Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Huffington Post)   The wealth of the Walton family -- which still owns the lion's share of Walmart stock -- now exceeds the wealth of the bottom 40 percent of American families combined   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 446
    More: Sad, Walmart, Labor Day, Americans, Walton family, Common Cause, American families, Economic Policy Institute  
•       •       •

7962 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Aug 2013 at 6:34 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-26 08:40:42 PM  
That kind of info will make the average Tea Partier have an instant orgasm.
 
2013-08-26 08:48:49 PM  
It sounds like the Walton's can pay our welfare bill for a year.
 
2013-08-26 08:52:46 PM  

bojon: It sounds like the Walton's can pay our welfare bill for a year.


ahh, the true defining instance between 'can' and 'will'.
 
2013-08-26 09:07:52 PM  
Obviously, we should rip the Walton family members limb-from -limb and distribute their wealth to those more deserving. Obviously.
 
2013-08-26 09:16:22 PM  
Where do you think the bottom 40% have been spending all their money for the past quarter century?
 
2013-08-26 09:25:23 PM  

TheDumbBlonde: Obviously, we should rip the Walton family members limb-from -limb and distribute their wealth to those more deserving. Obviously.


Maybe you live an such a pitiful black and white world, I'd settle for them (and their corporation) paying a Reagan-era tax rate.

I know, how strange for a lib like me to sound so conservative, right?
 
2013-08-26 09:31:49 PM  

vudutek: TheDumbBlonde: Obviously, we should rip the Walton family members limb-from -limb and distribute their wealth to those more deserving. Obviously.

Maybe you live an such a pitiful black and white world, I'd settle for them (and their corporation) paying a Reagan-era tax rate.

I know, how strange for a lib like me to sound so conservative, right?


And maybe a living wage and healthcare for their employees.
 
2013-08-26 09:35:05 PM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: vudutek: TheDumbBlonde: Obviously, we should rip the Walton family members limb-from -limb and distribute their wealth to those more deserving. Obviously.

Maybe you live an such a pitiful black and white world, I'd settle for them (and their corporation) paying a Reagan-era tax rate.

I know, how strange for a lib like me to sound so conservative, right?

And maybe a living wage and healthcare for their employees.


Careful there, Sparky. Next thing, you'll be expecting unicorns and rainbows.....
 
2013-08-26 09:42:31 PM  
Yet for all these years no one has ever been unlawfully forced to work or shop at Wal-Mart.

/ Hate the laws and the system, but not those involved parties who've played by the rules.
 
2013-08-26 10:25:09 PM  
Hey, those job creators EARNED that money!
 
2013-08-26 10:26:18 PM  

TheDumbBlonde: Obviously, we should rip the Walton family members limb-from -limb and distribute their wealth to those more deserving. Obviously.


The article says just that.  Oh wait, after reading it, it doesn't say that at all.  It suggests that maybe, in the face of record profits, Walmart employees should be afforded a modest raise, perhaps to something in the livable wage range.

But we agree on one thing- massive wealth inequality does eventually lead to repossession by force.  It always has.  That's why it's always better to keep the proles nominally satisfied.
 
NFA
2013-08-26 10:30:24 PM  

Primum non nocere: Yet for all these years no one has ever been unlawfully forced to work or shop at Wal-Mart.

/ Hate the laws and the system, but not those involved parties who've played by the rules.



The problem with your logic is that when everyone does the same thing and doesn't provide a living wage, our nation slips into that of a third world nation.  People work but can barely afford to eat, they live on the streets etc. etc.  The Utopian conservative dream that lowering wages somehow makes everyone rich is about as destructive to a nation as communism.  Eliminating the minimum wage only creates a class of slave laborers.  Have you ever traveled to many of the this nation's small towns?  Many of these places have but one or two employers.  Eliminate the minimum wage and those people go hungry. Eliminate health care and they and their children die from common easily treated diseases.   I've traveled Appalachia and I can tell you, there are working people who live in sheds which you and I would tear down because they're dangerous to anyone around them.  Our nation has a growing poor population.
A growing poor class because our corporations have decided to make an EXTRA 15% profit by shipping good paying jobs overseas and collecting a tax break for doing so.  We have companies which will offer 50% off their products every time the local sports team wins but literally claims a 15 increase in the price of their pizza is too much to ask to provide healthcare benefits to their employees.   Years ago, I was fully employed but could not afford to eat everyday of the week, I was making $6 per hour and going hungry.

