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 are right, those are subjective words, and I am sure some people do enjoy working for Walmart, but their turn-over rate with employees might suggest otherwise.
Hey, I'd jump on board with the assumption that most of their employees only work there because they don't have any other options except maybe fast food. That doesn't mean they're being "screwed over", though. It's a stepping stone sort of job, and none of this is a new concept for people who have been employed in general any place at any time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
(to SamBarrow) So you are fine with Walmart not paying their full time employees enough of a living wage so that they are forced to live off government assistance?
This sounds like either a flaw in the government assistance program or a flaw regarding the local minimum wage. Which is the local government's responsibility. As it turns out, in this case at least, it's the guilty dog that's barking in Wal-Mart's general direction. As I said earlier, these are the folks determining 8.25 is enough. All Wal-Mart did was go along with it.
And they should be making a living wage, if you work full time, that should be enough money to keep you off government assistance. Instead, places like Walmart would rather pay their employees less and let the government pick up the slack for them. If Walmart and places like them wish to do business, they should be able to provide an income high enough for their employees to keep them out of poverty.
What world do you live in? People on welfare, save a few, generally make poor life decisions which includes having kids they can't afford. Where is you outrage at people that have 8 kids. If you became the CEO of wmt you could fire all of the production people that have kids and then there wouldn't be any WMT employees getting welfare, but the people receiving welfare would still exist.
Instead of blaming the company that hires seniors and the mentally disabled try criticizing the people that don't improve themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
So you are fine with Walmart not paying their full time employees enough of a living wage so that they are forced to live off government assistance?
There is no shifting of welfare costs here, if the people of Walmart are working employees, then they should be given at the minimum a living wage, or what's the point in working?
Or do you not want the poor working class off government welfare because you would have no one to blame about being on government welfare?
WMT employees don't get ANY govt handout for simply working at WMT Unless you have kids you won't get a dime in welfare money. If you quit your job and then go work at WMT there won't be any handouts available to you until you start having kids.
Geez, you're starting to give the conservatives credibility.
Cons: People would rather be on welfare than work
Libs: It's better to be on welfare than work
Actually, your post reminds me of the black guy collecting welfare that doesn't want a job, but wants a career.
Somehow, I think D.C. will survive, even thrive, in its absence.
I say, no they won't. Do you think poor people who shop for school clothes, for example, go to a Macy's type store or a boutique? Do you think making them take public transportation to get to a Wal-Mart is good for them?
Would WalMarts bottom line be better or worse if they abandoned an entire area of the country and lost all sales, or stayed and paid better wages? I really don't know.
Walmart is about to be vacating a lot of areas if they have to pay a living wage. They are in my opinion part of the problem not the solution for jobs in our Nation. Bottom tier wages, importing more products than they allow of American made goods, and their pay is so low that employees have to ask for food stamps and other forms of help in many areas. As far as I am concerned, if walmart closed in a lot of areas, that area would be better off money wise and job wise. The ones that would be hurt are the handicapped and retired people that they employ. Somewhere tho a better balance has to be found
Why does everyone keep blaming Wal-Mart for the fact that full-time at minimum wage doesn't prevent the (perceived) need for government assistance? Shouldn't we be asking why that rate is the minimum wage in the first place?
Somehow, I think D.C. will survive, even thrive, in its absence.
There will be more small business. The fact is Walmart could easily survive but they so hate their own workers they wouldn't ever even give it a chance. It's just like how they shut down stores where workers unionize because their management is just so anti-union/anti-worker they would rather cut off their own noses just to spite them.
The reality is it is such a large market with so many people some shops will locate there to serve that market.
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.
