Metro Jacksonville

QuoteWal-Mart's annual report, issued late last week, puts a different spin on things. Buried within the long list of risk factors disclosed to its shareholders--that is, factors "outside our control" that could materially affect financial performance--are these: "changes in the amount of payments made under the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Plan and other public assistance plans, (and) changes in the eligibility requirements of public assistance plans."

Wal-Mart followers say this is the first time the company has made a disclosure like that.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Plan, or SNAP, is the formal name for food stamps, which were slashed late last year and again this year by your Congress. The deal Congress reached on the farm bill and food stamps in January will cut an average $90 a month from the food assistance for 850,000 families. That's on top of the cut averaging $29 a month (for a family of three) imposed in November.

Wal-Mart says it gets more than half its sales from its grocery departments. Since low-income shoppers are a big part of its clientele, it's unsurprising that that squealing you hear is coming from its annual report. There's no indication that Wal-Mart executives stepped up to the plate during the debate in Washington to warn Congress off these cuts in assistance to its customers.

One interesting sidelight of Wal-Mart's disclosure is that it doesn't actually discuss how the company benefits from public assistance programs by sticking the U.S. taxpayer with the bill for keeping its workforce fed and clothed. As Barry Ritholtz observed in November, the retailer is one of the nation's biggest "welfare queens": In many states its employees are the largest group of Medicaid and food stamp recipients.

Who's paying for Wal-Mart's addiction to paying its employees less than a living wage? You are.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-walmarts-dependence-20140324,0,5452260.story#ixzz2xCPEYPRs

I guess I don't understand the piling on Wal-Mart. The people working there and making the minimum wage have no marketable skills that would justify a higher wage. If they did, they'd be offered a job that paid more, and presumably they'd take it.

Quote from: fsquid on March 31, 2014, 01:05:08 PM
I guess I don't understand the piling on Wal-Mart. The people working there and making the minimum wage have no marketable skills that would justify a higher wage. If they did, they'd be offered a job that paid more, and presumably they'd take it.

Costco and Publix pay more for the same jobs. And it's not just low skill jobs like cashier and stock crew. It's management positions too.

Quote from: fsquid on March 31, 2014, 01:05:08 PM
I guess I don't understand the piling on Wal-Mart. The people working there and making the minimum wage have no marketable skills that would justify a higher wage. If they did, they'd be offered a job that paid more, and presumably they'd take it.

:o

Quote from: fsquid on March 31, 2014, 01:05:08 PM
I guess I don't understand the piling on Wal-Mart. The people working there and making the minimum wage have no marketable skills that would justify a higher wage. If they did, they'd be offered a job that paid more, and presumably they'd take it.

serious??

Quote from: pierre on March 31, 2014, 02:25:09 PM

Quote from: fsquid on March 31, 2014, 01:05:08 PM
I guess I don't understand the piling on Wal-Mart. The people working there and making the minimum wage have no marketable skills that would justify a higher wage. If they did, they'd be offered a job that paid more, and presumably they'd take it.

Costco and Publix pay more for the same jobs. And it's not just low skill jobs like cashier and stock crew. It's management positions too.

Then shouldn't the Walmart managers leave and get jobs at Costco and Publix?

I guess we all should be paid what we are worth, but this does not always happen.  How many are overqualified/underemployed?  How many no longer have the field or industry in which they have the skills?

Quote from: pierre on March 31, 2014, 02:25:09 PM

Quote from: fsquid on March 31, 2014, 01:05:08 PM
I guess I don't understand the piling on Wal-Mart. The people working there and making the minimum wage have no marketable skills that would justify a higher wage. If they did, they'd be offered a job that paid more, and presumably they'd take it.

Costco and Publix pay more for the same jobs. And it's not just low skill jobs like cashier and stock crew. It's management positions too.

Comparing Wal-Mart to Costco in this regard is absurd. Sure, Wal-Mart pays people $8/hour and Costco pays $14/hour. But they aren't the same people. The person making $8/hour at Wal-Mart can't get the $14/hour job at Costco. Costco wouldn't hire them. If Wal-Mart doesn't hire them, nobody does.

Nobody makes $8/hour at Wal-Mart if anyone else thinks they're worth $9/hour or more.

Quote from: mbwright on March 31, 2014, 03:49:16 PM
I guess we all should be paid what we are worth, but this does not always happen.  How many are overqualified/underemployed?  How many no longer have the field or industry in which they have the skills?

Everyone who works full time should be paid a livable wage regardless & not have to rely on food stamps/other social programs just to get by. Especially at places like Wal-Mart who's founders have more wealth than the bottom 40% of americans combined.

Since we've let the corporate pigs rape & pillage our cities, destroy mom & pops, make ghost towns out of main streets all across the nation, etc, then the least they could do is pay. I mean if we're gonna get fucked anyway at least let us have the money to buy lipstick.

Quote from: JHAT76 on March 31, 2014, 03:40:28 PM

Quote from: pierre on March 31, 2014, 02:25:09 PM

Quote from: fsquid on March 31, 2014, 01:05:08 PM
I guess I don't understand the piling on Wal-Mart. The people working there and making the minimum wage have no marketable skills that would justify a higher wage. If they did, they'd be offered a job that paid more, and presumably they'd take it.

Costco and Publix pay more for the same jobs. And it's not just low skill jobs like cashier and stock crew. It's management positions too.

Then shouldn't the Walmart managers leave and get jobs at Costco and Publix?

Some do. Publix gets managers from Winn Dixie too. Most that make the jump from either actually make more but have a lesser title.

Quote from: peestandingup on March 31, 2014, 05:15:52 PM

Quote from: mbwright on March 31, 2014, 03:49:16 PM
I guess we all should be paid what we are worth, but this does not always happen.  How many are overqualified/underemployed?  How many no longer have the field or industry in which they have the skills?

Everyone who works full time should be paid a livable wage regardless & not have to rely on food stamps/other social programs just to get by. Especially at places like Wal-Mart who's founders have more wealth than the bottom 40% of americans combined.

Since we've let the corporate pigs rape & pillage our cities, destroy mom & pops, make ghost towns out of main streets all across the nation, etc, then the least they could do is pay. I mean if we're gonna get fucked anyway at least let us have the money to buy lipstick.

So... a high school senior, a single mother of three, and a retiree are all cashiers at Walmart... what is the "livable wage"?  Do you propose means testing?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 01, 2014, 07:06:54 AM

Quote from: peestandingup on March 31, 2014, 05:15:52 PM

Quote from: mbwright on March 31, 2014, 03:49:16 PM
I guess we all should be paid what we are worth, but this does not always happen.  How many are overqualified/underemployed?  How many no longer have the field or industry in which they have the skills?

Everyone who works full time should be paid a livable wage regardless & not have to rely on food stamps/other social programs just to get by. Especially at places like Wal-Mart who's founders have more wealth than the bottom 40% of americans combined.

Since we've let the corporate pigs rape & pillage our cities, destroy mom & pops, make ghost towns out of main streets all across the nation, etc, then the least they could do is pay. I mean if we're gonna get fucked anyway at least let us have the money to buy lipstick.

So... a high school senior, a single mother of three, and a retiree are all cashiers at Walmart... what is the "livable wage"?  Do you propose means testing?

Also, will there be price caps so Walmart can't raise prices to compensate for new wages? 

Quote from: JHAT76 on April 01, 2014, 07:11:50 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 01, 2014, 07:06:54 AM

Quote from: peestandingup on March 31, 2014, 05:15:52 PM

Quote from: mbwright on March 31, 2014, 03:49:16 PM
I guess we all should be paid what we are worth, but this does not always happen.  How many are overqualified/underemployed?  How many no longer have the field or industry in which they have the skills?

Everyone who works full time should be paid a livable wage regardless & not have to rely on food stamps/other social programs just to get by. Especially at places like Wal-Mart who's founders have more wealth than the bottom 40% of americans combined.

Since we've let the corporate pigs rape & pillage our cities, destroy mom & pops, make ghost towns out of main streets all across the nation, etc, then the least they could do is pay. I mean if we're gonna get fucked anyway at least let us have the money to buy lipstick.

So... a high school senior, a single mother of three, and a retiree are all cashiers at Walmart... what is the "livable wage"?  Do you propose means testing?

Also, will there be price caps so Walmart can't raise prices to compensate for new wages?

They won't have to raise prices because they're making hundreds of billions in revenue every year. And our law makers should make sure that doesn't happen (fat chance I know since bribes, er "lobbying" exists). They'll be just fine & I don't think any of the higher ups will be starving & can still swim in their vats of money like Scrooge McDuck. Like I said, this is the small price places like this pay for the reasons I mentioned.

Yet most people don't even bother to tie it all together, instead seeing people who rely on government social programs as parasites. I'm just saying, if you're some hardcore conservative & you're truly against those things, you better damn well never contribute to places like Walmart. Because they're the biggest Welfare Queens of them all. Which BTW happens to also be partly responsible for killing many local jobs in services, goods & manufacturing (and all the bad things that go along with that).

To answer BT's question, I don't know. Whatever pay scale it means that keeps up with inflation & general cost of living. I don't think anyone who wants to work full time should be living in the gutter, regardless of who they are. But obviously if you've got 12 kids & expect any job, full time or otherwise, to pay enough to live then that's probably not gonna fly. But that's an extreme example. The way things are currently, even a person who has just one kid can't live on these wages. Not with all things considered.

So under the scenario I proposed earlier you are advocating for means testing based pay.

QuoteSo... a high school senior, a single mother of three, and a retiree are all cashiers at Walmart.

Clearly "general cost of living" is different for all three people... all performing the exact same job.  What about businesses that arent "making billions"?  Should they be forced to comply with the means testing wage scale too?

