If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   The Complete Idiot's Guide to Wal-Mart's Black Friday Showdown, which pits low-wage workers against greedy management and owners   (salon.com) divider line 370
    More: PSA, Wal-Mart, picket lines, forced labour, North Jersey, unfair labor practice, cover letters  
•       •       •

12435 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Nov 2012 at 10:30 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



370 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-21 08:33:24 AM

ox45tallboy: sinschild: Since they skipped the economic development part of your studies and you seem to be under the impression that skill set is worth more than $10 an hour, I would like to offer you employment as a fluffer on my new film.

Define "worth". I see several people using it in this thread, but I've yet to see anyone define it in the way that they think they are using it.


If you can make a man hungry, you can make him worth whatever you want to. Adam Smith would cry if he saw what we've done to Capitalism.
 
2012-11-21 08:37:02 AM

rumpelstiltskin: ox45tallboy: sinschild: Since they skipped the economic development part of your studies and you seem to be under the impression that skill set is worth more than $10 an hour, I would like to offer you employment as a fluffer on my new film.

Define "worth". I see several people using it in this thread, but I've yet to see anyone define it in the way that they think they are using it.

If you can make a man hungry, you can make him worth whatever you want to. Adam Smith would cry if he saw what we've done to Capitalism.


I would love to know how many Free Marketeers have read Adam Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments
 
2012-11-21 08:43:36 AM

JosephFinn: Trafficguy2000:

Dont worry obamacare will save them!

The insurance exchanges, to be sure, are a good start.



Yes, they'll get a subsidy from the government when they buy their own insurance. Walmart will help them out by cutting everyone to 28 hours a week so that they aren't required to provide them insurance themselves. Which do you think people making $8 an hour need more, health insurance or those 12 hours a week of lost wages (30% of their income)?

In the healthcare plan's defense, apparently a lot of them already don't get 40 hours.
 
2012-11-21 08:45:27 AM

Vector R: Ned Resnikoff at MSNBC flagged a leaked internal document (first obtained by HuffPo) that revealed that base pay at Walmart's Sam's Place stores can be as low as $8 an hour (or $16,000 per year), with wage increases in increments as low as 20 or 40 cents per hour.

Long ago and far away, I was one of those flogged and underpaid drones (employee unit #XJ43061, if you must know). I started out at $8 an hour FT, and that made for a marginally acceptable living with someone else around to share expenses with. A few months in, while chatting with a sweetheart in softlines whose only fault was a massive overbite and a harsh hand dealt from time and poverty. It turned out she'd been there a number of years, and her pay wasn't even equal to mine.

As someone who has BT;DT - yes, the working conditions ARE that bad. It's better than nothing, but it's so degrading and soul-crushing, and is the sort of job that just keeps you awake at night long after you've thrown that farking vest somewhere out of sight. /CSB

/Walmart was so bad I started smoking
//Good luck, striking workers!
///Fark Black Friday


Amen. I worked at Wal-Mart for a single season, 1997. Conditions are really bad, Management varies from incompetent to moronic. Ever seen a moronic manager lead a "YAY WAL MART!" chant at the start of the day? There's a movie about a Day in the Life of North Korea where the workers do the exact same thing. No shiat, it's so comically Authoritarian Communist it's hilarious.

The worst part is the unreliable hours. The pay blows but the inability to ensure a certain amount of hours a week is criminal. Need 35? You'll get between 10-15. Only need 10-15? You'll routinely be given 45 without benefits, of course. Managers are only part of the problem, the biggest problem is some moron in Corporate HR or, god forbid, an executive who has a bright idea and forces you to implement it.

At my store they monitored you. I was folding clothes in men's one day and chatting with a co-worker doing the same and they paged me over the PA system. They paged me to tell me that I wasn't doing any work and to stop talking. I quit the next day, which happened to be Black Friday. fark Wal-Mart and you know what? fark all retail.
 
2012-11-21 08:50:06 AM

CujoQuarrel: Which 'Facts' am I making up


I apologize. I should have noticed that sinschild was the one who posted the incorrect information. You replied to my reply to him, and I just didn't check who I was replying to.
 
