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.
A few people on this thread have raised the issue of morality. Shouldn't employers feel a moral responsibility to pay their workers a living wage? Not at gunpoint...because it's the right thing to do?
Isn't it immorally exploitative when you are a major employer, like Wal-Mart, who comes into an area and competes against smaller businesses, often driving others out of business and further reducing the number of other options for service employment, then offers mostly part-time work for wages the locals can't live on?
That's what happened in the town where my parents live. Then Wal-Mart had the nerve to fire part-time workers who found second jobs at other big-box competitors to make ends meet. They called it a conflict of interest.
Who is "interested" in the worker anymore? Surely employees who make enough to pay their bills are going to be better employees. Shouldn't a company want that? Shouldn't a large retailer take some moral responsibility for the impact they have on local ecosystems and their own local customer base, which includes their own employees?
How anybody can criticize anyone who criticizes employers like Wal-Mart defies logic. Wage increases don't exist in a vacuum, but neither does the basic existence of companies like this in a community.
Not to mention that the cancer-like metastasis of Wal-Mart has hurt U.S. manufacturing by dominating local markets and taking their orders abroad. Somebody here blamed the "real" problem on companies off-shoring operations/manufacturing. Walmart is effectively doing the same thing by making foreign-made products over 80% of its inventory.
I give more moral credit to people who argue for an increase in the minimum wage than to companies like Wal-Mart that create un-winnable environments for both employees and other employers.
NOTHING exists in a vacuum. But Wal-Mart actually CREATES one. That, to me, is immoral. They deserve to have a gun to their head.
Last edited by Slithytoves; 10-30-2013 at 07:51 AM..
Right-wingers acknowledge this, yet they will fight to the proverbial death to defend those corporations and their actions, and become enraged if a tax on their overseas-made goods would be implemented, or any action to raise revenue from corporations that, in all likelihood, pay little in taxes.
Hint: Right wingers are not in charge of doing this today. What has Obama done to live up to his campaign promises here?
Quote:
As you stated, that is the problem. Why do RWs ignore it? Why do they say it's a problem, yet defend it?
Make up your minds for gods sake.
There is a question on the upcoming ballot in New Jersey asking if the minimum wage should go from $7.25 to $8.25. I will be voting "YES".
What you vote for in N.J. will not do anything at all for the problem other than ease your conscience and you conscience does not pay the bills. It's incredible that you complain about others ignoring the problem with your solution being to do nothing about it.
It is not RWers printing trillions of dollars for businesses sending jobs overseas. Granted, Romney and McCain would have supported that also. Key word there is also.
Here's a couple of thoughts that really help the poor and jobs.
1. Get rid of 30 million illegals. That alone at least get you 10 million jobs back, most on the low paying side. This one is easy and won't cause much money if any to do.
2. Give all companies a tax break on income earned overseas IF that income is invested in US - you aren't getting that tax anyway. Currently corporations park trillions in US and afraid to invest as they would have to pay US taxes.
3. If you really want to help the poor, get rid of the minimum wage! At least some of them can make a wage rather than be on government support.
A few people on this thread have raised the issue of morality. Shouldn't employers feel a moral responsibility to pay their workers a living wage? Not at gunpoint...because it's the right thing to do?
An employer has no control over what a living wage is. It's different things to different people.
Quote:
Isn't it immorally exploitative when you are a major employer, like Wal-Mart, who comes into an area and competes against smaller businesses, often driving others out of business and further reducing the number of other options for service employment, then offers m
These service employee's are not going to make more money at mom and pop hardware store.
Here's a couple of thoughts that really help the poor and jobs.
2. Give all companies a tax break on income earned overseas IF that income is invested in US - you aren't getting that tax anyway. Currently corporations park trillions in US and afraid to invest as they would have to pay US taxes.
So, if Wal-Mart buys 5 companies in China making cheap shoes, toaster, televisions, watches and computers and they make billions doing that they should get a tax break to be able to use that money to invest in new stores here?
A few people on this thread have raised the issue of morality. Shouldn't employers feel a moral responsibility to pay their workers a living wage? Not at gunpoint...because it's the right thing to do?
Isn't it immorally exploitative when you are a major employer, like Wal-Mart, who comes into an area and competes against smaller businesses, often driving others out of business and further reducing the number of other options for service employment, then offers m
No, they have no such moral responsibility even you think they do. We can't and shouldn't force our moral standards onto others. That is the immoral thing to do. Keep your moral standards to yourselves.
Competition is part of the nature. Should we give every student the same score? It's not fair for more talented students get higher score, is it?
So, if Wal-Mart buys 5 companies in China making cheap shoes, toaster, televisions, watches and computers and they make billions doing that they should get a tax break to be able to use that money to invest in new stores here?
Their new store would hire hundreds of people and most importantly, they have to turn a profit, right? If they can't generate profit with their new store, they would have to close it or not even open it.
An employer has no control over what a living wage is. It's different things to different people.
That's BS. An employer can base wages on the basic cost of living in an area. A living wage may mean different things to different people, but that's no excuse to pay what is clearly not livable for anybody.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
These service employee's are not going to make more money at mom and pop hardware store.
In many small towns in particular, they actually could. There was an article about this in my parents' town in Upstate NY when the community fought the construction of the area's first Wal-Mart. Local employers obviously had fewer employees but their full-time help was almost universally paid enough to live on locally. Collectively, the small businesses that were crushed by Wal-Mart employed more full-time workers than that Wal-Mart does now. Small business treats its workforce better than big corporations often do.
I support actions like the one in DC that would have made the minimum wage requirement significantly higher for big-box retailers. I'd say it's a fair penalty for the damage they do.
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.
