Hurt Walmart, or Help The Poor?

[Kimura]

The nominal federal wage in the US is below the actual costs of a living wage. In a way, if we really look at it, it’s basically a workforce subsidy to employers. If we look at the OECD countries, the US minimum wage is on the lower end of the spectrum for the industrialized nations.

In our economy, which is pretty job starved, the supply-side will always dictate how the deck is stacked. We should view the federal minimum wage as a glaring example of how modern we consider our country to be. It represents what our society is willing to accept as a minimum wage. Any decisions about minimum wage should ultimately revolve around social policy.

If businesses, such as Walmart or other firms decide they don’t have the ability to pay a minimum wage, then society as a whole can decide these firms shouldn’t operate in the economy. Firms would have to restructure through investments to improve productivity so they can have the capacity to pay the legislated minimum wage. Increased wages also improve productivity and lessen employee turnover, so it’s a win-win situation for all parties involved.

" It represents what our society is willing to accept as a minimum wage."

Left-wing baloney.

I appreciate the erudite response. Please elaborate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Walmart, like Sears, Montgomery Wards, and other large scale retail outlets serve to provide an entry point, step forward, opportunity to prove ones self, catalyst for advancement. Once a person gains confidence and experience the likelihood that they will move on for a better paying job is possible. But then again the liberal mindset understands when people have opportunity, a taste of personal success, dependency upon the government for support is reduced and vote uncertain.

Unlike several in this thread, you actually understand the nexus of economics and life.

Just as minimum wage laws prevent resume-building and skill-gaining, so would depriving folks of opting to enter the job market at the Wal-Mart level.

Further, they have an excellent stock option plan, and as the OP states, produce $100,000 managerial positions.


"Wal-Mart matches employee stock purchases by 15% on the first $1,800 worth of shares bought each year. If you work at the company and write a check to buy $1,800 worth of the stock, the company is going to give you another $270 to buy shares completely free. That results in an automatic 15% return before you’ve collected your first dividend. On top of that, the company matches 100% on the first 6% of salary contributed to a 401(k) plan.

.....they’d retire with nearly $4.9 million in their investment account at average long-term rates of return. If inflation runs the same rate it did during the past century, that would be around $1.7 million in today’s dollars, which would generate $5,700 per month pre-tax without every touching the principal."
A Married Couple Working for Walmart Could Retire and Live Very Comfortably

Depends what you are a manger of and the location. Around this area, the store managers do not make 100k a year as a store manager. The store my wife works at it is youth that is promoted before experience.

So....this stuff you wrote is due to a personal grudge????


Look...the solution is simple:
1. Borrow every cent you can....
...start with a personal letter to Obama.


2. Open a retail store right across the street from Wal-Mart!

3. Hire your wife as manager...and pay her $100k!!


When the little lady is happy....everyone is happy!

Get right on it, Scrooge.


Am I a problem solver or what!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The nominal federal wage in the US is below the actual costs of a living wage. In a way, if we really look at it, it’s basically a workforce subsidy to employers. If we look at the OECD countries, the US minimum wage is on the lower end of the spectrum for the industrialized nations.

In our economy, which is pretty job starved, the supply-side will always dictate how the deck is stacked. We should view the federal minimum wage as a glaring example of how modern we consider our country to be. It represents what our society is willing to accept as a minimum wage. Any decisions about minimum wage should ultimately revolve around social policy.

If businesses, such as Walmart or other firms decide they don’t have the ability to pay a minimum wage, then society as a whole can decide these firms shouldn’t operate in the economy. Firms would have to restructure through investments to improve productivity so they can have the capacity to pay the legislated minimum wage. Increased wages also improve productivity and lessen employee turnover, so it’s a win-win situation for all parties involved.

" It represents what our society is willing to accept as a minimum wage."

Left-wing baloney.

I appreciate the erudite response. Please elaborate.

Begin with a slow and careful study of my posts on minimum wage.
Proceed to the sources I've quoted.


But...just between you and I.....
You're beyond help.

 

[Moonglow]

Unlike several in this thread, you actually understand the nexus of economics and life.

Just as minimum wage laws prevent resume-building and skill-gaining, so would depriving folks of opting to enter the job market at the Wal-Mart level.

Further, they have an excellent stock option plan, and as the OP states, produce $100,000 managerial positions.