2012-11-21 08:50:43 AM
Minimum wage is just fine where it is. In fact, Wal-Mart pays a decent wage. The only problem is that the fast-food joints and Wal-Marts of the world should be staffed by high schoolers and chronic fark-ups. There should be plenty of higher wage, higher skill jobs out there. There ain't. If there are 100 jobs available, and only 10 of them are decent paying jobs, then you can't say that the other 90 people just "work harder and get a better job". How do you force employers to pay a living wage for semi-skilled labor, and pay a good wage for skilled labor? Hell if I know. 5% unemployment would be a start, but it wouldn't solve the problem by itself.
 
2012-11-21 08:52:52 AM

Bisu: In the healthcare plan's defense, apparently a lot of them already don't get 40 hours.


My sister (and many others at the Wal-Mart she works at) suffer from the opposite problem. Her position is considered "part-time" so that they do not have to give her full-time benefits such as 401K contributions and health insurance, but she has been scheduled for less than 40 hours only twice in the past ten months. She has brought this up, but the replies she gets from management are basically, "You are in a part-time position."
 
2012-11-21 09:00:10 AM

ox45tallboy: Bisu: In the healthcare plan's defense, apparently a lot of them already don't get 40 hours.

My sister (and many others at the Wal-Mart she works at) suffer from the opposite problem. Her position is considered "part-time" so that they do not have to give her full-time benefits such as 401K contributions and health insurance, but she has been scheduled for less than 40 hours only twice in the past ten months. She has brought this up, but the replies she gets from management are basically, "You are in a part-time position."


This is the type of bullshiat that should be addressed by a union. If the employer isn't playing fair, a single employee is typically unable to draw any concessions, much less prevail over the employer without taking them to court, a nasty and expensive undertaking.

The other stuff about wages is much less persuasive, but this kind of employment law skirting is very convincing. And in the course of fighting for proper scheduling, other thorns like wages can also be addressed.
 
2012-11-21 09:01:28 AM

TopoGigo: Minimum wage is just fine where it is. In fact, Wal-Mart pays a decent wage. The only problem is that the fast-food joints and Wal-Marts of the world should be staffed by high schoolers and chronic fark-ups. There should be plenty of higher wage, higher skill jobs out there. There ain't. If there are 100 jobs available, and only 10 of them are decent paying jobs, then you can't say that the other 90 people just "work harder and get a better job". How do you force employers to pay a living wage for semi-skilled labor, and pay a good wage for skilled labor? Hell if I know. 5% unemployment would be a start, but it wouldn't solve the problem by itself.


Why do people consider working at Wal-Mart to be "unskilled" labor? Can anyone who hasn't worked at Wal-Mart understand how to use a Telzon for inventory management? Can anyone who hasn't worked stock before understand how to efficiently load a pallet from the stockroom so that the items it contains are all grouped close to one another on the sales floor, but the heavier items are on the bottom? Can anyone who hasn't worked at Wal-Mart walk in and do a Wal-Mart "Associate"'s job with little to no training?

These jobs do take some skills. The employees do put in a hard day's work. A living wage without relying on the government for food stamps and health care to make up for the shortcomings is NOT a lot to ask for.
 
2012-11-21 09:04:22 AM
I don't see how someone who is free market could be against unions. Unions are the ultimate expression of market theory applied to labor.
 
2012-11-21 09:08:38 AM

ox45tallboy: These jobs do take some skills. The employees do put in a hard day's work. A living wage without relying on the government for food stamps and health care to make up for the shortcomings is NOT a lot to ask for.


I didn't mean "unskilled" as an insult. I guess what I should say is that the job requires little to no prior skill. Digging a ditch is a skill. Flipping a burger is a skill.

$8 is a living wage in many parts of the country for a single person with a roommate. Minimum wage jobs are for those people. By the time you have a family, you should have worked your way up to a $12 or $14 job. The only problem is those jobs don't exist.

Besides, even if it's a more demanding job than I think, if there were decent jobs out there, nobody would do tht job for $8. Problem solved.
 
2012-11-21 09:11:54 AM

CPennypacker: I don't see how someone who is free market could be against unions. Unions are the ultimate expression of market theory applied to labor.