While you may idolize Walmart, it's estimated that each Walmart store costs the taxpayer $1,75 million per year in social services provided to their workers because of the below average wages and benefits.  Many Walmart stores literally hand out welfare forms so their employees can apply for food stamps.  But I wouldn't expect you to see that as anything but heroic capitalism.  YOU and I are subsidizing the Walmart family fortune with out tax dollars.  Think of it as a WALMART family welfare program that comes right out of the tax coffers.
 
2013-08-26 10:31:11 PM  

Primum non nocere: Yet for all these years no one has ever been unlawfully forced to work or shop at Wal-Mart.

/ Hate the laws and the system, but not those involved parties who've played by the rules.


I would be fine if my taxes weren't paying for food and medical coverage for  Wal*Mart employees working 30+ hours a week.

At the end of 2012, there were 3,216 Wal-Mart employees who were enrolled in Wisconsin public health care programs, more than any other employer. Add in the dependents of Wal-Mart workers and the total jumps up to 9,207.

Factoring in what taxpayers contribute for public programs, the report estimated that one Wal-Mart supercenter employing 300 workers could cost taxpayers at least $904,000 annually.

 http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/04/news/companies/walmart-medicaid/ind ex. html
 
2013-08-26 10:51:26 PM  

NFA: The problem with your logic is that when everyone does the same thing and doesn't provide a living wage, our nation slips into that of a third world nation.


Yea, before the minimum wage, America was a real shiathole. Look at how poverty has been eliminated in Vermont, Illinois, and Massachusetts and how they're leading the nation in growth and economic success.
 
2013-08-26 11:00:19 PM  
Eat the rich.

it really will solve problems
 
2013-08-26 11:17:49 PM  

Mrbogey: NFA: The problem with your logic is that when everyone does the same thing and doesn't provide a living wage, our nation slips into that of a third world nation.

Yea, before the minimum wage, America was a real shiathole. Look at how poverty has been eliminated in Vermont, Illinois, and Massachusetts and how they're leading the nation in growth and economic success.


So, the days of the robber baron were better? Your implication that the employment conditions and/or overall quality of life was better in 1900's and earlier than in the 1910's and later? Really? Because before the minimum wage, America WAS a shiathole for workers.

Or are you going to tie in minimum wage to the depression or something? That would be funny.
 
2013-08-26 11:18:49 PM  

Mrbogey: Yea, before the minimum wage, America was a real shiathole.


Yeah..and the tax limit for the 1 percent rich was 91 percent.
Yet somehow all the very rich made big profits and bought big cars, and big houses.

Remember that shait hole of America? Where we could send a man to the moon, fund science and research, and build infrastructure.

Selective memory is a wonderful thing, no?
http://news.yahoo.com/eisenhower-obama-wealthiest-americans-pay-taxe s- 193734550--abc-news.html
 
2013-08-26 11:38:03 PM  

dr_blasto: So, the days of the robber baron were better?


Hey, before socialism we had no MRI's. Socialism ergo, gave us MRI's.

Your derp logic is impeccable.

The first federal minimum wage was in 1933. Prior to the Great Depression, would you say America was a shiathole in the 1920s?

optikeye: Yeah..and the tax limit for the 1 percent rich was 91 percent.
Yet somehow all the very rich made big profits and bought big cars, and big houses.


And yet only a handful of rich people actually paid a good deal because the way it was established it didn't take 91% of a person's income. Next thing you know you'll paste an argument based on a simplistic and incorrect understanding of top marginal tax rates.

optikeye: Remember that shait hole of America? Where we could send a man to the moon, fund science and research, and build infrastructure.