"Wal-Mart matches employee stock purchases by 15% on the first $1,800 worth of shares bought each year. If you work at the company and write a check to buy $1,800 worth of the stock, the company is going to give you another $270 to buy shares completely free. That results in an automatic 15% return before you’ve collected your first dividend. On top of that, the company matches 100% on the first 6% of salary contributed to a 401(k) plan.

.....they’d retire with nearly $4.9 million in their investment account at average long-term rates of return. If inflation runs the same rate it did during the past century, that would be around $1.7 million in today’s dollars, which would generate $5,700 per month pre-tax without every touching the principal."
A Married Couple Working for Walmart Could Retire and Live Very Comfortably

Depends what you are a manger of and the location. Around this area, the store managers do not make 100k a year as a store manager. The store my wife works at it is youth that is promoted before experience.

So....this stuff you wrote is due to a personal grudge????


Look...the solution is simple:
1. Borrow every cent you can....
...start with a personal letter to Obama.


2. Open a retail store right across the street from Wal-Mart!

3. Hire your wife as manager...and pay her $100k!!


When the little lady is happy....everyone is happy!

Get right on it, Scrooge.


Am I a problem solver or what!!!

Personal grudge to tell the truth? go back to your life of false narratives.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Walmart, like Sears, Montgomery Wards, and other large scale retail outlets serve to provide an entry point, step forward, opportunity to prove ones self, catalyst for advancement. Once a person gains confidence and experience the likelihood that they will move on for a better paying job is possible. But then again the liberal mindset understands when people have opportunity, a taste of personal success, dependency upon the government for support is reduced and vote uncertain.

Unlike several in this thread, you actually understand the nexus of economics and life.

Just as minimum wage laws prevent resume-building and skill-gaining, so would depriving folks of opting to enter the job market at the Wal-Mart level.

Further, they have an excellent stock option plan, and as the OP states, produce $100,000 managerial positions.


"Wal-Mart matches employee stock purchases by 15% on the first $1,800 worth of shares bought each year. If you work at the company and write a check to buy $1,800 worth of the stock, the company is going to give you another $270 to buy shares completely free. That results in an automatic 15% return before you’ve collected your first dividend. On top of that, the company matches 100% on the first 6% of salary contributed to a 401(k) plan.

.....they’d retire with nearly $4.9 million in their investment account at average long-term rates of return. If inflation runs the same rate it did during the past century, that would be around $1.7 million in today’s dollars, which would generate $5,700 per month pre-tax without every touching the principal."
A Married Couple Working for Walmart Could Retire and Live Very Comfortably

So how many minimum wage employees can spare $1800 for stock purchases out of the $11k or so they make to pay for food, clothing, transportation, medical bills, rent, etc, etc?

"So how many minimum wage employees can spare....."

1. I give up....how many does your data show?


2. And, of those...how many did you tutor as to the proper decisions in life so as not to remain "minimum wage employees"? Jot down the number who agree.


3. And...of the ones who refuse to make those efficacious decisions....
....how many did you put on your payroll?

Do the math for me: How many in #1?
Subtract the answer to #2.
Collect the data from #3 for your IRS forms....

I mean...you're not just blowin' hot air...are you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Depends what you are a manger of and the location. Around this area, the store managers do not make 100k a year as a store manager. The store my wife works at it is youth that is promoted before experience.

So....this stuff you wrote is due to a personal grudge????


Look...the solution is simple:
1. Borrow every cent you can....
...start with a personal letter to Obama.


2. Open a retail store right across the street from Wal-Mart!

3. Hire your wife as manager...and pay her $100k!!


When the little lady is happy....everyone is happy!

Get right on it, Scrooge.


Am I a problem solver or what!!!

Personal grudge to tell the truth? go back to your life of false narratives.

Haven't you noticed that, try as you may, you haven't been able to show that any of my posts are false?


What does that tell you?

 

[Kimura]

Ah, that's because 99% of the workforce is paid minimum wage, right sparky?

Tell me, should the state set the wage of all workers, from top to bottom? Or just for targets of the unions?

I never said that.

However, by keeping our minimum wage at pathetically depressed levels, it doesn’t improve employment prospects in the least. As a matter of fact, it makes it matters worse, since it takes demand out of the economy and lowers the prospects of someone on unemployment benefits or other types of assistance from reentering the workforce.