It's the whole "applied to labor" part
 
2012-11-21 09:12:16 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: The other stuff about wages is much less persuasive, but this kind of employment law skirting is very convincing.


Well, that's the rub. There is no "law" that says they must offer health insurance to employees, and there is no ""law" that says what a full-time or part-time employee is.
 
2012-11-21 09:16:18 AM

TopoGigo: Besides, even if it's a more demanding job than I think, if there were decent jobs out there, nobody would do tht job for $8. Problem solved.


If the only other option was "watch your family starve", then most people would work at Foxconn for 15-16 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week for $400/month and no benefits.

Like you said, the higher-wage jobs just don't exist, and Wal-Mart is systematically running other retailers out of business, thereby further limiting the options. There is less and less competition for employees, so there is no incentive to raise wages. Who are they competing against for the best stockers and cashiers?
 
2012-11-21 09:21:29 AM

ox45tallboy: TopoGigo: Besides, even if it's a more demanding job than I think, if there were decent jobs out there, nobody would do tht job for $8. Problem solved.

If the only other option was "watch your family starve", then most people would work at Foxconn for 15-16 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week for $400/month and no benefits.

Like you said, the higher-wage jobs just don't exist, and Wal-Mart is systematically running other retailers out of business, thereby further limiting the options. There is less and less competition for employees, so there is no incentive to raise wages. Who are they competing against for the best stockers and cashiers?


Don't get me wrong. I agree with you that Wal-Mart is wage slavery. I just disagree about why. I don't think Wal-Mart employees are underpaid; I think that there is a dearth of better-paying jobs. That's the problem that needs solving. Again, I don't know how to do that, other than lowering unemployment to increase competition for labor.
 
2012-11-21 09:24:15 AM
i don't see walmart workers busting their busts while working. i see them on the floor hanging 1 piece and then looking around for a few seconds and then putting up another piece. are cashiers not allowed to grab 2 items at a time if they are small? some of the cashiers work in slow motion. i was shopping with my dad. we had our own orders but some duplicated items. that freaking clerk didn't bother to remember where the bar codes were on items. the clerk just scanned a 6 pack of beer for me after looking for the bar code and my dad has the same item and she looking for the bar code again? low lazy or stupid are they? those seconds she spends dicking around looking for the bar code adds up. after the clerks scans any semi popular item a couple times they should know where the bar code is.

bootstrappy time. i've gone into supermarkets and seen stockers sitting on milk crates while working. in my day we came to work wearing knee pads and back supports. i was in the ucfw union and made $17 an hour in the early 90's stocking supermarket shelves on the graveyard shift. i worked my butt off. if i stocked shelves with 1 hand i'd be out the door. the money was good but i burned out after 2 1/2 years and got nasty to the guy who was both my boss in the store and the union rep. catch-22. he's pissed so i'm fired so i have to complain to him about it. i lose.
 
2012-11-21 09:42:06 AM

TopoGigo: Don't get me wrong. I agree with you that Wal-Mart is wage slavery. I just disagree about why. I don't think Wal-Mart employees are underpaid; I think that there is a dearth of better-paying jobs. That's the problem that needs solving. Again, I don't know how to do that, other than lowering unemployment to increase competition for labor.


I said this upthread, but I think it needs to be repeated. Like it or not, these jobs require a human being to perform. They simply cannot be automated with today's technology. If a human being is needed, then that human deserves a living wage for their contribution to the business. A ub-par living wage, no matter how "little" one might feel a person contributes, is just inexcusable. Build a robot or train a monkey, just don't expect a human to give up 9-11+ hrs per day (including breaks and commute and "getting ready") for something they cannot survive on.

If everyone "bettered" themselves through education or "bootstraps" or what have you, then who would clean the toilets or empty the trash or stock the shelves? It is silly to think of some jobs as being so "unimportant" although they are in their own way every bit as vital to society as those "better" jobs.

Which would we notice first: Half of the lawyers dropping dead or half of the garbage collectors? Half of the hedge fund managers or half of the janitors? Half of the executives at Wal-Mart taking sick or half of the cashiers?
 