What about unintended consequences... such as... only hiring high school seniors and retirees because their wage will be means tested less than the mother of 3?

^ You're obviously missing the point. Sometimes when you can't admit you're wrong (or can't admit you've taken the lesser of two positions, ethically), you break it down into technicalities that have no bearing on the underlying initial post.

I am not missing the point.  I was responding to peestanding up... NOT the initial post.  So now its your turn to admit your wrong.  ;)

QuoteEveryone who works full time should be paid a livable wage regardless & not have to rely on food stamps/other social programs just to get by. Especially at places like Wal-Mart who's founders have more wealth than the bottom 40% of americans combined.

Since we've let the corporate pigs rape & pillage our cities, destroy mom & pops, make ghost towns out of main streets all across the nation, etc, then the least they could do is pay. I mean if we're gonna get fucked anyway at least let us have the money to buy lipstick.

Long time reader, first time poster. All the aggression directed at bridge troll and (he/she/it)  is making a good point. Each of those classes of individual have a different threshold at which a livable wage is identified.

and my two cents on the topic,

Walmart has been genius in there business plan. Sell shelf space , minimize wages and conquer competition. This is the embodiment of all that is taught in business school, "Maximize shareholder wealth'. There is no social imperative to make life better for others, only your shareholders. This is not intrinsically evil, quintessentially it self interest that drives a capitalistic society.

If a person is unhappy with their life they can change it. It requires education, technology and hard work. Our economy has become a knowledge based economy, the days of blue collar manufacturing are gone.

QuoteThey won't have to raise prices because they're making hundreds of billions in revenue every year.

you do know the difference between revenue and profit, correct?  Wal-Mart's margins are roughly 3% on Gross Revenue which is good, but not outlandish.

Wal-Mart's business model is minimizing cost in order to maintain low prices. Overpaying for labor is not part of that model. And paying more than $8/hour for people whose productivity is $8/hour or less is overpaying for labor.

What would you propose that Wal-Mart do? Understand that paying $10/hour to the same number of people that they now pay $8/hour is not an option. If they have to pay$10/hour, they'll hire better people and work them harder in order to get their money's worth.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 01, 2014, 08:22:06 AM
So under the scenario I proposed earlier you are advocating for means testing based pay.

QuoteSo... a high school senior, a single mother of three, and a retiree are all cashiers at Walmart.

Clearly "general cost of living" is different for all three people... all performing the exact same job.  What about businesses that arent "making billions"?  Should they be forced to comply with the means testing wage scale too?

What about unintended consequences... such as... only hiring high school seniors and retirees because their wage will be means tested less than the mother of 3?

It wouldn't need to be that complicated if you're using general levels of inflation as a key. Go back a few decades when single income families were able to get by & apply it to today, instead of having to have two incomes as it is now to keep your head above water. There's a reason for this. Wages haven't kept up.

We can't allow places like this to have all the breaks, be able to outsource all the stuff they carry & then on top of it not pay their employees here anything, having it both ways. That's a great way to ruin your own economy & city fabrics. So unless they wanna start stocking their shelves with American made products, then paying their employees more should be their "penalty". Not a tall order IMO.

As far as local businesses, start ups, etc that aren't rolling in dough, that's probably a more complicated issue. But I will say that we should be actively encouraging that. Maybe we can take a fraction of the breaks we'd have given to huge corporate entities & apply them to local ones.

Quote from: tyrsblade on April 01, 2014, 09:22:15 AM
It requires education, technology and hard work. Our economy has become a knowledge based economy, the days of blue collar manufacturing are gone.

"Education" won't solve everything.  A college-educated cashier isn't going to be paid more than a high-school drop-out cashier.  As long as these jobs do exist, the organization that pays them needs to stop pawning off part of the cost onto the taxpayers.

Quote from: finehoe on April 01, 2014, 12:10:14 PM

Quote from: tyrsblade on April 01, 2014, 09:22:15 AM
It requires education, technology and hard work. Our economy has become a knowledge based economy, the days of blue collar manufacturing are gone.

"Education" won't solve everything.  A college-educated cashier isn't going to be paid more than a high-school drop-out cashier.  As long as these jobs do exist, the organization that pays them needs to stop pawning off part of the cost onto the taxpayers.

College educated with a fine arts degree pretty much guarantees you'll be bringing my order or ringing up my groceries for the foreseeable future.

Quote from: tyrsblade on April 01, 2014, 09:22:15 AM
Walmart has been genius in there (sic) business plan. Sell shelf space , minimize wages and conquer competition. This is the embodiment of all that is taught in business school, "Maximize shareholder wealth'. There is no social imperative to make life better for others, only your shareholders. This is not intrinsically evil, quintessentially it self interest that drives a capitalistic society.

I have read endless tributes to Wal-Mart from "libertarian economists," who sing Wal-Mart's praises for bringing low price goods, 70 per cent of which are made in China, to the American consumer. What these "economists" do not factor into their analysis is the diminution of American family incomes and government tax base from the loss of the goods producing jobs to China. Ladders of upward mobility are being dismantled by offshoring, while cities issues IOUs to pay their bills. The shift of production offshore reduces US GDP. When the goods and services are brought back to America to be sold, they increase the trade deficit. As the trade deficit is financed by foreigners acquiring ownership of US assets, this means that profits, dividends, capital gains, interest, rents, and tolls leave American pockets for foreign ones.

This was a conscious choice, not some inevitable working of "the market".

Quote from: tyrsblade on April 01, 2014, 12:22:29 PM
College educated with a fine arts degree pretty much guarantees you'll be bringing my order or ringing up my groceries for the foreseeable future.

And you apparently are perfectly content to help Wal-Mart pay their salaries via your tax dollars.

Quote from: finehoe on April 01, 2014, 12:28:05 PM

Quote from: tyrsblade on April 01, 2014, 12:22:29 PM
College educated with a fine arts degree pretty much guarantees you'll be bringing my order or ringing up my groceries for the foreseeable future.

And you apparently are perfectly content to help Wal-Mart pay their salaries via your tax dollars.

Is Publix or Winn Dixie paying higher than Wal Mart?  How about a Stein Mart cashier... or local 7-11?  Just who is paying better cashier wages than Walmart?

Quote from: finehoe on April 01, 2014, 12:28:05 PM
And you apparently are perfectly content to help Wal-Mart pay their salaries via your tax dollars.

Actually, I'm completely in favor of gutting our welfare system (both corporate in the form of subsidies and Personal in the various forms it persists in government) and switching to a flat tax so that everyone top to bottom pays the same fixed %.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 01, 2014, 12:32:22 PM

Quote from: finehoe on April 01, 2014, 12:28:05 PM

Quote from: tyrsblade on April 01, 2014, 12:22:29 PM
College educated with a fine arts degree pretty much guarantees you'll be bringing my order or ringing up my groceries for the foreseeable future.

And you apparently are perfectly content to help Wal-Mart pay their salaries via your tax dollars.

Is Publix or Winn Dixie paying higher than Wal Mart?  How about a Stein Mart cashier... or local 7-11?  Just who is paying better cashier wages than Walmart?

I don't care, I did that once , long ago and decided it sucked. Got an education and training (on my own dime, cause you know a white male isn't going to get it any other way) and moved on from sub 20$/hour jobs.

Quote from: tyrsblade on April 01, 2014, 12:35:51 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 01, 2014, 12:32:22 PM

Quote from: finehoe on April 01, 2014, 12:28:05 PM

Quote from: tyrsblade on April 01, 2014, 12:22:29 PM
College educated with a fine arts degree pretty much guarantees you'll be bringing my order or ringing up my groceries for the foreseeable future.

And you apparently are perfectly content to help Wal-Mart pay their salaries via your tax dollars.

Is Publix or Winn Dixie paying higher than Wal Mart?  How about a Stein Mart cashier... or local 7-11?  Just who is paying better cashier wages than Walmart?

I don't care, I did that once , long ago and decided it sucked. Got an education and training (on my own dime, cause you know a white male isn't going to get it any other way) and moved on from sub 20$/hour jobs.

Which is part of the point... many of us started as cashiers... it is a starter job.  It is and never was meant to be an occupation where you can raise a family and send the kids off to college.  Perhaps you move uop to a cashier supervisor and on to department and eventually store management.

Quote from: finehoe on April 01, 2014, 12:26:11 PM

Quote from: tyrsblade on April 01, 2014, 09:22:15 AM
Walmart has been genius in there (sic) business plan. Sell shelf space , minimize wages and conquer competition. This is the embodiment of all that is taught in business school, "Maximize shareholder wealth'. There is no social imperative to make life better for others, only your shareholders. This is not intrinsically evil, quintessentially it self interest that drives a capitalistic society.

I have read endless tributes to Wal-Mart from "libertarian economists," who sing Wal-Mart's praises for bringing low price goods, 70 per cent of which are made in China, to the American consumer. What these "economists" do not factor into their analysis is the diminution of American family incomes and government tax base from the loss of the goods producing jobs to China. Ladders of upward mobility are being dismantled by offshoring, while cities issues IOUs to pay their bills. The shift of production offshore reduces US GDP. When the goods and services are brought back to America to be sold, they increase the trade deficit. As the trade deficit is financed by foreigners acquiring ownership of US assets, this means that profits, dividends, capital gains, interest, rents, and tolls leave American pockets for foreign ones.

This was a conscious choice, not some inevitable working of "the market".

