• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DC Mayor vetoes super minimum wage

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
103,982
Reaction score
66,770
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This moronic bill was intended to make Walmart and Target stores inside DC pay at least $12.50/hour while all others could still pay as little as $8.25/hour.

The bill, clearly targeting the big box stores such as Walmart and Target, classified large retailers as those with stores of at least 75,000 square feet and whose parent companies have sales of more than $1 billion annually.

Read more: DC Mayor Vetoes Higher Wage Bill | Fox Business
 
If Target does the same thing walmart does in regard to hiring on part timers and temp workers instead of full time employees then these jobs would not have been missed.
 
Gray released a four-page letter Thursday explaining his reasons for vetoing the bill. Rather than expanding job opportunities for D.C. residents, Gray said the bill, if approved, would “result in significant harm to the residents and areas of the District most in need of jobs, economic development, and new amenities.”
Fine. Ask Mayor Vincent Gray why Walmart holds meetings with it's employees and shows them how gainfully employed people can sign up for food stamps. :roll:
 
Fine. Ask Mayor Vincent Gray why Walmart holds meetings with it's employees and shows them how gainfully employed people can sign up for food stamps. :roll:

Interesting, this never happened to me when I was an employee of Walmart.
 
I believe you but it still happens. Take Note

I did a quick search through there and scanned several statements about Wal-Mart but no where did I see that article saying that Wal-Mart holds meetings showing its employees how to get on foodstamps while employed. 51 Wal-Mart mentions through out that whole article. What it did state was that Wal-Mart has the most employee's recieving welfare benefits though. But that is not the same as them holding meetings to tell their employees how to get foodstamps while employed.

Wal-Mart has lots of problems with it, but saying something is happening when there is no evidence of it does not need to be added as it just weakens your arguements and credibility.
 
I did a quick search through there and scanned several statements about Wal-Mart but no where did I see that article saying that Wal-Mart holds meetings showing its employees how to get on foodstamps while employed. 51 Wal-Mart mentions through out that whole article. What it did state was that Wal-Mart has the most employee's recieving welfare benefits though. But that is not the same as them holding meetings to tell their employees how to get foodstamps while employed.

Wal-Mart has lots of problems with it, but saying something is happening when there is no evidence of it does not need to be added as it just weakens your arguements and credibility.

Agreed.

And it's certainly no surprise they have the most people on food stamps in their employ. They're the largest private employer in the United States. And retail is notoriously an entry-level job. That's the truth no matter how much one wants to make a career of walking me to the office supplies aisle.
 
I did a quick search through there and scanned several statements about Wal-Mart but no where did I see that article saying that Wal-Mart holds meetings showing its employees how to get on foodstamps while employed. 51 Wal-Mart mentions through out that whole article. What it did state was that Wal-Mart has the most employee's recieving welfare benefits though. But that is not the same as them holding meetings to tell their employees how to get foodstamps while employed.

Wal-Mart has lots of problems with it, but saying something is happening when there is no evidence of it does not need to be added as it just weakens your arguements and credibility.
Try this link.

Larry Bourne, a member of Our Walmart and a worker at the Crestwood, Il. Walmart, is on strike now while his wife, who also works at that store, is in Bentonville, Ark. protesting at the shareholders' meeting.

As he picketed outside the Chicago Walmart this morning, he slammed what he called Walmart's "predatory policies."

"They even terminate you just for taking a sick day to which you are supposed to be entitled," he said. "And the human resources people are really slick. They know that you can't live on what they pay you so they bring you in and show you how to game the social welfare system. They get you on food stamps or any other form of public assistance they can get you on. It's a disgrace that with a full time job you should have to go on food stamps."
 
Fine. Ask Mayor Vincent Gray why Walmart holds meetings with it's employees and shows them how gainfully employed people can sign up for food stamps. :roll:

Because Walmart likes to see its employees get their "fair share" of the wages of others. You make it sound like Walmart invented these moronic gov't income redistribution programs. Sure Walmart takes advantage of them, but so do many other businesses that use low skilled labor. If your employees require $X in order to comfortably survive then what difference does it make what portion of $X is derived from their paycheck and how much is added by social "safety net" programs?
 
Because Walmart likes to see its employees get their "fair share" of the wages of others. You make it sound like Walmart invented these moronic gov't income redistribution programs. Sure Walmart takes advantage of them, but so do many other businesses that use low skilled labor. If your employees require $X in order to comfortably survive then what difference does it make what portion of $X is derived from their paycheck and how much is added by social "safety net" programs?
The difference Sir is that the private sector is supposed to get rid of this kind of madness; the private sector gets millions of dollars in tax breaks and here we have gainfully employed people that has to use a welfare system. These businesses preach less state all the time when it has to be apparent to most that they love it - especially while receiving millions of dollars in tax breaks.

Did they invent them? No, but they love them.
 