Yea, I recall we spent a pittance on discretionary budget and federal welfare programs were far smaller than they were. But hey, we have important decisions to make. We chose entitlements and social spending rather than technology and infrastructure.

You got you tax increase on the top 2%. Top marginal rates went up. The economy didn't take off. You were wrong.
 
2013-08-27 12:07:44 AM  
@NFA

Exactly.

"While you may idolize Walmart." I'll ignore that because  . . Hell, No
.
"But I wouldn't expect you to see that as anything but heroic capitalism.Whatttt????

Dude, I'm on your page. I'm just saying that the Walton Family has done nothing illegal. Stop focusing on the Walton Family. Ask ourselves, what is fair and just? Change the laws. Stop hating on the messenger here.

/ BTW, there's is nobody in the U.S. that pays a higher effective tax-rate than me. Nobody.

I'm screwed from every angle. I'm single. No dependents. I can't make income look like capital gains. I don't grow soybeans. I don't own a windmill farm. I was not affected by Hurricane Katrina. Etc.
 
2013-08-27 12:10:19 AM  
So tax cuts for the rich

/got beat to it already by someone else
//only that buffoon is serious
 
2013-08-27 12:14:03 AM  
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median age of fast-food workers is over 28; and women, who comprise two-thirds of the industry, are over 32. The median age of big-box retail workers is over 30.

Isn't median the word that means the middle? So all it would take is one 80 year old to make the median  38 (Assuming the youngest is 16 years old).

As opposed to average.
 
2013-08-27 12:18:12 AM  

jaylectricity: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median age of fast-food workers is over 28; and women, who comprise two-thirds of the industry, are over 32. The median age of big-box retail workers is over 30.

Isn't median the word that means the middle? So all it would take is one 80 year old to make the median  38 (Assuming the youngest is 16 years old).

As opposed to average.


I was told there would be no statistics..
 
2013-08-27 12:54:41 AM  

Dinki: Hey, those job creators EARNED that money!


They inherited it.
 
2013-08-27 01:27:24 AM  
And?  What's your point?  The best team in the NFL is more wins above .500 than the bottom half of the league combined.  Should we redistribute those wins to the weaker teams?  Or should we reward the best team in the NFL with multi-billion-dollar tax cuts?  According to liberals, we should do the former.  LOL!!!
 
2013-08-27 01:55:18 AM  

Mrbogey: dr_blasto: So, the days of the robber baron were better?

Hey, before socialism we had no MRI's. Socialism ergo, gave us MRI's.

Your derp logic is impeccable.

The first federal minimum wage was in 1933. Prior to the Great Depression, would you say America was a shiathole in the 1920s?

optikeye: Yeah..and the tax limit for the 1 percent rich was 91 percent.
Yet somehow all the very rich made big profits and bought big cars, and big houses.

And yet only a handful of rich people actually paid a good deal because the way it was established it didn't take 91% of a person's income. Next thing you know you'll paste an argument based on a simplistic and incorrect understanding of top marginal tax rates.

optikeye: Remember that shait hole of America? Where we could send a man to the moon, fund science and research, and build infrastructure.

Yea, I recall we spent a pittance on discretionary budget and federal welfare programs were far smaller than they were. But hey, we have important decisions to make. We chose entitlements and social spending rather than technology and infrastructure.

You got you tax increase on the top 2%. Top marginal rates went up. The economy didn't take off. You were wrong.


That is quite interesting. We where discussing you, not me. Tell me, what about your own Derp Logic is impeccable?
 
2013-08-27 03:06:03 AM  
They started with one store in 1962, I'd call that an American success story.
 
2013-08-27 03:09:13 AM  
One wonders where they shop
 
2013-08-27 03:28:11 AM  

borg: They started with one store in 1962, I'd call that an American success story.


Does that mean above criticism?
 
2013-08-27 03:46:51 AM  

vudutek: TheDumbBlonde: Obviously, we should rip the Walton family members limb-from -limb and distribute their wealth to those more deserving. Obviously.

Maybe you live an such a pitiful black and white world, I'd settle for them (and their corporation) paying a Reagan-era tax rate.