Jobs and stagnated wages to me are the biggest issue.  This is why the current Krugman/Keynesian devotees who say current inflation is no issue.  When looking at the true consumer needs (food, fuel, homes, etc) prices since 2000 have ballooned 50 - 100+%.  Then compare this to the fact that current wages are the same or worse than what you could get starting out even with a degree and it doesn't take long to see that what we are currently doing is not working.   How about this solution rather than forcing a min wage:

Perhaps corporate taxes could be radically lowered for companies that invest in domestic human capital. Were the nominal corporate tax rate 0% for companies that produce goods and services in the U.S. with U.S. workers, we might find such incentives yield significant employment dividends even as corporate tax revenues decline. (If more enterprises are launched and more people are employed, taxes will rise without needing to boost tax rates.)

Quote from: JHAT76 on April 01, 2014, 12:44:13 PM
Perhaps corporate taxes could be radically lowered for companies that invest in domestic human capital. Were the nominal corporate tax rate 0% for companies that produce goods and services in the U.S. with U.S. workers, we might find such incentives yield significant employment dividends even as corporate tax revenues decline. (If more enterprises are launched and more people are employed, taxes will rise without needing to boost tax rates.)

"Tickle down" has been a failure, no need to double down on a policy that doesn't work..

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 01, 2014, 12:39:24 PM
It is and never was meant to be an occupation where you can raise a family and send the kids off to college.

It may not have been "meant" to be that way, but it's the reality of today's economy:

(http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/533ac7e0ecad044814cebd63-808-676/screen%20shot%202014-04-01%20at%2010.04.10%20am.jpg)

Oh but wait... apparently you do not even need to graduate HS for most...

http://www.careerinfonet.org/oview3.asp?level=overall&id=1&nodeid=5

1,2,3,6,7,8, and 10 on you list require less than HS diplomas... about 20 million or so...

Sounds about right.  How much should under trained under educated workers make?

Quote from: finehoe on April 01, 2014, 02:44:43 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 01, 2014, 12:39:24 PM
It is and never was meant to be an occupation where you can raise a family and send the kids off to college.

It may not have been "meant" to be that way, but it's the reality of today's economy:

(http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/533ac7e0ecad044814cebd63-808-676/screen%20shot%202014-04-01%20at%2010.04.10%20am.jpg)

so raising their wage is the answer?  or maybe fixing the economy and making the US a great place to make your products again?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 01, 2014, 03:11:41 PM
How much should under trained under educated workers make?

Enough so that the taxpayers don't have to subsidize their living expenses.

Quote from: fsquid on April 01, 2014, 03:24:02 PM
so raising their wage is the answer?  or maybe fixing the economy and making the US a great place to make your products again?

Why does it have to be either/or?  Why not both?

QuoteEnough so that the taxpayers don't have to subsidize their living expenses.

Which is what?  $9, $10.10?  Why not make it $1000 / hr?

It's not my job, nor is it my corporation's job to help others. It's my job to concentrate as much wealth into my families and my business coffers. There is no mandate that says help all the dumb clucks , who won't (not can't) improve their lot in life. Who I choose to help and be charitable to is my business, the myth of "the living wage" is that it's a crowbar to leverage more money out of the hands of those that earn it.

Don't want to make 7.50 an hour? don't get knocked up in 9th grade , know who your dad is, finish high school, learn a trade or goto college for a technical/medical  degree.

this isn't hard.

I just don't get why you guys are so adamantly against paying people more.  You have no problem with CEOs making outrageous sums, many making more than they could ever possibly spend.  Yet you're against paying those at the bottom a few dollars more an hour, which they certainly will spend, which will increase the size of the economy and be better for everyone. 

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 01, 2014, 12:39:24 PM

Quote from: tyrsblade on April 01, 2014, 12:35:51 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 01, 2014, 12:32:22 PM

Quote from: finehoe on April 01, 2014, 12:28:05 PM

Quote from: tyrsblade on April 01, 2014, 12:22:29 PM
College educated with a fine arts degree pretty much guarantees you'll be bringing my order or ringing up my groceries for the foreseeable future.

And you apparently are perfectly content to help Wal-Mart pay their salaries via your tax dollars.

Is Publix or Winn Dixie paying higher than Wal Mart?  How about a Stein Mart cashier... or local 7-11?  Just who is paying better cashier wages than Walmart?

I don't care, I did that once , long ago and decided it sucked. Got an education and training (on my own dime, cause you know a white male isn't going to get it any other way) and moved on from sub 20$/hour jobs.

Which is part of the point... many of us started as cashiers... it is a starter job.  It is and never was meant to be an occupation where you can raise a family and send the kids off to college.  Perhaps you move uop to a cashier supervisor and on to department and eventually store management.

You're applying your own experience onto everyone else though. More & more often, esp these days, these types of jobs aren't "starter jobs". They're just jobs. It's what happens when corporations like Wally World corner the market then are allowed to outsource labor & products for pennies on the dollar. Any idiot could have seen this coming, even a crazy old coot like Ross Perot (the "giant sucking sound").

Besides, do you really expect everyone to jump into the abyss of college loan debt just for the chance they might make more money down the road? For one, that's a huge risk & the numbers back that up. And two, quite frankly not everyone is college material & it shouldn't be a prerequisite in our country to leap into that fire or to otherwise be poor & live on food stamps if you have a job, even if it is a cashier.

Trust me, my wife's been a professor for over a decade & I promise you half of those kids do not need to be there. But that's the only choice we're giving them.

Quote from: finehoe on April 01, 2014, 04:03:56 PM
I just don't get why you guys are so adamantly against paying people more.  You have no problem with CEOs making outrageous sums, many making more than they could ever possibly spend.  Yet you're against paying those at the bottom a few dollars more an hour, which they certainly will spend, which will increase the size of the economy and be better for everyone.

I never said I was against paying more.  However, I don't want the nominal wage to go up without a nice increase in actual purchasing power.  I don't mind paying more for things made here.  I would pay the estimated $60 more for an iPhone made in the US.  I would love for the US to push  itself less as the World Police and more as a Germany style high tech manufacturer.

Again I ask what wage is enough in today's environment?  You say increase the size of economy.  I say that can't be done without increasing the quality of jobs and especially purchasing power that comes from those wages.

Quote from: JHAT76 on April 01, 2014, 04:30:21 PMI say that can't be done without increasing the quality of jobs

Of course it can.  There is no iron law of economics that says the pay of the CEO of Wal-Mart needs to be $6,898 an hour while the average worker there only makes $8.86.

You as a taxpayer are making it possible because you top-off the low-wage worker's salary with various forms of federal aid.

Its been my observation that every time there is a minimum wage hike,everything else(food,housing etc) quickly follow with their own hikes.You can raise walmart workers wages to $15 per hour,and within a very short time all the rents in a 20 mile radius to walmarts will go up.The powers that be will NEVER let a large segment of the population get ahead simply because wealthier means better educated.Then they wont be able to pull the crap they pull now with impunity when a significant segment of the populace is informed and incensed.

The disappearance of the middle class in this country continues, starting with the lower end of it. We are moving toward strictly "Haves" and "Have-nots", no more "Have some" or "average, middle of the road" classes. Seems like a return to over a hundred years ago, before labor movements and minimum wage laws, etc. It's regressive.

Why isn't every high school graduate college material?  Is the fault really on the teachers and schools? Or is it the parent(s)?  Why do we subsidize single mothers with multiple kids?  Why are college students getting liberal arts degrees?  Why aren't we more focused on STEM degrees?  Why are college students earning degrees in fields that don't have jobs? 

Our country isn't falling apart because of Walmart, billionaires, and the "haves".  Many Americans have forgotten about the importance of education, health/nutrition, financial intelligence, and a strong, supportive family.  We've become a country of lazy, obese, single parents working paycheck to paycheck in a world of "gotta have the latest iPhone now," celebritism, and trash reality TV.

The blame now is because of the income gap or inequality.  Frankly, for those who have found success in life, its become easier to sustain it because of it.  And those who don't/can't/won't continue to fall deeper, dragging their family with them.  So the solution is becoming more about spreading the wealth, and less about earning the wealth.  Instead of focusing on education or nutrition or social values, we're worried about money, and who should share more of it with others.

Do you really think that by paying Walmart workers more that they will be able to increase their livelihood and overall success in life?  When they're paid a livable wage, will they spend it correctly?  Will they save it, or continue to live paycheck to paycheck?  Will their 3 children go to college now?  What will they spend this extra money on?  Investing in themselves, their future, or children?  Or a new iPhone?

I cannot, and am not trying to, grant these employees a higher wage. Walmart has to do that. What I'm saying is that for the last 30 years there is an increasing gap between top and bottom that has progressively gotten worse and will eventually lead to such concentrated wealth that a true fair sustainable balance of income for all citizens will be impossible to reattain.

At that point the flow of goods and purchase of day to day items of need will be so skewed towards the top tier that the majority of people will have to live on some sort of transfer subsistence from the government to survive. This is not much of a healthy economic model.

Quote from: stephendare on April 01, 2014, 10:07:43 PM
or just keep subsidizing their pay with your tax dollars so that the owners of walmart dont have to pay their employees a living wage.

Everyone seems to be happy with that.

since most of us have the stock in our 401k or mutual funds, yes we probably are happy with that.

Quote from: stephendare on April 01, 2014, 10:14:33 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 01, 2014, 03:11:41 PM
Oh but wait... apparently you do not even need to graduate HS for most...

http://www.careerinfonet.org/oview3.asp?level=overall&id=1&nodeid=5

1,2,3,6,7,8, and 10 on you list require less than HS diplomas... about 20 million or so...

Sounds about right.  How much should under trained under educated workers make?

How much did your grandfather make, BridgeTroll?

Both of them were poor... bordering on very.  Education level was HS or below.  Family size was at least 4... they did however... remain families.  Their children were all lower middle class with two exceptions... the two who managed to get upper education.  The same held true for the grandchildren... about half remain lower middle class(HS or below) the other half... attended upper education and are doing OK.  A minority of those had their educations "paid for".