Wages are source of demand and an input cost. For example, if we reduce wages and demand falls, it has more of a negative impact than any cost savings derived from paying workers less wages. If we look at today’s pathetic minimum wage, it’s not even in the universe of what could be deemed a living wage. Just sayin’…

"...by keeping our minimum wage..."


Let's pretend that you actually knew what you were talking about.

A stretch...


The word "our" implies that it is yours....in reality you want to mandate what other folks pay.

“You want to know how to solve the low-income
housing crisis? Get rid of Davis-Bacon.” That’s what
Elzie Higginbottom says, and Higginbottom builds
low-income housing in Chicago’s grim South Side
ghetto and manages his 2,500 units with a magic
touch….

The law requires Higginbottom to pay the
prevailing wage to all workers on federally assisted
projects of more than 11 units. In Chicago, that
means paying carpenters $23 an hour, including ben-
efits, and paying laborers $18.82 an hour for hauling
in the drywall….

So let’s say Higginbottom wants to hire some of
the unskilled black men from the neighborhood
where he is building houses. He is black himself and
fiercely committed to building a social and economic
base in Chicago’s poor neighborhoods. But to give a
local guy a chance, Higginbottom has to pay him a
wage set by Department of Labor bureaucrats. “I’ve
got to start out a guy at $16 an hour to find out if he
knows how to dig a hole. I can’t do that.”
"Congress's Deconstruction Theory", by Patrick Barry, The Washington Monthly, January 1990, p. 10

In real terms, US minimum wage peaked at $1.68/HR in 1968. In 2013 dollars, we're looking at $10.50/HR.

If we adjust using the SSA's Average Wage Index, the minimum wage should be around $12.50/HR. By the way, the AWI is anchored since real minimum wages have decrease 30% over the last 45 years.

I don't think it should be permissible to pay a subsistence wage of $7.25/HR. It makes wage workers at the very bottom unable to negotiate for wages. This forces people to accept job offers under deplorable conditions in order to survive. I don't even know how we can call ourselves a "free country" under such conditions since low-age workers aren't "free" in the economic sense of the word.

Please explain to me how we can be capitalistic economy when one of the most critical components, labor, is in serfdom to the owners of capital.

 

[Moonglow]

I never said that.

However, by keeping our minimum wage at pathetically depressed levels, it doesn’t improve employment prospects in the least. As a matter of fact, it makes it matters worse, since it takes demand out of the economy and lowers the prospects of someone on unemployment benefits or other types of assistance from reentering the workforce.

Wages are source of demand and an input cost. For example, if we reduce wages and demand falls, it has more of a negative impact than any cost savings derived from paying workers less wages. If we look at today’s pathetic minimum wage, it’s not even in the universe of what could be deemed a living wage. Just sayin’…

"...by keeping our minimum wage..."


Let's pretend that you actually knew what you were talking about.

A stretch...


The word "our" implies that it is yours....in reality you want to mandate what other folks pay.

“You want to know how to solve the low-income
housing crisis? Get rid of Davis-Bacon.” That’s what
Elzie Higginbottom says, and Higginbottom builds
low-income housing in Chicago’s grim South Side
ghetto and manages his 2,500 units with a magic
touch….

The law requires Higginbottom to pay the
prevailing wage to all workers on federally assisted
projects of more than 11 units. In Chicago, that
means paying carpenters $23 an hour, including ben-
efits, and paying laborers $18.82 an hour for hauling
in the drywall….

So let’s say Higginbottom wants to hire some of
the unskilled black men from the neighborhood
where he is building houses. He is black himself and
fiercely committed to building a social and economic
base in Chicago’s poor neighborhoods. But to give a
local guy a chance, Higginbottom has to pay him a
wage set by Department of Labor bureaucrats. “I’ve
got to start out a guy at $16 an hour to find out if he
knows how to dig a hole. I can’t do that.”
"Congress's Deconstruction Theory", by Patrick Barry, The Washington Monthly, January 1990, p. 10

In real terms, US minimum wage peaked in real terms at $1.68/HR. In 2013 dollars, we're looking at $10.50/HR.

If we adjust using the SSA's Average Wage Index, the minimum wage should be around $12.50/HR. By the way, the AWI is anchored since real minimum wages have decrease 30% over the last 45 years.

I don't think it should be permissible to pay a subsistence wage of $7.25/HR. It makes wage workers at the very bottom unable to negotiate for wages. This forces people to accept job offers under deplorable conditions in order to survive. I don't even know how we can call ourselves a "free country" under such conditions since low-age workers aren't "free" in the economic sense of the word.