2012-11-21 09:43:28 AM
Let's be honest, WalMart got themselves in this pickle by being so systematically terrible to their employees. Plenty of other retail establishments will be open on Thanksgiving and on the day after, and on other holidays and times when workers would rather not be working but home with their families - but they are willing to accept it because they need the job and aren't 100% sick of the employer. WalMart has managed to so completely piss off their employees with their abuses (locking them inside at closing to force them to do unpaid work closing the store after hours is a favorite trick) that even low-skill low-paid workers are sick enough of them to make a point like this and probably lose their jobs.
 
2012-11-21 09:48:06 AM

ox45tallboy: If everyone "bettered" themselves through education or "bootstraps" or what have you, then who would clean the toilets or empty the trash or stock the shelves?


High school kids, alcoholics, part-timers, and chronic fark-ups. You know, the type of people we all imagine are working min-wage jobs anyway. $8 is a living wage for these types of people. If there were plenty of $12 and $14 jobs out in the world, we wouldn't be biatching about Wal-Mart employees getting paid too little, because people with families who were willing to work full time would choose better jobs.
Again, those jobs don't exist anymore, and that's the problem.
 
2012-11-21 09:52:33 AM

TopoGigo: High school kids, alcoholics, part-timers, and chronic fark-ups. You know, the type of people we all imagine are working min-wage jobs anyway. $8 is a living wage for these types of people.


Do you really believe that the number of the people you have just described is equal to or more than the number of $8/hr. jobs in this country? Do you really believe that employers could handle the turnover expense if they only hired these kinds of people, rather than those who would likely stay with the company more than a few months?
 
2012-11-21 09:53:12 AM
MaoMart: We exploit cheap communist chinese labor so you don't have to!
 
2012-11-21 09:57:00 AM

Linux_Yes: MaoMart: We exploit cheap communist chinese labor so you don't have to!


I think the problem right now is the way they are exploiting cheap American labor.
 
2012-11-21 10:00:11 AM

Porous Horace: Go greedy management! Squeeze those workers! They thought they could just fark around in high school and get away with it? Hah.



you are next, Mr. Harvard. ((
 
2012-11-21 10:02:31 AM

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: MFAWG: Have you looked for a job lately?

I was told the job situation was fixed. Thanks Obama!



no one, God himself, could fix 30 years of bad decisions in 4 years. nice try, though. some of the roots of the problems we have today go back to the 80's Reagan era. back when you were daddy's little squirt.
 
2012-11-21 10:04:07 AM

Richard Johnson: I do my best to stay the hell out of WallyWorld as I can. I don't think that I have been inside one in 3 years.



i thought it was MaoMart? (:
 
2012-11-21 10:04:36 AM

TopoGigo:
Don't get me wrong. I agree with you that Wal-Mart is wage slavery. I just disagree about why. I don't think Wal-Mart employees are underpaid; I think that there is a dearth of better-paying jobs. That's the problem that needs solving. Again, I don't know how to do that, other than lowering unemployment to increase competition for labor.


I'll argue that they're underpaid. Even if we let prices remain the same, even if we assume the 1% price increase it would take to allow WM to pay it's full time scrubs 25K a year would ruin everything, WM makes about 16B a year. So who's generating those earnings? What's a stockboy's contribution to that? (Actually, we should be talking about gross earnings if we want to ask what the stockboy contributes, rather than netting out GSA. But I'll do it this way, just to make clear that, even if the CEO is worth a zillion dollars, there's still plenty of money that's being generated.)
We don't worry about that too much. Instead, we say the stockboy is "worth" what we can hire him for. He's not worth what he contributes; he's worth what I can get him to work for, which isn't much. The reason it's not much is because he's poor, and he doesn't have any leverage to bargain for based on what he contributes.
We're funny. The only time we talk about what workers contribute is when we talk about productivity increases. And what's funny about that is, as workers become more productive, we don't say the worker is worth more. We say the guy who developed the technology or the process that makes the worker more productive is worth more. Often, we even claim the worker is worth less.
Saying someone is "worth" what he can get someone else to pay him for his time is sociopathic. What someone is worth is, he's worth feeding. He's worth allowing to see a doctor. He's worth allowing to have a family. Walmart doesn't pay people based on either their contribution to the company or what their worth.
 
