Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Funny how these "facts" are always slanted to favor your version of reality.
|
Heh, yeah ... funny how that works, isn't it. When your side is wrong, the facts tend to slant in my favor. I can't help that, but I will certainly point them out. When you're wrong, you're wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
And again, you don't grasp the fact that there is a give and take. If a company decides to give all employees including the guy who cleans the toliets a livable comfortable wage, they are forced to make cuts elsewhere until there is no more fat to trim. Then they go out of business. Everyone loses their job then. People like you act like it's Walmart's civic duty to provide good paying jobs. They are a business, not a charity.
|
I dunno ... I guess you either ignored what I said or simply didn't get it, so I'll try to explain it one more time.
America's economy is driven by consumer spending. If people are not buying, the economy tanks. In order for people to buy they need a disposable income -- which is to say money they are free to spend on non-essential items. If Americans are barely making enough to cover rent, utilities, and food, the economy tanks. Many places go out of business because the competition for the fewer and fewer shoppers who actually have some money to spend becomes rather cut-throat.
Since Wal-Mart mainly caters to the working class and lower and middle-middle class, it stands to reason that Wal-Mart would want its low-end employees to make enough money to spend; they may even take their disposable income and spend it at Wal-Mart. Thus Wal-Mart is raising the minimum wage for its workers so that they can afford to shop at the store where they work. This idea has been around a long time. In fact, it originated with Henry Ford who paid his employees well above the average going salary for a factory worker. The reasoning behind investing in his workers was the knowledge that it wouldn't help his business if his workers couldn't afford the cars they were building. Using the same principle, it does Wal-Mart little good if the workers can't afford to shop there.
It is absolutely foolish for Wal-Mart to care more about its middle management like your girlfriend because people like her don't usually shop at Wal-Mart (they go to Sam's Club or some other higher-end retail store). There simply aren't enough people in your girlfriend's socioeconomic class to be worried about her. Now, if she worked for Tiffany's or a Ferrari dealership -- somewhere that caters to the wealthy, a place where obscene profits are made with the sale of a single unit -- things would be different.
But we're talking about Wal-Mart, not Tiffany's. For a place like Wal-Mart, it makes far more sense to try and bring in the masses ... the 90% or so. When you deal in products where the profit per item is low, you need LOTS of buyers to make money. Given that, who do you want to support? The 300,000 or so people in the top 1% or even the 30,000,000 who are in the top 10%? Of course not. You want to support the 270,000,000 who are in the bottom 90%. It makes better business sense for a place like Wal-Mart to trim the fat in middle management than to gut the low-wage workers or stagnate their wages.
So ... if your girlfriend wants to keep her comfy six-figure salary, she should've found a job with a high-end retail store or, better yet, some boutique store in the ritzy part of town.
As far as Wal-Mart not being a charity -- how come that sentiment doesn't apply to your girlfriend, as well? Or is Wal-Mart only required to give the high-dollar earners a comfortable life with a livable wage? Perhaps you think that once you earn a certain amount, you should be immune to cutbacks, wage decreases, or lay-offs? Yeah, just stick it to the average worker instead. That mentality is precisely why our economy is tanking. People can't make a living or run a business if only the top 1% have enough money to shop.
With all of your yammering about the "good ol' days" of the 50's and 60's, I'm surprised that you haven't figured out that America was at its peak of prosperity in those days -- a time when even a high school drop-out could mosey down to the local factory and get a job that paid enough to buy a home, a car, and raise a family -- on a single income, no less. It wouldn't be a glamorous life, but it was an honest one, and they still made enough to buy things, take vacations, and stimulate the economy with their spending habits.
You wonder why past generations built interstates and went to the moon -- well, it was because we had a strong economy with loads of consumer spending. We also had FAR more people earning enough to pay taxes and it was taxes which paid for our interstates and missions to the moon. Now, fully half of our workforce is so broke that they don't have to pay taxes (nor should they be forced to), many people are under-employed and making craptastic wages; most of the jobs paying livable wages now require advanced degrees from high-end schools and even places like McDonald's are now requiring workers to be bi-lingual in Spanish and English. Many high-end positions are being terminated once the current holder of that title retires; some companies are even firing their older employees so they a) don't have to pay out a pension and b) so they can hire someone new who will start at the bottom of the pay scale. And let's not forget the fact that high student loan payments, the immorally high cost of health insurance, and the plethora of other types of insurance people need nowadays ... AND the fact that you have to immediately go into some kind of debt (credit card, car payment, etc.) in order to have a credit score so that you can even get a friggin' place to live ... all of that is hobbling our economy because new people entering the workforce are so weighed down with debt and insurance that they cannot contribute to the overall economy for years -- perhaps even decades.