Quote from: finehoe on April 01, 2014, 04:03:56 PM
I just don't get why you guys are so adamantly against paying people more.  You have no problem with CEOs making outrageous sums, many making more than they could ever possibly spend.  Yet you're against paying those at the bottom a few dollars more an hour, which they certainly will spend, which will increase the size of the economy and be better for everyone. 

Quite the contrary... I want higher wages for everyone.  Clearly government mandated wages are not the way to get there.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 02, 2014, 06:47:17 AM

Quote from: finehoe on April 01, 2014, 04:03:56 PM
I just don't get why you guys are so adamantly against paying people more.  You have no problem with CEOs making outrageous sums, many making more than they could ever possibly spend.  Yet you're against paying those at the bottom a few dollars more an hour, which they certainly will spend, which will increase the size of the economy and be better for everyone. 

Quite the contrary... I want higher wages for everyone.  Clearly government mandated wages are not the way to get there.

So before the enactment of a federal minimum wage, is it your impression that wages for unskilled labor were higher or lower?

Quote from: finehoe on April 01, 2014, 04:03:56 PM
I just don't get why you guys are so adamantly against paying people more.  You have no problem with CEOs making outrageous sums, many making more than they could ever possibly spend.  Yet you're against paying those at the bottom a few dollars more an hour, which they certainly will spend, which will increase the size of the economy and be better for everyone. 

For me this is the 1st and most important issue. WHY should the people who run these companies make obscene amounts of money when the lowly workers can barely eat.

It's not my job, nor is it my corporation's job to help others. It's my job to concentrate as much wealth into my families and my business coffers. There is no mandate that says help all the dumb clucks , who won't (not can't) improve their lot in life. Who I choose to help and be charitable to is my business, the myth of "the living wage" is that it's a crowbar to leverage more money out of the hands of those that earn it.

Don't want to make 7.50 an hour? don't get knocked up in 9th grade , know who your dad is, finish high school, learn a trade or goto college for a technical/medical  degree.

this isn't hard.

And for me and people who actually give a crap about other humans beings this may as well have been written by Satan.

Quote from: avonjax on April 02, 2014, 07:54:31 AM

And for me and people who actually give a crap about other humans beings this may as well have been written by Satan.

And stealing money I've worked hard to make out my hands and giving it to someone else is some kind of moral high ground, no it's theft. Capitalism's fundamental mechanic is based on self interest, it is the thing that powers the forces of commerce. When you disincentivize a person from working in their best interest they become complacent and unwilling to make decisions for their betterment. Minimum wage was created in a time when the workers were being abused, today's "living wage" debate isn't about abuse, instead it's about wealth redistribution, or more concisely put stealing.

Quote from: johncb on April 01, 2014, 05:22:39 PM
The powers that be will NEVER let a large segment of the population get ahead simply because wealthier means better educated.Then they wont be able to pull the crap they pull now with impunity when a significant segment of the populace is informed and incensed.

"It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste.

But in practice such a society could not remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupified by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realise that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away.

In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance."

George Orwell, 1984

Quote from: tyrsblade on April 02, 2014, 08:50:49 AM
Minimum wage was created in a time when the workers were being abused

Thank goodness that's not happening any more.

(http://www.economicpopulist.org/files/u1/avemedianwage.jpg)

Self-interest, without morals, leads to capitalism's self-destruction
By Jeffrey Sachs
Financial Times; January 18, 2012

Capitalism earns its keep through Adam Smith's famous paradox of the invisible hand: self-interest, operating through markets, leads to the common good. Yet the paradox of self-interest breaks down when stretched too far. This is our global predicament today.

Self-interest promotes competition, the division of labor, and innovation, but fails to support the common good in four ways.

First, it fails when market competition breaks down, whether because of natural monopolies (in infrastructure), externalities (often related to the environment), public goods (such as basic scientific knowledge), or asymmetric information (in financial fraud, for example).

Second, it can easily turn into unacceptable inequality. The reasons are legion: luck; aptitude; inheritance; winner-takes-all-markets; fraud; and perhaps most insidiously, the conversion of wealth into power, in order to gain even greater wealth.

Third, self-interest leaves future generations at the mercy of today's generation. Environmental unsustainability is a gross inequality of wellbeing across generations rather than across social classes.

Fourth, self-interest leaves our fragile mental apparatus, evolved for the African savannah, at the mercy of Madison Avenue. To put it more bluntly, our sense of self-interest, unless part of a large value system, is easily transmuted into a hopelessly addictive form of consumerism.

For these reasons, successful capitalism has never rested on a moral base of self-interest, but rather on the practice of self-interest embedded in a larger set of values. Max Weber explained that Europe's original modern capitalists, the Calvinists, pursued profits in the search for proof of salvation. They saved ascetically to accumulate wealth to prove God's grace, not to sate their consumer appetites.

Keynes noted the same regarding the mechanisms underpinning Pax Britannica at the end of the 19th Century. As he put it, the economic machine held together because those who ostensibly owned the cake only pretended to consume it. American capitalism, more secular and less patriotic, created its own vintage of social restraint. The greatest capitalist of the second half of the 19th century, Andrew Carnegie developed his Gospel of Wealth, according to which the great wealth of the entrepreneur was not personal property but a trust for society.

Our 21st century predicament is that these moral strictures have mostly vanished. On the one hand, the power of self-interest is alive and well and is delivering much that is good, indeed utterly remarkable, at a global scale. Former colonies and laggard regions are bounding forward as technologies diffuse and incomes surge through global trade and investment.

Yet global capitalism has mostly shed its moral constraints. Self-interest is no longer embedded in higher values. Consumerism is the world's secular religion, more than science, humanism, or any other -ism. "Greed is good" is not only the mantra of a 1980s Hollywood moral fable: it is the operating principle of the top tiers of world society.

Capitalism is at risk of failing today not because we are running out of innovations, or because markets are failing to inspire private actions, but because we've lost sight of the operational failings of unfettered gluttony. We are neglecting a torrent of market failures in infrastructure, finance, and the environment. We are turning our backs on a grotesque worsening of income inequality and willfully continuing to slash social benefits. We are destroying the Earth as if we are indeed the last generation. We are poisoning our own appetites through addictions to luxury goods, cosmetic surgery, fats and sugar, TV watching, and other self-medications of choice or persuasion. And our politics are increasingly pernicious, as we turn political decisions over to the highest-bidding lobby, and allow big money to bypass regulatory controls.

Unless we regain our moral bearings our scope for collective action will be lost. The day may soon arrive when money fully owns our politics, markets have utterly devastated the environment, and gluttony relentlessly commands our personal choices. Then we will have arrived at the ultimate paradox: the self-destruction of prosperity at the very moment when technological knowhow enables sustainable prosperity for all.

I listened to a fascinating episode of the Diane Rhem show last night, in which Jeremy Rifkin was speaking about the emergence of a "zero marginal cost" society- and how the combined internets (yes there are more than one) can bring about a world without the abuse of people and the planet.
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2014-03-31/jeremy-rifkin-zero-marginal-cost-society-internet-things (http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2014-03-31/jeremy-rifkin-zero-marginal-cost-society-internet-things)

Extremely relevant to this topic.

Thank the powers- The generation(s) that grow up connected to the world, care about that world and the people in it.

Also, Im curious; if Mr. Tyrsblade calls himself a Christian? Because that post was the least loving thing Ive seen up here in a while.

Quote from: tyrsblade on April 02, 2014, 08:50:49 AM
...a time when the workers were being abused...

Two former McDonald's store managers have come forward to admit making staff work without pay. 

The former managers said they felt pressure from corporate to cut labor costs, so they engaged in some illegal practices, such as asking employees to clock out and continue working.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-managers-withheld-pay-2014-4#ixzz2xkNG1x2p

Quote from: finehoe on April 02, 2014, 12:25:52 PM

Two former McDonald's store managers have come forward to admit making staff work without pay. 

They should have quit and went to work at Popeye's , Wendy's , Arby's or any of the bazillion fast food  establishments. Then contacted a lawyer and sued the hell out of them (which I am certain they are going to do). They are not bound and tied to their employer.

I know I sound heartless, but people aren't powerless in these situations.

QuoteLast year $76 billion flowed from the U.S. Treasury to people's food stamp cards. That money then flowed into the revenue streams of about 240,000 stores across the country, all of which have been approved by the federal government to accept food stamps, officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. You can look at SNAP as a government subsidy with two lives. First, low-income people enrolled in the program get financial help to buy food. Then, when they swipe their EBT cards at the checkout counters, the government pays those stores for that food—which is, of course, being sold at a profit.

So it seems worthwhile to pay attention to how this "second life" of a food stamp subsidy works. There's just one problem: A lot of the information about how stores benefit from food stamps is confidential.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/04/big_box_stores_make_billions_off_food_stamps_often_it_s_their_own_workers.html

stephendare, name calling is not very civil.

Quote from: stephendare on April 02, 2014, 03:53:17 PM
Tyrsblade, are you under the impression that everyone who hates their job should work for another company?

Yes, or at least change fields to something they enjoy or can make a living from.

Quote from: stephendare on April 02, 2014, 03:53:17 PM
All of those McDonalds managers who kind of prove that you were wrong in your first post about people being taken advantage of could just get jobs at Burger King eh?

They should have known their rights, corporations are required to post information about workers rights in break rooms and other areas. If they are skilled , hard working people , they should be able to apply for alternate employment. Further, if their rights had been compromised there are various legal resources available to them.

Quote from: stephendare on April 02, 2014, 03:53:17 PM
That way all the honest people leave the corporations until the corporation finds someone that is willing to be dishonest?