2012-11-21 10:05:17 AM

madgonad: My niece works at Wal*Mart at the deli counter. She is 30 years old, unmarried, with a two year-old. Why yes, she is on food stamps and Medicaid - why do you ask?



its cause MaoMart loves her.
 
2012-11-21 10:06:21 AM

ox45tallboy: TopoGigo: High school kids, alcoholics, part-timers, and chronic fark-ups. You know, the type of people we all imagine are working min-wage jobs anyway. $8 is a living wage for these types of people.

Do you really believe that the number of the people you have just described is equal to or more than the number of $8/hr. jobs in this country?

No, hell no I don't. That is a huge problem. That's exactly what I've been saying. Too many jobs pay $8, $9, and $9.50 with too few paying a living wage. Semi-skilled and skilled workers who can show up to work on a regular basis should be making in the $14 range. Cooks, secretaries, journeyman tradesmen, and a whole host of jobs that I can't think of right now. Probably cashiers at Wal-Mart should be making $10 or $11. Your average stockboy or McDonald's worker? $8 is fine for them. And if it isn't, the supply/demand would increase those wages accordingly. All it takes is low unemployment, a willingness on the part of the consumer to pay a little more for good service and American-made products (or at least products made in foreign countries where the workers were paid living wages), and at least one other thing that I don't know.

Do you really believe that employers could handle the turnover expense if they only hired these kinds of people, rather than those who would likely stay with the company more than a few months?

Maybe. Supply and demand would determine that, if there weren't so much more supply of labor than demand for it.
 
2012-11-21 10:06:48 AM

EmmaLou: As a taxpayer, i don't feel like i should foot the bill for Walmart employees that have to be on welfare just to get by even though they work. Pay your people a living wage for fark's sake.



they're American. they have the Freedom to exploit their employees and the Government. aint' Freedom great!
 
2012-11-21 10:07:09 AM

rumpelstiltskin: Walmart doesn't pay people based on either their contribution to the company or what their worth.


Well put.
 
2012-11-21 10:10:39 AM

Lsherm: drewsclues: Best advice: Don't shop on Thanksgiving.

Amen to this. Actually, don't shop on Black Friday, either.




Black Friday is the best time for Anthropoligists to study the American in their natural habitat.

much useful data can be obtained in a relatively short period of time.
 
2012-11-21 10:12:54 AM

ox45tallboy: Linux_Yes: MaoMart: We exploit cheap communist chinese labor so you don't have to!

I think the problem right now is the way they are exploiting cheap American labor.



well, it is a win win if you can exploit both sides of the market. they call it Freedom.
 
2012-11-21 10:13:12 AM
rumpelstiltskin:

Careful. There are already plenty of people saying min-wagers live too fat. If you want to pay people what it costs them to live, you'll have CEO's deciding how they should live. Sounds a little like slavery, in a way.

In general, I agree with what you're saying. I just think that there is a place in the economy for high school kids, lazy farks who just need enough money for beer and Halo, alkies who can barely show up to work, etc. They are generally not worth $14. As long as there actually is a road to improvement, then let them improve themselves. Where we are today, though, there is no road to improvement; there's a huge bridge out between $8ville and living-wagetown.
 
2012-11-21 10:15:11 AM

TopoGigo: Where we are today, though, there is no road to improvement; there's a huge bridge out between $8ville and living-wagetown.


And let's not even broach the subject of the distance from there to "middle class".
 
2012-11-21 10:15:43 AM
Once again I will point out that the REAL revolution will occur when Walmart employees can no longer afford to shop at WalMart
 
2012-11-21 10:16:04 AM

CPennypacker: I don't see how someone who is free market could be against unions. Unions are the ultimate expression of market theory applied to labor.



i know how. they're programmed by Talk Radio and FUX News (owned by our crony capitalist corporate friends) to believe that companies/owners should be able to do as they please and workers should tow the line and don't have any rights to organize.

only business owners have the right to organize and petition our government for laws that benefit them at the worker's expense.

they call it Freedom/Liberty.
 
2012-11-21 10:24:09 AM

Linux_Yes: they call it Freedom/Liberty.


I can drop a deuce on a loaf of pumpernickel and call it "haute cuisine", but that don't mean it ain't a sh*t sandwich.
 
