on food stamps, as many of them are, that's a problem. That's cutting into my bottom line. That's wrong. If police have to patrol their parking lots, as they do, because they dont' hire enough security to keep crime away, that's a problem. I don't like paying for security for the Waltons' stores. There is a reason why they are so wealthy. It's because they are being subsidized by the rest of us.
It's completely arbitrary to say you are subsidizing Wal Mart. Wal Mart is nobody's parent, and has no responsibility to pay for anything for anyone. Are you also subsidizing me if I don't give my friend Bob a job and he has to get on welfare? Ridiculous.
Plus you'd be subsidizing more if Wal Mart was not hiring.
I'm sure you know that you cannot trust businesses to always do the right thing. I agree with you that taxpayers are funding employees of Walmart. That's why Congress needs to raise the minimum wage and put an end to it.
That's my preferred solution as well. Wages below subsistence wages end up costing tax payers too much money. In my opinion, it should not be legal. Businesses such as WalMart don't have a right to taxpayer dollars to sustain their workforce.
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.