Are you aware that in the 50's the tax on income above $250,000 was 90%? Now the rich whine and moan because they have to pay 15% (according to Warren Buffet). After they stick their earnings into an offshore tax haven like the Cayman Islands, they end up paying nothing. And who suffers? We all do because then the government does not have the money to fix our roads, repair our bridges, keep our schools open, help the disabled and the elderly, or even provide our soldiers with the proper gear needed to fight wars (remember the issue in Iraq about Hummers not having any armor because the government couldn't afford to put armor on Humvees?).
This is the result of your "protect the wealthy" attitude that you have displayed here. It is wrecking this country as surely as if you were setting off bombs in every store, office, and factory. You want a return to our glory days of the past but you don't want to pay for it. You want and expect a 1st World infrastructure, but you don't want to pay for it. You want our kids to have a top notch education but you don't want to pay for it. You want our nation to have the most powerful military in the world but you don't want to pay for it.
In that sense, the conservative mentality is on par with the worst kind of illegal alien, the worst kind of welfare moocher, the worst kind of thief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
The rhetoric makes it sound like the Walton family are greedy horders who just can't stand to lose a billion here or there to help the needy folk.
|
Good ... because that's pretty much what I think of them. Although ... I don't really blame them, per se. They're only taking advantage of a broken system that allows 1% of the population to control 90% of the wealth. No nation with such a massive income and wealth disparity as ours has prospered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Tanking stock prices are not a good thing. Let's not forget that many of these Walmart associates dedicated large portions of their work life to this company and have stock options benefits. So your course of action destroys their savings. Increasing operation costs in a market that is actually losing profit is business suicide. Walmart already has enough pressure to try and compete with Amazon.
|
Yeah, that's why I'm against privatizing Social Security which is what some of these idiot Republican candidates want. Privatizing Social Security means they'll put the entire stack of cash into the casino we euphemistically call Wall Street. Let's just hope the stocks don't tank or people on SS will end up being thrown out of their homes without any food or medications. Of course, any money MADE by investing SS into the market will go into the pockets of people who are already wealthy and NOT the people actually collecting SS.
The entire idea of a "stock market" has outlived its usefulness. Ever since people were allowed to trade in futures, the stock market has become nothing but a gigantic roulette wheel or black jack table. Laws should tighten up the stupidity on Wall Street ... but the conservatives, heh heh, want just the opposite. They want to deregulate everything and let the "free market" decide our fate. Well, when it comes to the so-called "free market," I always point to the Irish Potato Famine as the result of relying on the free market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I started at the bottom literally scrubbing toliets as my first job. I made about 6 bucks an hour. I was grateful that someone gave me the opportunity even if the wages sucked. It was a stepping stone. What I find despicable is this "you owe me" mentality that our society has and it is another sign of decline morality.
|
LOL! Why yes, Jeff, thinking that a company owes its workers a paycheck is certainly a brand new phenomenon that just erupted out of nowhere. OF COURSE we are owed, Jeff, but I know your type. You would gladly grovel in a pile of dog shyte for the 10 cents your employer gave you for a week of work ... if that's what it came to. Just as long as the rich are still doing good, nothing else matters. And certainly not fighting for a decent wage. No, you'd just be a doormat for the fat cats in their corner offices. THAT is why we're in decline, Jeff. Too many doormats (most of whom are members of the GOP) who will gratefully allow companies to exploit its workforce, work them long hours, and pay them a pittance. Instead of getting raises every year, you'd be just fine if workers received a pay cut every year. Because, you know, the important people need their yachts and exotic sports cars and their country villa in Martha's Vineyard -- and of course, their mansion in the Hamptons.
Every election cycle I see people voting against their own economic interests. They keep willingly handing more and more of this nation's wealth to the people who already control 90% of it -- and this IS a zero-sum game, Jeff. The only way that it wouldn't be is if the government ran the money presses continuously, but that would only cause massive inflation. I'll never understand your crazy economic mentality because it makes no sense. You may as well be telling me that 1+1=3 and then expecting me to go "Oooh, yes, I see what you mean now!" Well, I don't see what you mean because your economic views are precisely the reason why America's standard of living dropped from 1st place to 11th place. Our standard of living has been eroding away for the last 30 or so years because people like you enjoy kissing the golden asses of the wealthy and would happily, nay, ecstatically give them your last nickel if they wanted it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Walmart owes you nothing.
|
Figures you'd say something like that. I guess by your logic, Wal-Mart doesn't even owe its workers a paycheck. Perhaps the converse is true and I owe Wal-Mart nothing -- so I can just waltz into their stores and take whatever I want. Right? Oh, let me guess. Special rules for the wealthy. They owe the workers nothing but the workers owe Wal-mart their first born. Uh huh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
There is a reason that these jobs are low paying. They don't require a lot of specialized job skill or education.