Please explain to me how we can be capitalistic economy when one of the most critical components, labor, is in serfdom to the owners of capital.

Start your own company, I did.

 

[Moonglow]

I made 5 dollars an hour as a laborer in commercial masonry in 1978, by 1983 I was making 10 dollars an hour as a brick layer. Today rates in my area is 12 dollars an hour for masons. Trickle down sucks as does flooding the market with cheap labor. The big boys know that and that is what they have done to real wages.

 

[Kimura]

"...by keeping our minimum wage..."


Let's pretend that you actually knew what you were talking about.

A stretch...


The word "our" implies that it is yours....in reality you want to mandate what other folks pay.

“You want to know how to solve the low-income
housing crisis? Get rid of Davis-Bacon.” That’s what
Elzie Higginbottom says, and Higginbottom builds
low-income housing in Chicago’s grim South Side
ghetto and manages his 2,500 units with a magic
touch….

The law requires Higginbottom to pay the
prevailing wage to all workers on federally assisted
projects of more than 11 units. In Chicago, that
means paying carpenters $23 an hour, including ben-
efits, and paying laborers $18.82 an hour for hauling
in the drywall….

So let’s say Higginbottom wants to hire some of
the unskilled black men from the neighborhood
where he is building houses. He is black himself and
fiercely committed to building a social and economic
base in Chicago’s poor neighborhoods. But to give a
local guy a chance, Higginbottom has to pay him a
wage set by Department of Labor bureaucrats. “I’ve
got to start out a guy at $16 an hour to find out if he
knows how to dig a hole. I can’t do that.”
"Congress's Deconstruction Theory", by Patrick Barry, The Washington Monthly, January 1990, p. 10

In real terms, US minimum wage peaked in real terms at $1.68/HR. In 2013 dollars, we're looking at $10.50/HR.

If we adjust using the SSA's Average Wage Index, the minimum wage should be around $12.50/HR. By the way, the AWI is anchored since real minimum wages have decrease 30% over the last 45 years.

I don't think it should be permissible to pay a subsistence wage of $7.25/HR. It makes wage workers at the very bottom unable to negotiate for wages. This forces people to accept job offers under deplorable conditions in order to survive. I don't even know how we can call ourselves a "free country" under such conditions since low-age workers aren't "free" in the economic sense of the word.

Please explain to me how we can be capitalistic economy when one of the most critical components, labor, is in serfdom to the owners of capital.

Start your own company, I did.

I don't need to, it's one of the benefits of being ridiculously successful by 30.

What does this have to do with me? I was discussing some labor theory.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I never said that.

However, by keeping our minimum wage at pathetically depressed levels, it doesn’t improve employment prospects in the least. As a matter of fact, it makes it matters worse, since it takes demand out of the economy and lowers the prospects of someone on unemployment benefits or other types of assistance from reentering the workforce.

Wages are source of demand and an input cost. For example, if we reduce wages and demand falls, it has more of a negative impact than any cost savings derived from paying workers less wages. If we look at today’s pathetic minimum wage, it’s not even in the universe of what could be deemed a living wage. Just sayin’…

"...by keeping our minimum wage..."


Let's pretend that you actually knew what you were talking about.

A stretch...


The word "our" implies that it is yours....in reality you want to mandate what other folks pay.

“You want to know how to solve the low-income
housing crisis? Get rid of Davis-Bacon.” That’s what
Elzie Higginbottom says, and Higginbottom builds
low-income housing in Chicago’s grim South Side
ghetto and manages his 2,500 units with a magic
touch….

The law requires Higginbottom to pay the
prevailing wage to all workers on federally assisted
projects of more than 11 units. In Chicago, that
means paying carpenters $23 an hour, including ben-
efits, and paying laborers $18.82 an hour for hauling
in the drywall….

So let’s say Higginbottom wants to hire some of
the unskilled black men from the neighborhood
where he is building houses. He is black himself and
fiercely committed to building a social and economic
base in Chicago’s poor neighborhoods. But to give a
local guy a chance, Higginbottom has to pay him a
wage set by Department of Labor bureaucrats. “I’ve
got to start out a guy at $16 an hour to find out if he
knows how to dig a hole. I can’t do that.”
"Congress's Deconstruction Theory", by Patrick Barry, The Washington Monthly, January 1990, p. 10

In real terms, US minimum wage peaked in real terms at $1.68/HR. In 2013 dollars, we're looking at $10.50/HR.