A corporation whose workforce composition is comprised off morally bankrupt individuals  will soon find itself also bankrupt (ok, well in small business anyways. Goldman Sachs and AIG have been bending the US over for quiet sometime).

Quote from: stephendare on April 02, 2014, 03:53:17 PM
And what about all the people who got their wages stolen?

They should sue. Or at least find another job, I wouldn't stay somewhere as an employee if my wages were being messed with.

Quote from: stephendare on April 02, 2014, 03:53:17 PM
Does having their manager quit make the theivery stop?

Their manager should be fired and hopefully run over by truck on his/her way out the door.

Quote from: stephendare on April 02, 2014, 03:53:17 PM
Or is it just harder to punish the people who stole the money in the first place, and therefore paying out food stamps and public assistance to the tune of billions of dollars is inherently better?

I've read a couple of articles about the McDonalds thing and am still unclear on who these directives came from whether management or ownership, if the later I would think a class action suit would be en route.

Fine. That is certainly more the job of government than the job of Wal-Mart... in no small part but because at least you can target the 'payers' of that tax to impact the more wealthy.

Consider that Wal-Mart and their investors will STILL make the same return and pay the same taxes they currently pay. They will charge more thus increasing their revenue, but they will also expense more in worker's pay. so their net income remains the same, as does their taxable base. The people who will PAY this 'tax' are the people who shop at Wal-Mart, who aren't the 1%.

The point that's being missed here is we are talking about low-wage jobs. Service industry jobs that by and large are meant to be stepping stones into something better, not life-long pursuits. Arguably these jobs are meant for teenagers and retired part timers. not adults in the prime of their lives. There are other jobs , just look in the trades, hell, vocational school is even option in most school systems now. Not all of us can be phd's , quite a few of us can be tradesmen however. Mastering a trade increases your time-value and can lift you out of poverty.

The thing I don't understand is why do we think increasing the wage of cashier will make things better? all that'll happen s that prices will adjust to the new bottom and those extra costs will be passed on others, with no marked affect on the earnings of walmart.

The supply of these workers appears to be inexhaustable.  Roughly 30% of our high school aged people... do not even graduate.  They just drop out.  Add a steady influx of undocumented workers and voila!  Plenty of perfectly qualified folks for these jobs.  Why should pay go up when the supply is so huge?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 03, 2014, 01:54:27 PM
Why should pay go up when the supply is so huge?

It works for CEOs.  Or do you believe there is no one qualified to run McDonalds who would take less than $13.8 million a year.

Quote from: stephendare on April 03, 2014, 03:20:37 PM

Quote from: tyrsblade on April 03, 2014, 01:33:53 PM
The point that's being missed here is we are talking about low-wage jobs. Service industry jobs that by and large are meant to be stepping stones into something better, not life-long pursuits. Arguably these jobs are meant for teenagers and retired part timers. not adults in the prime of their lives. There are other jobs , just look in the trades, hell, vocational school is even option in most school systems now. Not all of us can be phd's , quite a few of us can be tradesmen however. Mastering a trade increases your time-value and can lift you out of poverty.

The thing I don't understand is why do we think increasing the wage of cashier will make things better? all that'll happen s that prices will adjust to the new bottom and those extra costs will be passed on others, with no marked affect on the earnings of walmart.

the point that you are missing is that you are paying a subsidy to the company (which can well afford to pay its workers itself) to support the full time workers of Walmart for no other reason than to guarantee the profits of the employer.

Why cant the business learn to pay the costs of its own operation?

I think everyone understands your point.  The taxpayers are subsidizing these low income workers, and Walmart makes their profit.  Its a valid point, but what's the solution?  Government intervention to set the market?  Raising minimum wage? 

Let's say that you pay these workers more and give them less food stamps.  How will the uneducated spend these dollars?  Will they continue to purchase the simple foods such as  milk, cereal, juice, meat, etc. similar to the food stamps?  Or will they purchase alcohol, drugs, lottery tickets, cigs, etc?  I'm not saying that ALL low income earners use their money unwisely.  But if any money is redirected from the basic nutritional needs and wasted on something else, then this is a problem, no?

There's are reasons why the lowest earners make what they make.  Stay in school, stay clean, stay out of trouble, obey the law, wear protection, don't have children out of wedlock, make sound financial decisions, don't divorce, raise your children correctly, and don't live paycheck to paycheck.  You follow these basic principles (and a few others) and you can escape poverty in the US in the 21st century.  And when you don't, you end up at the bottom. 

Working a low income job should always be temporary for anyone.  Taking personal responsibility and accountability for your life by improving it will prevent you from ending up at the bottom.

Quote from: southsider1015 on April 03, 2014, 11:29:15 PM
Taking personal responsibility and accountability for your life by improving it will prevent you from ending up at the bottom.

Sage advice.  But the point you guys refuse to acknowledge is that there is always going to be people on the bottom.  If every single low-income worker stayed in school, stayed clean, stayed out of trouble, obeyed the law, wore protection, didn't have children out of wedlock, made sound financial decisions, didn't divorce, raised their children "correctly" (whatever that means), and didn't live paycheck to paycheck, there would still be people at the bottom of the income distribution.  This isn't Lake Wobegon.  We can't ALL be above-average.  In a country as rich as the United States, should not the companies that employ these people pay them enough so that the rest of us don't have to make up the difference via food stamps and the like?

Quote from: stephendare on April 03, 2014, 11:31:21 PM
you dont like a government requirement to pay the workers a living wage, but you dont mind the rest of us paying for walmart's profits?

Does that even make sense to you?

I think we need to find other ways of raise the quality of life for the bottom earners because research shows that it doesn't help as intended:
http://www.people.vcu.edu/~lrazzolini/GR2010.pdf (http://www.people.vcu.edu/~lrazzolini/GR2010.pdf)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/02/22/the-minimum-wage-debate-should-be-about-poverty-not-jobs/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/02/22/the-minimum-wage-debate-should-be-about-poverty-not-jobs/)

Many argue that raising the minimum wage also raises unemployment.  Walmart can't afford the same number of workers (and I'm sure you'll argue that the Walton family give up their profits), so they fire or freeze hiring.  Is it better to have 1 worker make $40,000 with another making $0?  Or two workers making $20,000? I don't know, just asking the question.  Maybe we have too many uneducated, low-motivation workers, and that would reduce the unemployment rate and the number of Americans in poverty?

I think raising the minimum wage, although noble, won't provide the intended consequences.  I'm not in favor of having more poor Americans and more profits for Walmart. I don't believe anyone is.   

Quote from: finehoe on April 04, 2014, 10:56:09 AM

Quote from: southsider1015 on April 03, 2014, 11:29:15 PM
Taking personal responsibility and accountability for your life by improving it will prevent you from ending up at the bottom.

Sage advice.  But the point you guys refuse to acknowledge is that there is always going to be people on the bottom.  If every single low-income worker stayed in school, stayed clean, stayed out of trouble, obeyed the law, wore protection, didn't have children out of wedlock, made sound financial decisions, didn't divorce, raised their children "correctly" (whatever that means), and didn't live paycheck to paycheck, there would still be people at the bottom of the income distribution.  This isn't Lake Wobegon.  We can't ALL be above-average.  In a country as rich as the United States, should not the companies that employ these people pay them enough so that the rest of us don't have to make up the difference via food stamps and the like?

Right, there has to be a bottom level in order for there to be a middle and upper class, right?

Not sure where I lost you with your confusion on raising children "correctly". 

Are we really that rich?  Why is our national debt so high?  I agree that the income equality problem is growing, but I don't believe that raising the minimum wage well have the same outcomes as many would think. I'm not an economist, but I'm pretty well-informed.  I think raising the minimum wage is the knee jerk reaction when we talk about poverty levels and the income inequality gap. 

Look, we all want to combat poverty.  If it were a simple problem, then a simple solution would be obvious. 

Quote from: southsider1015 on April 04, 2014, 10:56:18 PM
Are we really that rich?  Why is our national debt so high? 

This may provide a clue:
(http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2014/02/05/2013-defense-budgets-top-20.jpg)

I completely agree that we need to significantly increase public infrastructure because we are severely lagging behind the rest of the world.  All citizens benefit from this type of spending. I've seen estimates that say for every dollar spent on infrastructure, we see 2+ dollars in return.  The ARRA was not enough, as we need to continue this funding.

Im not disagreeing with the videos, I just don't see how they address combating poverty in the US.

Quote from: finehoe on April 05, 2014, 07:29:02 AM

Quote from: southsider1015 on April 04, 2014, 10:56:18 PM
Are we really that rich?  Why is our national debt so high? 

This may provide a clue:
(http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2014/02/05/2013-defense-budgets-top-20.jpg)

I've seen the latest proposals from the SECDEF, and I generally agree with them.  We definetly need to address our military spending.  One small part to remember is that China/Russia don't provide the same pay/benefits to its soldiers on a level close to the US.  My guess is that you aren't in the service, therefore, you likely don't see the benefit of a strong American military.  Why else would you point out military spending on a discussion regarding poverty?

Quote from: southsider1015 on April 05, 2014, 08:42:01 AM
My guess is that you aren't in the service, therefore, you likely don't see the benefit of a strong American military.  Why else would you point out military spending on a discussion regarding poverty?

Actually I work for the DoD, so I see first-hand why spending trillions of dollars doesn't necessarily result in "a strong American military."

I brought it up to answer your question "Why is our national debt so high?".

Quote from: finehoe on April 05, 2014, 09:08:13 AM

Quote from: southsider1015 on April 05, 2014, 08:42:01 AM
My guess is that you aren't in the service, therefore, you likely don't see the benefit of a strong American military.  Why else would you point out military spending on a discussion regarding poverty?

Actually I work for the DoD, so I see first-hand why spending trillions of dollars doesn't necessarily result in "a strong American military."

I brought it up to answer your question "Why is our national debt so high?".

I certainly agree that we need to drastically cut the civilian DOD workforce...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 05, 2014, 02:11:43 PM

Quote from: finehoe on April 05, 2014, 09:08:13 AM

Quote from: southsider1015 on April 05, 2014, 08:42:01 AM
My guess is that you aren't in the service, therefore, you likely don't see the benefit of a strong American military.  Why else would you point out military spending on a discussion regarding poverty?

Actually I work for the DoD, so I see first-hand why spending trillions of dollars doesn't necessarily result in "a strong American military."

I brought it up to answer your question "Why is our national debt so high?".

I certainly agree that we need to drastically cut the civilian DOD workforce...

I've heard they are going to.  Our DCAA auditors are worried

Listen to real stories about people living in poverty, learn the facts about poverty in the United States, understand the root causes, and — just as important — how people are helping themselves and others out of Poverty USA.

http://www.povertyusa.org/get-involved/#learn (http://www.povertyusa.org/get-involved/#learn)

Poverty statistics are measured using census data.

The US Census Bureau has a whole section dedicated on just the measurements on poverty.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/index.html (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/index.html)

^^very educational posts. The problem is more widespread than I thought. The southeastern US seems to have the greatest percentage of people living in poverty. The northeast has the least.

A quote of disputed origin I often think of when considering the red state/poverty rate overlap:
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

Though I am not a fan of the ways in which Marxist political theory has been executed to date.

Quote from: stephendare on April 05, 2014, 08:53:17 AM
Im still trying to find out why you want to subsidize Walmart's profits, but you don't believe that they should have to make those profits the old fashioned way--- by paying a living wage to their own employees.

No, I don't believe the American taxpayers should be subsidizing Walmart's profits.  Or any company that pays below a livable wage, whatever that amount is.  I just don't agree that raising the minimum wage solves the problem.  It does temporarily, until prices catch up, then we have to raise it again and again.  The amount of low skill, cheap labor isn't going to change until we automate these jobs.  These jobs shouldn't be expected to  be permanent, and should be considered temporary until they can move up.  If someone plans to work 40 hours per week on a minimum wage job for the rest of the life, then they are subjecting themselves to a life of poverty.
I know you don't like my links but....
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/10/top-5-myths-about-the-minimum-wage (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/10/top-5-myths-about-the-minimum-wage)

Quote from: stephendare on April 04, 2014, 10:58:53 PM
Actually, no one argues that raising the minimum wage heightens unemployment, (other than the febrile social darwinist crowd, obviously) and it is a silly proposition, to be perfectly honest. The additional revenue of working class people immediately goes back into circulation in the economy instead of being pulled out of it and placed in overseas banks. The resulting stimulus to the economy actually encourages employment (and has done so EVERY time the minimum wage has been increased).

And two opinion pieces, one from Forbes (for the love of god) and the other is from chattanooga's "Southern Economic Journal" are hardly proof of 'research'.  In fact, to be honest, your first link was a little embarrassing in its attempt to create a highly parsed argument about the effect of raising minimum wages for the chronically unemployed.

Because: duh.  The chronically unemployed are obviously not going to benefit from wage increases.

And this still doesnt have any bearing on american taxpayers subsidizing the profits of the Walden family.  Its obvious that you dont care much for actual conservative ideas if you think that the wealthy are in need of government assistance to bolster their billion dollar fortunes.

This is great news. Lets raise it to $100 per hour and all of our problems will be solved.

dumb

Quote from: GoldenEst82 on April 06, 2014, 12:43:29 PM
A quote of disputed origin I often think of when considering the red state/poverty rate overlap:
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

Though I am not a fan of the ways in which Marxist political theory has been executed to date.

+1

I agree that our 'lift ourselves up by our bootstraps' mentality creates an attitude of loathing of the working poor.  How many times do we scold our children into studying so they don't end up working in the service industry?  How many times do we quietly point out service workers to our children and silently cluck in a self-satisfied way, "See what happens when you don't make something of yourself."?  Instead of viewing these people as workers who put in an honest day's work, we tend to belittle their contribution as if their work is somehow less noble than what we do everyday.  We complain when they ask for improvements to their working conditions and we are quicker to condemn them for somehow being anti-capitalist or anti-American.  So, it should be no surprise that many of these low-wage workers with little to no benefits end up on the government dole in some form.  We are paying for them in one form or another....

Quote from: stephendare on April 06, 2014, 08:32:36 PM

Quote from: bill on April 06, 2014, 04:24:20 PM

Quote from: stephendare on April 04, 2014, 10:58:53 PM
Actually, no one argues that raising the minimum wage heightens unemployment, (other than the febrile social darwinist crowd, obviously) and it is a silly proposition, to be perfectly honest. The additional revenue of working class people immediately goes back into circulation in the economy instead of being pulled out of it and placed in overseas banks. The resulting stimulus to the economy actually encourages employment (and has done so EVERY time the minimum wage has been increased).

And two opinion pieces, one from Forbes (for the love of god) and the other is from chattanooga's "Southern Economic Journal" are hardly proof of 'research'.  In fact, to be honest, your first link was a little embarrassing in its attempt to create a highly parsed argument about the effect of raising minimum wages for the chronically unemployed.

Because: duh.  The chronically unemployed are obviously not going to benefit from wage increases.

And this still doesnt have any bearing on american taxpayers subsidizing the profits of the Walden family.  Its obvious that you dont care much for actual conservative ideas if you think that the wealthy are in need of government assistance to bolster their billion dollar fortunes.

This is great news. Lets raise it to $100 per hour and all of our problems will be solved.

dumb

or just keep paying walmarts employees for them.  Since you know, the taxpayers have a vested interest in making sure the corporation has no actual costs and just keeps money for free.

In your expert opinion what is the optimal minimum wage?  Why is $10/hr better than $20/hr? I we are naming a price lets make it a good one.  How often should we change this?

Quote from: stephendare on April 06, 2014, 08:44:29 PM
I dont have an expert opinion on the minimum wage.  But I dont think that America should pay for walmarts slave wage labor policies.

Let them pay for their own labor.  Its shameful.

Walmart is hardly alone... every mom an pop store and restaurant is paying the same wages as Walmart... but with fewer benefits.  Walmart is simply an easy target... the "broad side of a barn" so to speak.  congrats... you hit it...

Quote from: stephendare on April 06, 2014, 08:32:36 PM

Quote from: bill on April 06, 2014, 04:24:20 PM

Quote from: stephendare on April 04, 2014, 10:58:53 PM
Actually, no one argues that raising the minimum wage heightens unemployment, (other than the febrile social darwinist crowd, obviously) and it is a silly proposition, to be perfectly honest. The additional revenue of working class people immediately goes back into circulation in the economy instead of being pulled out of it and placed in overseas banks. The resulting stimulus to the economy actually encourages employment (and has done so EVERY time the minimum wage has been increased).

And two opinion pieces, one from Forbes (for the love of god) and the other is from chattanooga's "Southern Economic Journal" are hardly proof of 'research'.  In fact, to be honest, your first link was a little embarrassing in its attempt to create a highly parsed argument about the effect of raising minimum wages for the chronically unemployed.

Because: duh.  The chronically unemployed are obviously not going to benefit from wage increases.

And this still doesnt have any bearing on american taxpayers subsidizing the profits of the Walden family.  Its obvious that you dont care much for actual conservative ideas if you think that the wealthy are in need of government assistance to bolster their billion dollar fortunes.

This is great news. Lets raise it to $100 per hour and all of our problems will be solved.

dumb

or just keep paying walmarts employees for them.  Since you know, the taxpayers have a vested interest in making sure the corporation has no actual costs and just keeps money for free.

Yyou acknowledge that is dumb, that is a start.

Actually, no one argues that raising the minimum wage heightens unemployment, (other than the febrile social darwinist crowd, obviously) and it is a silly proposition, to be perfectly honest. The additional revenue of working class people immediately goes back into circulation in the economy instead of being pulled out of it and placed in overseas banks. The resulting stimulus to the economy actually encourages employment (and has done so EVERY time the minimum wage has been increased).

I will just quote you again. Why not just double the wage of all workers? Does the minimum wage spend more wisely than ceos?
dumb meet dumber

Quote from: stephendare on April 06, 2014, 11:04:22 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 06, 2014, 08:56:39 PM

Quote from: stephendare on April 06, 2014, 08:44:29 PM
I dont have an expert opinion on the minimum wage.  But I dont think that America should pay for walmarts slave wage labor policies.

Let them pay for their own labor.  Its shameful.

Walmart is hardly alone... every mom an pop store and restaurant is paying the same wages as Walmart... but with fewer benefits.  Walmart is simply an easy target... the "broad side of a barn" so to speak.  congrats... you hit it...

It is actually the original post of the article, if that matters to you.

But sure, apparently the entire economy is dependent on welfare, according to you and a few others in this thread.

Without the welfare, no one's business---large or small, apparently-----has a chance of working.

The economy is not dependent on welfare... and neither is Walmart, Lowes, Publix, WD, Starbux, McDs, Olive Garden, or name a business with a cashier.  The wage scale is what the market bears.  Means testing for wages is unlikely to ever happen... 

But I think the point is, what if the market only bears it because we're artificially supporting it with government programs? That's not the market anymore, is it?

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 07, 2014, 08:52:15 AM
But I think the point is, what if the market only bears it because we're artificially supporting it with government programs? That's not the market anymore, is it?

Soooo... it is not really Walmart then is it?  It is virtually every single retailer in the country.  You might gain a bit more traction (at least with me) if those proposing means based wage testing bemoaned the entire system of retail rather than demonizing one...  8)

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 07, 2014, 06:56:47 AM
The wage scale is what the market bears. 