|
So what? Remember what I said earlier: The most prosperous time in America was when even high school drop-outs could find decently paying industrial jobs that afforded the workers a house, a car, a full refrigerator, and decent clothing -- with some left over. The tax rate on the rich was 90% over $250k and business leaders understood what it meant to have a consumer-driven economy. Yes, make a reasonable profit, but don't suck up every penny from the masses and horde it in the Caymans or else things will go bust. No one cares about that now. It's all about instant gratification with short term profits. I cannot believe that you can honestly rant in your other post about going to the moon and building interstates when the very people you defend are those that prevent such great things from happening today. Damn, man, I really wish you could step out from behind the right-wing propaganda and see the truth of what's REALLY going on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
If you want a better paying job then people need to get off their rear ends and make it happen.
|
Good thing I swallowed my chocolate milk before reading that or else I would have squirted it out of my nose and all over my monitor ... such was the nonsensical cluelessness of that comment.
SERIOUSLY? You think people just need to "get off their rear ends" and all will be well? Because, yeah, there are tens of millions of vacancies for good paying jobs just waiting to be filled. Let me guess. I bet you haven't had to look for a job since when ... the 1960's? Maybe the 1970's? When was the last time you compared today's spending power with that of the 1960's?
One other thing: I really can't stand the fact that conservative Christians will bellow, wail, whine, moan, and scream about "family values," but when it comes to sacrificing everything for a decent job, suddenly families don't mean diddly squat. That's one reason why this disgusts me so much -- the flagrant, shameless hypocrisy.
Somehow you want these nice, cozy little nuclear families with mommy and daddy and all the sweet little children being a family and doing family things ... but you have no problem with a system that requires both parents being thrust into the workforce often working 60 or 70 hours a week to make ends meet. Meanwhile, all the sweet little children grow up feral because no one was around to teach them right from wrong, respect for others, proper etiquette and manners, etc. And then you have the nerve to complain about the kids of today not respecting their elders. LOL! Gee, I wonder why ....?
At any rate, I laughed earlier only because it just amazes me how so many conservatives love to over-simplify complex problems in the hopes that those problems will magically go away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I have a guitarist friend who is going to live out his dream of playing music for a living even though it means quitting a good paying job and being broke. But he is willing to make that sacrifice to better his life. But with your mentality, it would be equivalent to him demanding that everyone go buy his cd because we owe him a livable wage.
|
What the hell, Jeff. I mean, seriously, it seems like no matter the topic, your ideas are just plain screwbally. No one who works for a living should be in poverty, Jeff. Not in a nation as rich as ours. Do you have a problem with that? I'm not saying that a janitor should be making enough to buy a mansion, but he shouldn't be making so little that he sweats out the 1st of every month hoping he has enough money for rent for that apartment in the Projects. Apparently, you really don't give a pile of raccoon dung for anyone beneath you on the socioeconomic ladder, but then again, I've rarely met a conservative who did. Sorry, but that's God's own truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Nope, I'm more interested in people making an effort to better themselves instead of demanding that others who worked hard to get ahead give up their gains.
|
In your messed up economic world, we would have a nation full of chiefs, bosses, and head honchos and no one to sweep the floor, punch the cash registers, or take out the garbage. In case you haven't noticed -- and judging by your posts, you haven't -- upper and lower workers have a symbiotic relationship. One cannot survive without the other. It does absolutely NO good if a company has an office full of bosses who "bettered themselves" while the factory floor stands empty with no one to manufacture the products.
This whole "better yourself" crap is just that ... crap. Not everyone is collegiate material. Not everyone can be an engineer, a lawyer, a doctor, or a business tycoon. We really DO need people to perform the basic operations of any company including scrubbing the toilets. I'll give you a little heads up: Trickle-Down Economics was a colossal failure because, as toilet scrubbers quickly learned, nothing trickled down, and certainly nothing trickled down to the level of a lowly toilet scrubber. Nope. The rich kept it all.
And now wages are stagnant. Not just for toilet scrubbers, garbage-taker-outers, cashiers, waitresses, burger flippers, and other unskilled jobs. The wages have stagnated for just about everyone in the bottom 90%. Meanwhile, the rich have seen big increases in their incomes. Doctors rated the highest gains; doctors making roughly $400k per year were getting 13% salary increases (and that 13% amounts to more than most people make in a year; their RAISE amount was more than most people's yearly salary). Meanwhile, we all struggle to pay for these ridiculously high insurance premiums (so our good doctors can live a life of luxury) ... while the REST OF THE WORLD receives free health care. Isn't that a hoot?
Seriously, man ... you need to get yourself educated, as I said in my last post. Turn off Faux News and Rush Limbaugh as they are consummate liars (which can be easily proven).
And finally, a word to the mods -- my apologies for this post being so political, dealing mostly with economics. Please don't delete since I do think this all bears relevance to religion, but Jeff and I will take it to PMs if needs be ... right Jeff?
Thanks.
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.