If we adjust using the SSA's Average Wage Index, the minimum wage should be around $12.50/HR. By the way, the AWI is anchored since real minimum wages have decrease 30% over the last 45 years.

I don't think it should be permissible to pay a subsistence wage of $7.25/HR. It makes wage workers at the very bottom unable to negotiate for wages. This forces people to accept job offers under deplorable conditions in order to survive. I don't even know how we can call ourselves a "free country" under such conditions since low-age workers aren't "free" in the economic sense of the word.

Please explain to me how we can be capitalistic economy when one of the most critical components, labor, is in serfdom to the owners of capital.

"In real terms..."

"If we adjust..."

":...should be around..."

"I don't think it should be permissible..."

"... unable to negotiate..."


" This forces people..."

"...in order to survive..."


"...workers aren't "free"..."


Earlier, I told some jerk his post was so stupid, he was in a class by himself.
I see he has company.

Your post is so beyond stupid that simply by opening your mouth you subtract from the sum total of human knowledge.


Some dyslexic just said you were full of carp.

 

[Derideo_Te]

1. "As long as the American consumer demands the lowest cost possible...."

Did you think that that was some sort of pejorative???

Be serious.
Every consumer operates that way....world over.
'Else...they're a simpleton.

Actually consumers don't all operate that way, my dear PC.

Some of them prefer quality instead. Others will shop elsewhere out of principle. Walmart's competitors still exist in spite of all of it's attempts to drive them out of business. Obviously the competitors are attracting business away from Walmart based upon something other than the lowest possible price. Your blanket assumption is false.

"Actually consumers don't all operate that way, my dear PC."

Would you be happier if I said "the vast majority"?



In reality, I used your quote because you wrote "dear."
I have to be honest.

If you are going to make allegations like "the vast majority" you will need to provide a credible source to back it up.

And in the spirit of honesty I will admit that the only reason I used "dear" is because I have become fond of your feisty ways. You must be compensating for something but it is really cute watching you trying so hard. Just consider me to be one of your fan club members around here. You do have a fan club, right?

 

[Kimura]

"...by keeping our minimum wage..."


Let's pretend that you actually knew what you were talking about.

A stretch...


The word "our" implies that it is yours....in reality you want to mandate what other folks pay.

“You want to know how to solve the low-income
housing crisis? Get rid of Davis-Bacon.” That’s what
Elzie Higginbottom says, and Higginbottom builds
low-income housing in Chicago’s grim South Side
ghetto and manages his 2,500 units with a magic
touch….

The law requires Higginbottom to pay the
prevailing wage to all workers on federally assisted
projects of more than 11 units. In Chicago, that
means paying carpenters $23 an hour, including ben-
efits, and paying laborers $18.82 an hour for hauling
in the drywall….

So let’s say Higginbottom wants to hire some of
the unskilled black men from the neighborhood
where he is building houses. He is black himself and
fiercely committed to building a social and economic
base in Chicago’s poor neighborhoods. But to give a
local guy a chance, Higginbottom has to pay him a
wage set by Department of Labor bureaucrats. “I’ve
got to start out a guy at $16 an hour to find out if he
knows how to dig a hole. I can’t do that.”
"Congress's Deconstruction Theory", by Patrick Barry, The Washington Monthly, January 1990, p. 10

In real terms, US minimum wage peaked in real terms at $1.68/HR. In 2013 dollars, we're looking at $10.50/HR.

If we adjust using the SSA's Average Wage Index, the minimum wage should be around $12.50/HR. By the way, the AWI is anchored since real minimum wages have decrease 30% over the last 45 years.

I don't think it should be permissible to pay a subsistence wage of $7.25/HR. It makes wage workers at the very bottom unable to negotiate for wages. This forces people to accept job offers under deplorable conditions in order to survive. I don't even know how we can call ourselves a "free country" under such conditions since low-age workers aren't "free" in the economic sense of the word.

Please explain to me how we can be capitalistic economy when one of the most critical components, labor, is in serfdom to the owners of capital.

"In real terms..."

"If we adjust..."

":...should be around..."

"I don't think it should be permissible..."

"... unable to negotiate..."


" This forces people..."

"...in order to survive..."