No offense but I'm not going to take the word of a disgruntled employee over my own experiance. ;)
That's fine with me. I feel the same way when Walmart comes out with a statement without any substance behind it too. ;)
 
The difference Sir is that the private sector is supposed to get rid of this kind of madness; the private sector gets millions of dollars in tax breaks and here we have gainfully employed people that has to use a welfare system. These businesses preach less state all the time when it has to be apparent to most that they love it - especially while receiving millions of dollars in tax breaks.

Did they invent them? No, but they love them.

Sure they love them, that is my point. You see this as corporate welfare, which is exactly what it is. Absent these "safety net" programs those folks would not be able to work AND get "welfare". It is only because "welfare" pays more than the minimum wage (usually based on household size) that folks can, and will, do both.

Study: welfare pays more than work in most states | The Daily Caller
 
Sure they love them, that is my point. You see this as corporate welfare, which is exactly what it is. Absent these "safety net" programs those folks would not be able to work AND get "welfare". It is only because "welfare" pays more than the minimum wage (usually based on household size) that folks can, and will, do both.

Study: welfare pays more than work in most states | The Daily Caller
So what you are telling me is that the private sector actually needs the State to make a strong economy, right?
 
So what you are telling me is that the private sector actually needs the State to make a strong economy, right?

No. What I am telling you is that employers will pay no more than they have to in order to attract qualified applicants and retain qualified workers. If the pay offered was not sufficient to live on then nobody would apply for the job or stay working there. But since the gov't assures folks, that no matter what they make working, so long as they have a job, that simply having a certain size of a household entitles them to social "safety net" program benefits. That "safety net" alone makes that low wage offered for the job OK instead of forcing the employer to offer more in order to attract/retain qualified workers.
 
No. What I am telling you is that employers will pay no more than they have to in order to attract qualified applicants and retain qualified workers. If the pay offered was not sufficient to live on then nobody would apply for the job or stay working there. But since the gov't assures folks, that no matter what they make working, so long as they have a job, that simply having a certain size of a household entitles them to social "safety net" program benefits. That "safety net" alone makes that low wage offered for the job OK instead of forcing the employer to offer more in order to attract/retain qualified workers.
OK. Then I'm right. The private sector makes sure that the nannny state is always there to insure that they have a workforce that people like me have to pay for so that Walmart can keep all it's money and not pay an exorbitant amount of taxes on.

Man, that's ingenious!
 
OK. Then I'm right. The private sector makes sure that the nannny state is always there to insure that they have a workforce that people like me have to pay for so that Walmart can keep all it's money and not pay an exorbitant amount of taxes on.

Man, that's ingenious!

I suppose you could look at it that way. But what you save by the use of low wage labor (lower prices for goods and services) you (or someone) must pay for in taxation to make up the difference via income redistribution programs. The problem is that is not what is really happening - federal taxation is lower than federal spending. We are instead borrowing money to subsidize the low wage workers, so that we can have our cake and eat it too. ;)

Walmart, as well as all other employers payng those low wages, are happy because the sheeple let the gov't borrow money in their names to keep labor costs artificially low for them. The republicants won't let taxes go up and the demorats won't let "safety net" spending go down, thus the Walmarts are making lots of money and the national debt simply keeps on rising. The net effect is that we are borrowing money to give to the Walmarts and our congress critters laugh as we re-elect them over and over.
 
Man...and I thought I needed a subscription to Reader's Digest to read lots of anecdotes.
 
I suppose you could look at it that way. But what you save by the use of low wage labor (lower prices for goods and services) you (or someone) must pay for in taxation to make up the difference via income redistribution programs. The problem is that is not what is really happening - federal taxation is lower than federal spending. We are instead borrowing money to subsidize the low wage workers, so that we can have our cake and eat it too. ;)

Walmart, as well as all other employers payng those low wages, are happy because the sheeple let the gov't borrow money in their names to keep labor costs artificially low for them. The republicants won't let taxes go up and the demorats won't let "safety net" spending go down, thus the Walmarts are making lots of money and the national debt simply keeps on rising. The net effect is that we are borrowing money to give to the Walmarts and our congress critters laugh as we re-elect them over and over.
That's not the way actual "Free Enterprise" is supposed to work. As a matter of fact I see it as a rich man's welfare system.
 
That's not the way actual "Free Enterprise" is supposed to work. As a matter of fact I see it as a rich man's welfare system.

That's a new one.
 
I did a quick search through there and scanned several statements about Wal-Mart but no where did I see that article saying that Wal-Mart holds meetings showing its employees how to get on foodstamps while employed. 51 Wal-Mart mentions through out that whole article. What it did state was that Wal-Mart has the most employee's recieving welfare benefits though. But that is not the same as them holding meetings to tell their employees how to get foodstamps while employed.

Wal-Mart has lots of problems with it, but saying something is happening when there is no evidence of it does not need to be added as it just weakens your arguements and credibility.

It actually would be better if they did, from one point of view. At least then they would be dedicating company time to helping out their employees.
 
That's not the way actual "Free Enterprise" is supposed to work. As a matter of fact I see it as a rich man's welfare system.

Exactly, but we call it being comapssionate and helping the poor. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom