- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 29,385
- Reaction score
- 15,601
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
This is typically the case for the "bread winner" of a typical family of four or more (mom, dad/mom, mom/dad, dad, and the two kids).
They don't make enough to pay taxes. They make little enough to get government help.
You’ve got that right! They are “job creators”. They pay wages, provide medical benefits and provide a valued service to the community.
This as opposed to the government which takes money away under threat of force from working people and redistributes it in the form of government jobs which all too often create nothing more than a bureaucracy while providing little or no service to the community.
I disagree. Why invite this amount of abuse over a simple threat. In real life you do not make a claim like this unless you intend to carry it through.
Wages, like inventory, make-up a huge percentage of any corporations expenditures and a near 50% increase in wages is going to have a huge impact on their bottom-line. Any responsible corporation is going to have to take that into account when deciding if they are going to be able to actively and fairly compete in the local market-place because that’s what “job creators” do!
People will sacrifice if they think it is mutual with management. United Airline and Continental employees did. So have many others. Ford employees helped that company turn around.
This is typically the case for the "bread winner" of a typical family of four or more (mom, dad/mom, mom/dad, dad, and the two kids).
What is typically the case?
People making 50k pay taxes. I have read the income table and 50k pays in.
Nearly 22% of those making between $50,000 and $75,000 end up with no federal income tax liability or negative liability as do 9% of households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000....The vast majority of households making up to $30,000 fall into the category, as do nearly half of all households making between $30,000 and $40,000.
I didn't respond with "not true" I responded with and implied that investing in walmart is a risk and not even worth it given walmarts minimal growth.
A 1% quarterly return on a stock is not that good, especially when shares are $75.00 a pop.
I didn't respond with "not true" I responded with and implied that investing in walmart is a risk and not even worth it given walmarts minimal growth.
Not according to this article.
A little dramatic, as usual. By the way, when Walmart pays crap, we as taxpayers end up subsidizing the differences in the form of SNAP, TANF, etc. Why are you supporting Walmart's taking advantage of big scary socialism?
In Walmarts case, this is not correct.
This is just stupid:
So people who work in big stores require 12.50 an hour to have a living wage, but people who work elsewhere only require 8.50? Despite living in the same town? With similar if not the same cost of living? How does that make sense?
1% was the growth not the return. Walmart is still a buy.
The global discount shopping behemoth came close to matching analysts' estimates with earnings per share of $1.14, a 4.6% increase over last year's first quarter.
A consensus estimate by Thomson Reuters predicted EPS of $1.15 per share.
Wal-Mart fell $1.36 to close at $78.50.
Sure it is.
Exploitation can happen even with choice.
Don't know if anyone else has noted this, but...
“While the bill would apply to some other retailers — such as Home Depot, Costco and Macy’s — a grandfather period and an exception for those with unionized workforces made it clear that the bill targets Wal-Mart, which has said it would open six stores, employing up to 1,800 people.”
Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. plans should city mandate ‘living wage’ - The Washington Post
It would appear this “living wage” was simply an attempt by the local D.C. government to target the politically incorrect WalMart…alone.
WalMart should simply leave D.C. altogether until those idiots can figure out how a successful economy works.
You're right but even this isn't good enough.... One would be better off
sticking their money in a bank to collect interest.
You're right but even this isn't good enough.... One would be better off sticking their money in a bank to collect interest.
The opposite will happen. people will make more spend more and thus create prosperity.
Whether measured by the poverty rate or by the earnings of low-income families, the minimum wage does not help the poor.
Higher Minimum Wages Cost jobs and Working Hours
A major reason why the minimum wage is such an ineffective anti-poverty tool is that minimum-wage hikes cause businesses to reduce the number of workers they hire and the hours they ask their employees to work. According to Neumark et al., for example:
Workers who initially earn near the minimum wage experience wage gains. But their hours and employment decline, and the combined effect of these changes on earned income suggests net adverse consequences for low-wage workers.[4]
Most estimates suggest that each 10 percent increase in the minimum wage reduces employment in affected groups of workers by roughly 2 percent.[5] Thus, raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour would cost at least 8 percent of affected workers their jobs. A higher minimum wage helps only those workers who actually wind up earning that wage and further disadvantages lower-income workers, who suffer fewer job opportunities and working hours. Though intended to help low-income families get ahead, the minimum wage instead costs some their jobs and others hours at work. This leaves poor families actually worse off.
This news was followed by a predictable response from advocacy groups like the National Employment Law Project which suggested that an increase in the minimum wage could help lift Americans out of poverty. And not only that; in a CNN.com op-ed, a policy analyst with the group said that an increase in the minimum wage could boost the economy and create 160,000 jobs.
These claims may pass muster as applause lines at a political rally, but they can't pass the test of rigorous empirical research.
1% was the growth not the return. Walmart is still a buy.
That's not really how it works, no. I have to pay my hourly employees even when they aren't selling anything.
Thanks to Bernakes endless QE, Banks don't pay interest
Μολὼν λαβέ;1062035314 said:I know you what to believe but that opinion isn't reality. Employers won't hire the same number of higher minimum wage employees as they would if the minimum wage was at a lower rate. Remember, minimum wage employees have few skills, because that's what the job requires. So why would an employer hire the same number of employees at a higher rate of pay to perform the same menial tasks? They wouldn't. How would it benefit the business? It wouldn't.
Higher rate wages for minimum wage employees would cause the price of goods or services to go up. Some of those services or products would no longer be required as more people would then have to be more selective how they spent their disposable income. When that happens fewer goods and services will be purchased, fewer people will be hired, and some businesses will fold.
Raising the Minimum Wage Will Not Reduce Poverty
Raising minimum wage won't lower poverty - CNN.com
Yes Walmart should leave until they become an ethical business that follows community standards.
Costco pays well and provides good insurance. They are very profitable. So the community does understood how a good economy works. Get rid of those who cheat and exploit.
Walmart returns over 5% On average. That is a great return. Far more than Bond rates or a savings account. What are cd paying now? less than 2%.
Everyone who works at WalMart does so of their own free will. Also, you know how this works...please provide evidence that WalMart "cheats and exploits".
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?