- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Businesses can make a profit without being assholes. They may not be able to make the most profit, but they can have a successful operation. That is what they should strive for; like I said, people before profit, period.
I don't understand how the people can make these types of decisions and be able to sleep at night.
Perhaps they should pull an Oprah Winfrey and give all there employees "brand new cars" too, right?
After Walmart gives all their deserving employees all these additional benefits and increases in wages, are you going to force people to shop there when all their prices skyrocket? Because you know, don't you, that people aren't going to pay more for a package of toilet paper simply because the Walmart clan pays better wages and benefits.
Walmart was the first private company to get supplies to New Orleans after Katrina.
Walmart drive down wages in the communities where they are located. Before Walmarts moves in, people generally work for smaller employers and get better pay. Often those businesses go under due to Walmart low prices. If all employers were required to pay a minimum wage that is a livable wage then Walmart would not be able to drive their competition out of business so easily and tax payer subsidies for so many of their employees would not be necessary. Yes, their prices would not be so low, but that savings for individuals is negated by the overall cost to the community. This is why many communities are trying to stop Walmart from moving in.
Oh well in that case I'm totally fine with their dumping billions of dollars in welfare and food stamp costs onto the rest of the country.
In the past many business people's behavior was somewhat constrained by the need to remain respected in their community.
Prices wouldnt "skyrocket." Wages arent the bulk of such a company's expenditures. Last year, WalMart spend $7.6 billion buying back shares of its own company. That money could have raised the pay of its low-wage workers over $5/hour and not raised prices one penny. McDonald's HQ could eat the cost of paying double minimum wage, not raise prices one penny, and still make billions in profit. (and that's not even counting the profit of the franchise owners) Papa Johns could have provided every employee with a health insurance plan for like twelve cents per pizza. Ask a hundred people if they'd pay twelve cents per pizza knowing it meant the people who made it and the driver all had health insurance. I bet all of them would respond just like me:
Here's a quarter. Get the deluxe plan.
Why the hell are profitable, dividend paying firms
receiving taxpayer subsidies? Why are we footing the bill because McDonalds and Walmart won't pay them proper wages and/or give them more hours. I've a cousin who was laid off from her IT position a few years back and took a job at Walmart because she needed something asap. Her thinking was to work a second job along with Walmart until something in her career field opened. Turned out the second gig was out of the question as they changed her schedule every week. Walmart knows exactly what they're doing.
Oh save your free market bull****. Walmart's philosophy is get everything for the lowest price, goods and employees. Wal-Mart is the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid. They're having their cake and eating it too by taking advantage of their employees and the tax-payer.We should charge back the amount of public assistance any employee receives to the company he or she works for and watch them up their pay and/or increase their hours.Because the left has decreed that income redistribution is the "fair" way to establish a worker's "true" worth. Far too many assume that Walmart is doing something different than the typical lawn service or cabinet shop. Any business pays what it considers ample to attract and retain qualified workers while still making the desired profit. The federal gov't, on the other hand, prefers to define one's "fair" compensation to be based on their current number of dependents, independent of the market value of their labor - the difference is made up by social program spending (income redistribution).
Prices wouldnt "skyrocket." Wages arent the bulk of such a company's expenditures. Last year, WalMart spend $7.6 billion buying back shares of its own company. That money could have raised the pay of its low-wage workers over $5/hour and not raised prices one penny. McDonald's HQ could eat the cost of paying double minimum wage, not raise prices one penny, and still make billions in profit. (and that's not even counting the profit of the franchise owners) Papa Johns could have provided every employee with a health insurance plan for like twelve cents per pizza. Ask a hundred people if they'd pay twelve cents per pizza knowing it meant the people who made it and the driver all had health insurance. I bet all of them would respond just like me:
Here's a quarter. Get the deluxe plan.
Her thinking was to work a second job along with Walmart until something in her career field opened. Turned out the second gig was out of the question as they changed her schedule every week. Walmart knows exactly what they're doing.
Their game is to keep their employees dependent on some sort of Government assistance either by not providing enough work hours, pay or a consistent/regular schedule to where one could take a second job thus avoiding the need for foodstamps.I'm not following. How does it benefit Walmart to prevent their workers from getting a second job by rotating their schedule?
Oh save your free market bull****. Walmart's philosophy is get everything for the lowest price, goods and employees. Wal-Mart is the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid. They're having their cake and eating it too by taking advantage of their employees and the tax-payer.We should charge back the amount of public assistance any employee receives to the company he or she works for and watch them up their pay and/or increase their hours.
Their game is to keep their employees dependent on some sort of Government assistance either by not providing enough work hours, pay or a consistent/regular schedule to where one could take a second job thus avoiding the need for foodstamps.
I'm not following. How does it benefit Walmart to prevent their workers from getting a second job by rotating their schedule?
Their game is to keep their employees dependent on some sort of Government assistance either by not providing enough work hours, pay or a consistent/regular schedule to where one could take a second job thus avoiding the need for foodstamps.
Walmart isn't the only one. McDonald's is totally skummy too. McDonald's has a “McResource” line that helps employees and their families enroll in various state and local assistance programs. That came out into the open when a recording turned up of the McResource line advocating that full-time employees sign up for food stamps and welfare.Again with the attack on Walmart (alone?) because you assume that they can afford to pay your desired penalty nonsense. How is any other employer, paying the same low wage, not "guilty" of exactly the same "crime"? Why is the person that delivers your newspaper, washes your car, cooks your meal, washes your dishes or mows your lawn not "entitled" to make as much as a Walmart cashier?
Should the pay/hours of only those workers with dependents be raised? After all, the low wage employees without dependents are not likely able to collect these public assistance benefits so they may freely be paid less, under your "fair" scheme. What you seem to be attempting here is to establish a "living wage" to replace a flat minimum wage - but applying it very selectively (only to big corporations).
Why the hell are profitable, dividend paying firms
receiving taxpayer subsidies? Why are we footing the bill because McDonalds and Walmart won't pay them proper wages and/or give them more hours. I've a cousin who was laid off from her IT position a few years back and took a job at Walmart because she needed something asap. Her thinking was to work a second job along with Walmart until something in her career field opened. Turned out the second gig was out of the question as they changed her schedule every week. Walmart knows exactly what they're doing.
My twin sisters in law both work at walmart and go to school. They have no problems at all working and going to school, they say walmart is pretty flexible with hours to fit their schedule. They say they like working there and besides some usual complaints about customers acting like idiots (anyone working with the public will have that gripe) they are happy. One of them even met her future husband working there.
walmart is ripe for unionization. it's coming, and i'll cheer when it happens.
Watch out - your sister in law is going to be used as an example of Walmart's social engineering or worse, slave trading and forced marriage.
Walmart drive down wages in the communities where they are located. Before Walmarts moves in, people generally work for smaller employers and get better pay. Often those businesses go under due to Walmart low prices. If all employers were required to pay a minimum wage that is a livable wage then Walmart would not be able to drive their competition out of business so easily and tax payer subsidies for so many of their employees would not be necessary. Yes, their prices would not be so low, but that savings for individuals is negated by the overall cost to the community. This is why many communities are trying to stop Walmart from moving in.
You're not seeing the big picture -- all of those are mere components for Walmart's consumer breeding program.
Another vote to kill an American success story.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?