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 ready to hear where your wrong? If the government did not subsidize Wal-Mart by giving their low wage employees welfare/benefits, the employees would demand benefits.
So you think Wal-Mart would shut down stores rather then give benefits? I dont think so because ALL stores would need to pay benefits. Sure, now they claim they would shut down a stores but thats because they have a choice, a choice to pay low wages and have the govt cover benefits, or a choice to pay higher wages and pass the price onto the consumer. For Wal-Mart, thats no choice.
In fact, if the government would stop subsidizing companies by giving benefits to low wage employees and Wal-Mart would be forced to offer benefits, Wal-Mart would benefit more because they would surely get a better cost per employee than any of its competitors simply due to numbers.
Yeledaf, I challenge you to do what Ehrenreich did for just 2 weeks!!!
In my younger days, I had plenty of unpleasant minimum-wage jobs. I flipped burgers, parked cars, moved furniture, unloaded trucks, welded transformers, checked groceries, filled orders, euthanized puppies, picked blueberries, tomatoes, and corn, swept streets, and made the acquaintance of the 272nd and 273rd VC regiments in III Corps as a drafted infantryman.
I'd challenge Ms. Ehrenreich to do any of those jobs. I walked that walk long enough to know that blaming others for my tough luck was a losing proposition...
So, Wal-mart wouldn't close down stores that attempt to unionize?
Pound your head against the wall a few times and think....
Wal-mart NOW would rather close down stores because THEY HAVE A CHOICE.. (that choice again being to pay low wages and have the taxpayers subsidize the wages by covering benefits).
They cant close down EVERY store if they are required to cover medical care to its employees because the government stops subsidizing their low paying wages. They would cease to exist..
Again, think about it.. Do you really think Wal-Mart would choose to shut down EVERY store?
Nope. I withdrew from it. Have not paid into SS for over 3 decades
The only reason I know of that allows withdrawl is conscientious objection to government welfare based on their religious beliefs.
Most often Christian Science practitioners pursue this.
"Since Social Security has been determined by the Supreme Court of the United States not to be an insurance plan but a social welfare plan provided by the government, the decision for clergy to get out of Social Security must be a conscientious objection to government welfare based on their religious beliefs."
In my younger days, I had plenty of unpleasant minimum-wage jobs. I flipped burgers, parked cars, moved furniture, unloaded trucks, welded transformers, checked groceries, filled orders, euthanized puppies, picked blueberries, tomatoes, and corn, swept streets, and made the acquaintance of the 272nd and 273rd VC regiments in III Corps as a drafted infantryman.
I'd challenge Ms. Ehrenreich to do any of those jobs. I walked that walk long enough to know that blaming others for my tough luck was a losing proposition...
In your younger days, the pay/cost of living ratio was higher also. I know because I did the same thing when I was younger. Do the math today with average entry level wages and living expenses. What was true in the past does not necessarily apply today. This is one reason Republicans are becoming obsolete.
The only reason I know of that allows withdrawl is conscientious objection to government welfare based on their religious beliefs.
Most often Christian Science practitioners pursue this.
"Since Social Security has been determined by the Supreme Court of the United States not to be an insurance plan but a social welfare plan provided by the government, the decision for clergy to get out of Social Security must be a conscientious objection to government welfare based on their religious beliefs."
Pound your head against the wall a few times and think....
Wal-mart NOW would rather close down stores because THEY HAVE A CHOICE.. (that choice again being to pay low wages and have the taxpayers subsidize the wages by covering benefits).
They cant close down EVERY store if they are required to cover medical care to its employees because the government stops subsidizing their low paying wages. They would cease to exist..
Again, think about it.. Do you really think Wal-Mart would choose to shut down EVERY store?
Actually, Wal-Mart is FOR universal health care. Which is consistent with their current position of allowing the government safety net to take care of their workers, anyway.
Pacifica.org - Wal-Mart Joins Business, Labor Coalition for Universal Health Care (http://www.pacifica.org/program-guide/op,segment-page/segment_id,279/ - broken link)
Quote:
Wal-Mart – the nation’s largest retailer – has formed a coalition with labor unions and other larger corporations to call for quality affordable health coverage for all Americans by 2012. The coalition includes AT&T, Intel, Kelly Services, the Service Employees International Union and the Communications Workers of America.
"Affordable" Health Insurance does not necessarily equate to Universal Health Insurance
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.