Free market fundamentalism tends to fail on a simple point. Define "market". Now tell me where you see that outside of a few narrow examples like a flea market.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 07, 2014, 06:56:47 AM
Means testing for wages is unlikely to ever happen...

This is a straw man; no one has said anything about "means testing".

Quote from: stephendare on April 07, 2014, 09:37:15 AM
and you might find a little more clarity if you stopped conflating the 'mom and pops' that you introduced into the conversation with a multinational corporation that keeps billions of dollars for its founding family every year.

Indeed:

Quotemost low-wage workers aren't employed by small businesses or mom-and-pop operations, but instead by large corporations that have enjoyed healthy profits amid a sluggish economy

http://nelp.3cdn.net/24befb45b36b626a7a_v2m6iirxb.pdf

Quote from: finehoe on April 07, 2014, 09:40:35 AM

Quote from: stephendare on April 07, 2014, 09:37:15 AM
and you might find a little more clarity if you stopped conflating the 'mom and pops' that you introduced into the conversation with a multinational corporation that keeps billions of dollars for its founding family every year.

Indeed:

Quotemost low-wage workers aren't employed by small businesses or mom-and-pop operations, but instead by large corporations that have enjoyed healthy profits amid a sluggish economy

http://nelp.3cdn.net/24befb45b36b626a7a_v2m6iirxb.pdf

So you are surprised that most workers are employed by big corporations??  I would also presume big corporations employ more female workers than small ones... I am sure they lead in other categories also.

Quote from: stephendare on April 07, 2014, 09:53:23 AM
anything to avoid addressing the central issue eh, bridge troll?

Umm like why not raise the minimum wage to $100? The stimulus and all.

Ya know the central issue eh?

Quote from: stephendare on April 07, 2014, 11:47:35 AM
is that the minimum wage, bill?  4thousand dollars a week?

I had no idea.

Well then I guess that the food stamps and aid we are all paying Walmarts employees for them (because, hey, why not?  Its just tax payer money, right?) need to seriously hike up to match your projected amount of 16k per month, and almost 200k per employee in order to have the basic requirements for life.

You really ARE a socialist, Bill!

After all, why should Walmart pay for their own employees?

Do you ever actually think these things through?  Or do you just here Steve Doocey or one of the other unpolished turds on that network say things and then just repeat them out loud.  You know, through your mouth?

It works differently when you type things out and other people can parse them.

According to the Milton Dare school of the economy it would be good for the economy. Which made-up ivy league university is that taught?

Quote from: stephendare on April 07, 2014, 09:53:23 AM
anything to avoid addressing the central issue eh, bridge troll?

You are better at it than I am...

Quote from: finehoe on April 07, 2014, 09:37:25 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 07, 2014, 06:56:47 AM
The wage scale is what the market bears. 

Free market fundamentalism tends to fail on a simple point. Define "market". Now tell me where you see that outside of a few narrow examples like a flea market.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 07, 2014, 06:56:47 AM
Means testing for wages is unlikely to ever happen...

This is a straw man; no one has said anything about "means testing".

Well they did... and that is what I have been refering to...

QuoteRe: Dependence on Food Stamps

« Reply #10 on: March 31, 2014, 05:15:52 PM »


Everyone who works full time should be paid a livable wage regardless & not have to rely on food stamps/other social programs just to get by. Especially at places like Wal-Mart who's founders have more wealth than the bottom 40% of americans combined.

Since we've let the corporate pigs rape & pillage our cities, destroy mom & pops, make ghost towns out of main streets all across the nation, etc, then the least they could do is pay. I mean if we're gonna get fucked anyway at least let us have the money to buy lipstick.

I know you're being deliberately obtuse, but I'll play along.

QuoteIn public policy, a living wage is the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their needs that are considered to be basic. This is not necessarily the same as subsistence, which refers to a biological minimum, though the two terms are commonly confused. These needs include shelter (housing) and other incidentals such as clothing and nutrition. In some nations such as the United Kingdom and Switzerland, this standard generally means that a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford the basics for quality of life, food, utilities, transport, health care, and minimal recreation, one course a year to upgrade their education and childcare although in many cases education, saving for retirement, and less commonly legal fees and insurance, or taking care of a sick or elderly family member are not included. It also does not allow for debt repayment of any kind. In addition to this definition, living wage activists further define "living wage" as the wage equivalent to the poverty line for a family of four. This is two adults working full-time with one child age 9 and another of 4.

The living wage differs from the minimum wage in that the latter is set by law and can fail to meet the requirements to have a basic quality of life and leaves the family to rely on government programs for additional income. It differs somewhat from basic needs in that the basic needs model usually measures a minimum level of consumption, without regard for the source of the income.

Living wage is defined by the wage that can meet the basic needs to maintain a safe, decent standard of living within the community. The particular amount that must be earned per hour to meet these needs varies depending on location. In 1990 the first living wage campaigns were launched by community initiatives in the US addressing increasing poverty faced by workers and their families. They argued that employee, employer, and the community win with a living wage. Employees would be more willing to work, helping the employer reduce worker turnover ratio and it would help the community when the citizens have enough to have a decent life.

Poverty threshold is the income necessary for a household to be able to consume a low cost, nutritious diet and purchase non-food necessities in a given country. Poverty lines and living wages are measured differently. Poverty lines are measured by household units and living wage is based on individual workers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage

Quote from: finehoe on April 07, 2014, 01:54:58 PM
I know you're being deliberately obtuse, but I'll play along.

QuoteIn public policy, a living wage is the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their needs that are considered to be basic. This is not necessarily the same as subsistence, which refers to a biological minimum, though the two terms are commonly confused. These needs include shelter (housing) and other incidentals such as clothing and nutrition. In some nations such as the United Kingdom and Switzerland, this standard generally means that a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford the basics for quality of life, food, utilities, transport, health care, and minimal recreation, one course a year to upgrade their education and childcare although in many cases education, saving for retirement, and less commonly legal fees and insurance, or taking care of a sick or elderly family member are not included. It also does not allow for debt repayment of any kind. In addition to this definition, living wage activists further define "living wage" as the wage equivalent to the poverty line for a family of four. This is two adults working full-time with one child age 9 and another of 4.

The living wage differs from the minimum wage in that the latter is set by law and can fail to meet the requirements to have a basic quality of life and leaves the family to rely on government programs for additional income. It differs somewhat from basic needs in that the basic needs model usually measures a minimum level of consumption, without regard for the source of the income.

Living wage is defined by the wage that can meet the basic needs to maintain a safe, decent standard of living within the community. The particular amount that must be earned per hour to meet these needs varies depending on location. In 1990 the first living wage campaigns were launched by community initiatives in the US addressing increasing poverty faced by workers and their families. They argued that employee, employer, and the community win with a living wage. Employees would be more willing to work, helping the employer reduce worker turnover ratio and it would help the community when the citizens have enough to have a decent life.

Poverty threshold is the income necessary for a household to be able to consume a low cost, nutritious diet and purchase non-food necessities in a given country. Poverty lines and living wages are measured differently. Poverty lines are measured by household units and living wage is based on individual workers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage

It is not deliberate I promise!  Perhaps I am not the one who is confused as Stephen seems to be proposing "living wages" rather than minimum wages...

QuoteImpact[edit]

Research shows that minimum wage laws and living wage legislation impact poverty differently: evidence demonstrates that living wage legislation reduces poverty.[26] The parties impacted by minimum wage laws and living wage laws differ as living wage legislation generally applies to a more limited sector of the population. It is estimated that workers who qualify for the living wage legislation are currently between 1-2% of the bottom quartile of wage distribution.[26] One must consider that the impact of living wage laws depends heavily on the degree to which these ordinances are enforced.

"There is evidence that living wage ordinances modestly reduce the poverty rates in locations in which these ordinances are enacted.However, there is no evidence that state minimum wage laws do so."[27] With minimum wage laws, the increased costs are passed to employers who in turn charge consumers higher prices if possible. Faced with higher prices, consumers purchase fewer goods thus leading to a redistribution among low wage workers. Those impacted by living wage legislation are typically low wage employees who are selling services to the local governments[citation needed

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 07, 2014, 02:16:54 PM
It is not deliberate I promise!  Perhaps I am not the one who is confused as Stephen seems to be proposing "living wages" rather than minimum wages...

The only thing Stephen has proposed is that Wal-Mart and other low-wage employers should pay their employees enough so that the taxpayer doesn't need to pick up the tab.

Quote from: finehoe on April 07, 2014, 02:34:34 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 07, 2014, 02:16:54 PM
It is not deliberate I promise!  Perhaps I am not the one who is confused as Stephen seems to be proposing "living wages" rather than minimum wages...

The only thing Stephen has proposed is that Wal-Mart and other low-wage employers should pay their employees enough so that the taxpayer doesn't need to pick up the tab.

QuoteThe living wage differs from the minimum wage in that the latter is set by law and can fail to meet the requirements to have a basic quality of life and leaves the family to rely on government programs for additional income. It differs somewhat from basic needs in that the basic needs model usually measures a minimum level of consumption, without regard for the source of the income.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 07, 2014, 03:48:38 PM

Quote from: finehoe on April 07, 2014, 02:34:34 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 07, 2014, 02:16:54 PM
It is not deliberate I promise!  Perhaps I am not the one who is confused as Stephen seems to be proposing "living wages" rather than minimum wages...

The only thing Stephen has proposed is that Wal-Mart and other low-wage employers should pay their employees enough so that the taxpayer doesn't need to pick up the tab.

QuoteThe living wage differs from the minimum wage in that the latter is set by law and can fail to meet the requirements to have a basic quality of life and leaves the family to rely on government programs for additional income. It differs somewhat from basic needs in that the basic needs model usually measures a minimum level of consumption, without regard for the source of the income.