2012-11-21 10:38:16 AM

Too Pretty For Prison: AverageAmericanGuy: base pay at Walmart's Sam's Place stores can be as low as $8 an hour, with wage increases in increments as low as 20 or 40 cents per hour.

To put it another way, the raises are between 2.5% and 5%, in line with most other industries.

but, but, but that's not FAIR! Sure, I have no skills and can only stack boxes on a shelf - but I'm ENTITLED to have a 65" TV, a new car, a large house, every available cable channel, and a cell phone for my 6 year old. get off food stamps, afford private insurance instead of Medicaid, and move out of public housing. I DEMAND you pay me more!!!


FTFY, douchebag. Why do you want your tax money to subsidize some mouthbreather instead of making 5 of the 10 richest Americans forgo that second sports franchise? Especially if it's only going to cost you an extra 15 cents for that bag of Cheetos and gallon jug of hand lotion.
 
2012-11-21 10:43:02 AM

phyrkrakr: Too Pretty For Prison: AverageAmericanGuy: base pay at Walmart's Sam's Place stores can be as low as $8 an hour, with wage increases in increments as low as 20 or 40 cents per hour.

To put it another way, the raises are between 2.5% and 5%, in line with most other industries.

but, but, but that's not FAIR! Sure, I have no skills and can only stack boxes on a shelf - but I'm ENTITLED to have a 65" TV, a new car, a large house, every available cable channel, and a cell phone for my 6 year old. get off food stamps, afford private insurance instead of Medicaid, and move out of public housing. I DEMAND you pay me more!!!

FTFY, douchebag. Why do you want your tax money to subsidize some mouthbreather instead of making 5 of the 10 richest Americans forgo that second sports franchise? Especially if it's only going to cost you an extra 15 cents for that bag of Cheetos and gallon jug of hand lotion.


You know the reason for that. If they couldn't biatch about the welfare queens that are buying three Cadillacs a day so they can sell crack on their off hours from birthing babies and part time at the WalMart, then who would they feel superior too?

/Also, living in mom's basement like that means the hand lotion budget is pretty high
 
2012-11-21 10:51:12 AM

Linux_Yes: Black Friday is the best time for Anthropoligists to study the American in their natural habitat.


*Shoves Linux_Yes to the ground*

*Grabs the last $99 Panasornic 72" TV*
 
2012-11-21 10:51:12 AM

EmmaLou: As a taxpayer, i don't feel like i should foot the bill for Walmart employees that have to be on welfare just to get by even though they work. Pay your people a living wage for fark's sake.


Okay, let's end welfare. Problem solved.

Here's a solution to those who think walmarts wages are too low: don't shop at Walmart. They are able to offer dirt cheap prices because they have a very low cost structure. A primary component of that is the low wages they pay.

The workers still have a right to strike if they want. They also have the right to quit if they think Walmart is not compensating them adequately for their efforts.
 
2012-11-21 10:54:35 AM

TomD9938: Nutsac_Jim: Why doesn't the union just open up its own wal-mart competitor

It's up to some other party to build the business.

I feel for these people though and support their effort to make things better for themselves. Hopefully it doesnt blow up in their face.

I dont feel for the kids who are just learning how to show up at a job on time and make enough for their phone and the occassional dime bag, but the older ones who arent employable elsewhere.

I dont know what to tell them other than you got a shiatty hand at birth and possibly made things worse along the way through some of your own actions and now this is your lot in life.

I'd try to pool resources with a friend/friends to rent a home together on a bus-line, have the tubes tied and put a TV antenna on the roof. 

In the mean-time, take all the hours you can stand and make the best of those 20 cent raises.

Good luck.


Exactly this.
 
2012-11-21 11:01:37 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: The government has the right to tax money as it pleases because it's the entire reason the money exists as a vehicle for trade.


patently false

hubiestubert: You might want to take a gander at what those well known Commie Founders of this nation thought of the estate tax, as well as that pesky Ebbil Socialist Adam Smith:


Jefferson voted to repeal the first Estate tax legislation. The pursuit of property (wealth) is a fundamental tenant to the American foundation. And no, the government can't just take it from you because you'd died.
 