I know, how strange for a lib like me to sound so conservative, right?


I prefer Eisenhower era tax rates.


Primum non nocere: Yet for all these years no one has ever been unlawfully forced to work or shop at Wal-Mart.

/ Hate the laws and the system, but not those involved parties who've played by the rules.


Due to Wal-Marts practices, all some places have are Wal-Mart
 
2013-08-27 03:57:17 AM  

Mrbogey: The first federal minimum wage was in 1933. Prior to the Great Depression, would you say America was a shiathole in the 1920s?


www.centralaustralia.ymca.org.au
30.media.tumblr.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Duluth-lynching-postcard.jpg NSFW

Guess it depends who you ask.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-08-27 05:37:17 AM  

Mrbogey: NFA: The problem with your logic is that when everyone does the same thing and doesn't provide a living wage, our nation slips into that of a third world nation.

Yea, before the minimum wage, America was a real shiathole. Look at how poverty has been eliminated in Vermont, Illinois, and Massachusetts and how they're leading the nation in growth and economic success.


You realize that the standard of living is much higher now, and that poverty is defined differently, right?
 
2013-08-27 05:42:36 AM  

jaylectricity: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median age of fast-food workers is over 28; and women, who comprise two-thirds of the industry, are over 32. The median age of big-box retail workers is over 30.

Isn't median the word that means the middle? So all it would take is one 80 year old to make the median  38 (Assuming the youngest is 16 years old).

As opposed to average.mean


The median is a type of average.
 
2013-08-27 06:05:21 AM  

vudutek: TheDumbBlonde: Obviously, we should rip the Walton family members limb-from -limb and distribute their wealth to those more deserving. Obviously.

Maybe you live an such a pitiful black and white world, I'd settle for them (and their corporation) paying a Reagan-era tax rate.

I know, how strange for a lib like me to sound so conservative, right?


I'm sure they would jump at the chance if they could also take Reagan era write offs. They would also love Kennedy tax rates if the got Kennedy write offs.

The effective rates today have changed little over the last 50 years but it's cute when you drag that tired old argument out.
 
2013-08-27 06:14:05 AM  

borg: They started with one store in 1962, I'd call that an American success story.


On this board a success story is the bureaucrat that invented the Obama phone or expanded food stamps to over 10% of country.

It's not good to succeed in the private sector.
 
2013-08-27 06:40:09 AM  
ah capitalism. i dont think we've got anything that works better, but you do have a to take a few calming breaths every so often
 
2013-08-27 06:41:27 AM  

bojon: It sounds like the Walton's can pay our welfare bill for a year.


considering a lot of their employees are on it maybe they should.
 
2013-08-27 06:43:45 AM  

Nabb1: Where do you think the bottom 40% have been spending all their money for the past quarter century?


THIS.

People biatching about the monster that they've created themselves.

Protip: Shop somewhere else, problem solved.
 
2013-08-27 06:43:47 AM  

borg: They started with one store in 1962, I'd call that an American success story.


yeah they built it up on their "made in America"  standard.
Sam had some sense of loyalty to the American workers.
But then the greed took over and the kids decided to turn it into a warehouse full of Chinese sweatshop products.
 
2013-08-27 06:43:54 AM  

Mrbogey: NFA: The problem with your logic is that when everyone does the same thing and doesn't provide a living wage, our nation slips into that of a third world nation.

Yea, before the minimum wage, America was a real shiathole. Look at how poverty has been eliminated in Vermont, Illinois, and Massachusetts and how they're leading the nation in growth and economic success.


Parts of it...absolutely.  But you knew that.
 
2013-08-27 06:45:10 AM  
Don't worry. Each and every one of us will be that wealthy one day if we just work hard and obey.
 
2013-08-27 06:46:30 AM  

bojon: It sounds like the Walton's can pay our welfare bill for a year.


more than that actually.  don't worry - if we let this massive wealth imbalance continue eventually it'll readjust on its own.  usually violently and with large amounts of blood...but it WILL correct itself.

or ya know...we could do something about it now while we've got choices.
 