What does that have to do with subsidizing large businesses that don't pay a living wage, and why do we continue to allow that? This isn't like the unemployed, where it's a backstop to maintain social order (people don't just starve quietly, scenarios that unstable generally result in revolution, there are sound societal reasons for welfare...but I digress). This is allowing large private employers to misuse government welfare programs to boost their bottom line. How and why is that okay?

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 07, 2014, 04:33:12 PM
What does that have to do with subsidizing large businesses that don't pay a living wage, and why do we continue to allow that?

This thread has gone on for nearly ten pages, and no one will answer that question.

Quote from: finehoe on April 07, 2014, 02:34:34 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 07, 2014, 02:16:54 PM
It is not deliberate I promise!  Perhaps I am not the one who is confused as Stephen seems to be proposing "living wages" rather than minimum wages...

The only thing Stephen has proposed is that Wal-Mart and other low-wage employers should pay their employees enough so that the taxpayer doesn't need to pick up the tab.

let's say that we legislate that, do you think Wal-Mart keeps the same headcount they have today or lowers it?  Also, do you think they leave their prices the same and eat the lowering of their margins with the higher labor costs?

Quote from: finehoe on April 07, 2014, 04:37:40 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 07, 2014, 04:33:12 PM
What does that have to do with subsidizing large businesses that don't pay a living wage, and why do we continue to allow that?

This thread has gone on for nearly ten pages, and no one will answer that question.

Why limit it to "large corporations"?  Small and medium are paying more?  I work for a small local business and I guarantee the big guys are paying more than the small guys.  I am happy though as it appears the discussion has moved off the Walmart boogieman and on to "large corporations".

Chris... you are an employer correct?  I assume you researched your wage structure... you know how much you can and should pay each position.  I assume it is based on local pay scale standards?  Suppose one of your employees told you they could no longer live on what you are paying.  I suppose you could pay more... but would you?  What about the other employees?  Would they get more too?  How would that affect your business model?

Quote from: stephendare on April 07, 2014, 02:29:18 PM

Quote from: bill on April 07, 2014, 11:56:22 AM

Quote from: stephendare on April 07, 2014, 11:47:35 AM
is that the minimum wage, bill?  4thousand dollars a week?

I had no idea.

Well then I guess that the food stamps and aid we are all paying Walmarts employees for them (because, hey, why not?  Its just tax payer money, right?) need to seriously hike up to match your projected amount of 16k per month, and almost 200k per employee in order to have the basic requirements for life.

You really ARE a socialist, Bill!

After all, why should Walmart pay for their own employees?

Do you ever actually think these things through?  Or do you just here Steve Doocey or one of the other unpolished turds on that network say things and then just repeat them out loud.  You know, through your mouth?

It works differently when you type things out and other people can parse them.

According to the Milton Dare school of the economy it would be good for the economy. Which made-up ivy league university is that taught?

What on earth are you talking about bill?  Is this just an attempt to make a conversation so blisteringly dumb that no one will respond anymore?

Now why is it that you believe in paying Walmarts employees for Walmart?

So yes you made it up. thanks for clarifying. 

Quote from: finehoe on April 07, 2014, 04:37:40 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 07, 2014, 04:33:12 PM
What does that have to do with subsidizing large businesses that don't pay a living wage, and why do we continue to allow that?

This thread has gone on for nearly ten pages, and no one will answer that question.

Because none of us are economists.  I agree that this idea sounds bad, but your method for solving the problem isn't the way to do it.  Frankly, we have to much unskilled labor in our country.  The birth rate for the uneducated and poor is exceeding the birth rate of the educated and middle and upper classes.  Why do we subsidize single mothers? Why dont we subsidize families who succeed in raising successful and productive children?

Quote from: southsider1015 on April 07, 2014, 10:21:45 PM

Quote from: finehoe on April 07, 2014, 04:37:40 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 07, 2014, 04:33:12 PM
What does that have to do with subsidizing large businesses that don't pay a living wage, and why do we continue to allow that?

This thread has gone on for nearly ten pages, and no one will answer that question.

Because none of us are economists.  I agree that this idea sounds bad, but your method for solving the problem isn't the way to do it.  Frankly, we have to much unskilled labor in our country.  The birth rate for the uneducated and poor is exceeding the birth rate of the educated and middle and upper classes.  Why do we subsidize single mothers? Why dont we subsidize families who succeed in raising successful and productive children?

good point, because democrats would never win another election.

The issue is that those who pay taxes to their government for services*, are seeing that money go to corporations who do not have the moral mandate for public welfare that a government does.
Corporations only have to look out for their shareholders.
They already killed US manufacturing, using their influence to make the trade agreements that have allowed our multinationals to take their manufacturing overseas- driving wages down worldwide. Jobs go to the lowest bid labor. Period.

As an example: Most of our clothes are made in Bangladesh, for about four cents an hour, those jobs are never coming back to the US, with our "stupid" living wages. We one had HUGE garment and textile manufacturing here- but, you know- those job creators! Creating all those jobs! Just not here.

Remember, Wall Street is doing great!
These companies LOVE free money, and they hire LOTS of people!
Like Lobbyists, and Lawyers and Consultants, who find ways around our laws, and havens for their money, so that YOU pay more taxes on your WORK income, than they pay on the both the interest on the money in their stock portfolios, and the principal.

It kills me, how exploited this system is, and how readily people buy into the "evil poor" propaganda.


*services like
Roads, infrastructure, defense, social services

Quote from: bill on April 07, 2014, 11:04:09 PM

Quote from: southsider1015 on April 07, 2014, 10:21:45 PM

Quote from: finehoe on April 07, 2014, 04:37:40 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 07, 2014, 04:33:12 PM
What does that have to do with subsidizing large businesses that don't pay a living wage, and why do we continue to allow that?

This thread has gone on for nearly ten pages, and no one will answer that question.

Because none of us are economists.  I agree that this idea sounds bad, but your method for solving the problem isn't the way to do it.  Frankly, we have to much unskilled labor in our country.  The birth rate for the uneducated and poor is exceeding the birth rate of the educated and middle and upper classes.  Why do we subsidize single mothers? Why dont we subsidize families who succeed in raising successful and productive children?

good point, because democrats would never win another election.

Right. So the alternative would be to elect a bunch of staunch conservative tea party types to pull all social programs, while of course still giving their corporate overlords all the breaks & allow that "free market" to reign supreme, then see where it goes? That's a great way to spark a revolution & have a bunch of politician's heads on pikes.

Actually you might be onto something. Why pussyfoot it & beat around the bush any longer. Get the show on the road.

Quote from: peestandingup on April 08, 2014, 12:53:44 AM

Quote from: bill on April 07, 2014, 11:04:09 PM

Quote from: southsider1015 on April 07, 2014, 10:21:45 PM

Quote from: finehoe on April 07, 2014, 04:37:40 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 07, 2014, 04:33:12 PM
What does that have to do with subsidizing large businesses that don't pay a living wage, and why do we continue to allow that?

This thread has gone on for nearly ten pages, and no one will answer that question.

Because none of us are economists.  I agree that this idea sounds bad, but your method for solving the problem isn't the way to do it.  Frankly, we have to much unskilled labor in our country.  The birth rate for the uneducated and poor is exceeding the birth rate of the educated and middle and upper classes.  Why do we subsidize single mothers? Why dont we subsidize families who succeed in raising successful and productive children?

good point, because democrats would never win another election.

Right. So the alternative would be to elect a bunch of staunch conservative tea party types to pull all social programs, while of course still giving their corporate overlords all the breaks & allow that "free market" to reign supreme, then see where it goes? That's a great way to spark a revolution & have a bunch of politician's heads on pikes.

Actually you might be onto something. Why pussyfoot it & beat around the bush any longer. Get the show on the road.

Be careful what you wish for.  Those corporate overlords are well prepared to keep their heads.

Quote from: NotNow on April 08, 2014, 11:37:29 AM
Those corporate overlords are well prepared to keep their heads.

*gasp*  NotNow and I agree on something!  ;D

Quote from: finehoe on April 08, 2014, 11:43:21 AM

Quote from: NotNow on April 08, 2014, 11:37:29 AM
Those corporate overlords are well prepared to keep their heads.

*gasp*  NotNow and I agree on something!  ;D

I think everyone's in agreement on that one. Or maybe the spying apparatus, license plate readers, drones, cameras on every corner, phone recordings, internet collection, bullet hoarding, police militarization, 2nd amendment squashing, etc really is to protect us little guys. Yeah, thats it.

As long as we are picking on WalMart....

WalMart offers eligible hourly store associates quarterly cash bonus opportunities, a health care plan that starts at $17 per pay period, a 401k plan with a company match, a 10% discount on merchandise, and, most of all, a chance to move up through the ranks.

In 2012, Walmart and the Walmart Foundation gave more than $1 billion in cash and in-kind contributions around the world. This includes $1 billion in cash and in-kind gifts in the United States and $82.2 million in cash and in-kind gifts in international markets. In addition, Walmart, Sam's Club and Logistics associates volunteered more than 2.2 million hours, generating $18 million to U.S. nonprofits.

The Walmart Foundation offers scholarship programs that benefit qualified Walmart associates and their high school senior dependents.

We employ 2.2 million associates globally, including approximately 1.3 million in the U.S. In fact, every time we open a Walmart Supercenter in the U.S., we provide roughly 300 jobs with good pay and benefits and the opportunity to advance.

About 75% of our store management teams started as hourly associates, and they earn between $50,000 and $170,000 a year — similar to what firefighters, accountants, and even doctors make.

Every year, we promote about 160,000 people to jobs with more responsibility and higher pay.