2012-11-21 11:08:26 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: EmmaLou: As a taxpayer, i don't feel like i should foot the bill for Walmart employees that have to be on welfare just to get by even though they work. Pay your people a living wage for fark's sake.

Okay, let's end welfare. Problem solved.

Here's a solution to those who think walmarts wages are too low: don't shop at Walmart. They are able to offer dirt cheap prices because they have a very low cost structure. A primary component of that is the low wages they pay.

The workers still have a right to strike if they want. They also have the right to quit if they think Walmart is not compensating them adequately for their efforts.


I agree. Don't shop at wal-mart. That place has got to be one of the circles of hell. I bet crackers and toya and tire cleaner are dirt cheap in hell too.
 
2012-11-21 11:22:09 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: EmmaLou: As a taxpayer, i don't feel like i should foot the bill for Walmart employees that have to be on welfare just to get by even though they work. Pay your people a living wage for fark's sake.

Okay, let's end welfare. Problem solved.

Here's a solution to those who think walmarts wages are too low: don't shop at Walmart. They are able to offer dirt cheap prices because they have a very low cost structure. A primary component of that is the low wages they pay.

The workers still have a right to strike if they want. They also have the right to quit if they think Walmart is not compensating them adequately for their efforts.


I choose not to go there because I don't want to travel for an hour and deal with miserable traffic (to turn now into impossible traffic), land whales and their offspring blocking the aisles, waiting forever in line and a generally depressing experience. End result is the same.
 
2012-11-21 11:23:42 AM

rikkitikkitavi: Sergeant Grumbles: The government has the right to tax money as it pleases because it's the entire reason the money exists as a vehicle for trade.

patently false

hubiestubert: You might want to take a gander at what those well known Commie Founders of this nation thought of the estate tax, as well as that pesky Ebbil Socialist Adam Smith:

Jefferson voted to repeal the first Estate tax legislation. The pursuit of property (wealth) is a fundamental tenant to the American foundation. And no, the government can't just take it from you because you'd died.


From The Economist, circa 2010:

With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fullness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."

Others wanted to go much further; Thomas Paine, like Smith and Jefferson, made much of the idea that landed property itself was an affront to the natural right of each generation to the usufruct of the earth, and proposed a "ground rent" - in fact an inheritance tax - on property at the time it is conveyed at death, with the money so collected to be distributed to all citizens at age 21, "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property."

Even stalwart members of the latter-day Republican Party, the representatives of business and inherited wealth, often emphatically embraced these tenets of economic equality in a democracy. I've mentioned Herbert Hoover's disdain for the "idle rich" and his strong support for breaking up large fortunes. Theodore Roosevelt, who was the first president to propose a steeply graduated tax on inheritances, was another: he declared that the transmission of large wealth to young men "does not do them any real service and is of great and genuine detriment to the community at large.''

In her debate in Delaware yesterday, the Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell asserted that the estate tax is a "tenet of Marxism." I'm not sure how much Marx she has read, but she might want to read the works of his fellow travelers Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Herbert Hoover, and Theodore Roosevelt before her next debate.


You might want to rethink Jefferson on this: Because his opposition to an estate tax was because he wanted something a sight more radical...

In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson suggested that all property be redistributed every fifty years, because "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living."
 
2012-11-21 11:32:12 AM

hubiestubert: You might want to rethink Jefferson on this:


Right, and you're going to distribute that collected wealth and land to 21 year old citizens. I don't think so. It was a bad idea then, it's a bad idea today.
 
2012-11-21 11:40:39 AM

hubiestubert: In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson suggested that all property be redistributed every fifty years, because "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living."



And it appears that by 1823, Jefferson had changed his tune somewhat, "The laws of civil society, indeed, for the encouragement of industry, give the property of the parent to his family on his death, and in most civilized countries permit him even to give it, by testament, to whom he pleases."

As well, "The General Government is incompetent to legislate on the subject of inheritances."
 
2012-11-21 11:43:13 AM
i9.photobucket.com
 
kab
2012-11-21 11:48:58 AM
ITT: folks clinging desperately to trickle down economics, despite it simply not working in practice.
 
Displayed 50 of 370 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report