2013-08-27 06:46:59 AM  

Mike_LowELL: And?  What's your point?  The best team in the NFL is more wins above .500 than the bottom half of the league combined.  Should we redistribute those wins to the weaker teams?  Or should we reward the best team in the NFL with multi-billion-dollar tax cuts?  According to liberals, we should do the former.  LOL!!!


You might want to read some more history before comparing wealth distribution to sports.

Start with the French Revolution.
 
2013-08-27 06:47:41 AM  

Mrbogey: dr_blasto: So, the days of the robber baron were better?

Hey, before socialism we had no MRI's. Socialism ergo, gave us MRI's.

Your derp logic is impeccable.

The first federal minimum wage was in 1933. Prior to the Great Depression, would you say America was a shiathole in the 1920s?


Before socialism? What socialism? You're normally not that crazy, man.

However, first minimum wage was in 1912, Massachusetts. A big portion of America was a shiathole in the 1920s. We had violent battles in the streets and all kinds of crazy shiat; some of the economic success was tied to national spending on the military equipment for WWI. shiat, the government, though, couldn't or wouldn't pay the Bonus Army and let us not forget the friggin depression started in 1929.

No. The 1920s weren't great. Well, unless you were already rich. But shiat is always great if you're already rich.
 
2013-08-27 06:49:06 AM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: borg: They started with one store in 1962, I'd call that an American success story.

On this board a success story is the bureaucrat that invented the Obama phone or expanded food stamps to over 10% of country.

It's not good to succeed in the private sector.


So vote Republican...you know, the guys who put two massive expansions of the government and two wars on the national credit card...
 
2013-08-27 06:49:18 AM  

Mike_LowELL: And?  What's your point?  The best team in the NFL is more wins above .500 than the bottom half of the league combined.  Should we redistribute those wins to the weaker teams?  Or should we reward the best team in the NFL with multi-billion-dollar tax cuts?  According to liberals, we should do the former.  LOL!!!


lh3.ggpht.com
 
2013-08-27 06:50:43 AM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: borg: They started with one store in 1962, I'd call that an American success story.

On this board a success story is the bureaucrat that invented the Obama phone or expanded food stamps to over 10% of country.

It's not good to succeed in the private sector.


Ah, the echo chamber has added some reverb and distortion. WalMart is such a success because they bully their way into bulding stores by lining the pockets of local politicians and then go on to destroy the independent stores in the area. WalMart screws over its own employees, most of which have to work there because WalMart is now the only game in town.

I guess if the business model of being a cancer is a success then WalMart is doing it right.
 
2013-08-27 06:51:37 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Don't worry. Each and every one of us will be that wealthy one day if we just work hard and obey.


Where's your store located?  What do you sell?  How many hours each week do you and your family work there in order to make it a success and maybe open a second store?  And then a third and a fourth.

Or, do you just sit in your Mom' basement, biatching about other people?
 
2013-08-27 06:52:20 AM  

AngryDragon: Nabb1: Where do you think the bottom 40% have been spending all their money for the past quarter century?

THIS.

People biatching about the monster that they've created themselves.

Protip: Shop somewhere else, problem solved.


Some people can't. Downward spiral. Not the 3/4 foot nails kind.
 
2013-08-27 06:53:16 AM  
Because if there's one thing that humans evolved to do, it's obsessively hoard money.
 
2013-08-27 06:53:20 AM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: borg: They started with one store in 1962, I'd call that an American success story.

On this board a success story is the bureaucrat that invented the Obama phone or expanded food stamps to over 10% of country.

It's not good to succeed in the private sector.


"Private sector" As in getting cheap labor by putting your employees on welfare? Having a readily available public infrastructure to utilize? Having agricultural subsidies of one kind or another either make your food products cheaper or fund your customers purchase of them? Etc., Etc.? Ad Infinitum?
The words "private sector" are a right wing fiction. There is no "private sector".  It is a conceit of entitled rich people who were born on third base, and think they hit a triple.
Odd how it's always the weakest, softest pinkboys who biatch about the government they couldn't survive two seconds without.
 
Displayed 50 of 446 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report