"...workers aren't "free"..."


Earlier, I told some jerk his post was so stupid, he was in a class by himself.
I see he has company.

Your post is so beyond stupid that simply by opening your mouth you subtract from the sum total of human knowledge.

Some dyslexic just said you were full of carp.

Another erudite and enlightening comment by a right-wing jerk off.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually consumers don't all operate that way, my dear PC.

Some of them prefer quality instead. Others will shop elsewhere out of principle. Walmart's competitors still exist in spite of all of it's attempts to drive them out of business. Obviously the competitors are attracting business away from Walmart based upon something other than the lowest possible price. Your blanket assumption is false.

"Actually consumers don't all operate that way, my dear PC."

Would you be happier if I said "the vast majority"?



In reality, I used your quote because you wrote "dear."
I have to be honest.

If you are going to make allegations like "the vast majority" you will need to provide a credible source to back it up.

And in the spirit of honesty I will admit that the only reason I used "dear" is because I have become fond of your feisty ways. You must be compensating for something but it is really cute watching you trying so hard. Just consider me to be one of your fan club members around here. You do have a fan club, right?

This help?

1. At Wal-Mart, Americans spend $36,000,000 every hour of every day.

2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute! 5.8133333% margin

3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.

4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target + Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.

5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people and is the largest private employer. And most can't speak English.

6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the World.

7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger & Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only 15 years.

8. During this same period, 31 Supermarket chains sought bankruptcy (including Winn-Dixie).

9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had 5 years ago.

11. This year, 7.2 billion different purchasing transactions will occur at a Wal-Mart store. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 billion.)

12. 90% of all Americans live within 15 miles of a Wal-Mart.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In real terms, US minimum wage peaked in real terms at $1.68/HR. In 2013 dollars, we're looking at $10.50/HR.

If we adjust using the SSA's Average Wage Index, the minimum wage should be around $12.50/HR. By the way, the AWI is anchored since real minimum wages have decrease 30% over the last 45 years.

I don't think it should be permissible to pay a subsistence wage of $7.25/HR. It makes wage workers at the very bottom unable to negotiate for wages. This forces people to accept job offers under deplorable conditions in order to survive. I don't even know how we can call ourselves a "free country" under such conditions since low-age workers aren't "free" in the economic sense of the word.

Please explain to me how we can be capitalistic economy when one of the most critical components, labor, is in serfdom to the owners of capital.

"In real terms..."

"If we adjust..."

":...should be around..."

"I don't think it should be permissible..."

"... unable to negotiate..."


" This forces people..."

"...in order to survive..."


"...workers aren't "free"..."


Earlier, I told some jerk his post was so stupid, he was in a class by himself.
I see he has company.

Your post is so beyond stupid that simply by opening your mouth you subtract from the sum total of human knowledge.

Some dyslexic just said you were full of carp.

Another erudite and enlightening comment by a right-wing jerk off.

Good to see the real you come out.

 

[Kimura]

"In real terms..."

"If we adjust..."

":...should be around..."

"I don't think it should be permissible..."

"... unable to negotiate..."


" This forces people..."

"...in order to survive..."


"...workers aren't "free"..."


Earlier, I told some jerk his post was so stupid, he was in a class by himself.
I see he has company.

Your post is so beyond stupid that simply by opening your mouth you subtract from the sum total of human knowledge.

Some dyslexic just said you were full of carp.

Another erudite and enlightening comment by a right-wing jerk off.

Good to see the real you come out.

You don't know me from a hole in the wall, but whatever floats your boat.

 

[Moonglow]

It's a great Arkansas based company in NW Ark along with Tyson's, JB Hunt transporation just to name a few. And they own Arvest bank

 

[Blooper]

Ah, that's because 99% of the workforce is paid minimum wage, right sparky?

Tell me, should the state set the wage of all workers, from top to bottom? Or just for targets of the unions?

What does the number of workers on minimum wage have to do with his post? Kimura merely asserted that, in a competitive economy with a manifestly powerful capitalist class, the supply-side will dictate public affairs. Not that most people were paid minimum wage, or that the state should be the determinant of all wages.

"...a manifestly powerful capitalist class,..."


The imaginary bête noire created to persuade the unintelligent.
Raise your paw.

Is that to say you reject the existence of basic social roles? There's a lot I disagree with when it comes to the Marxists, but Capital's explanation of wages and property was among the best.

 

[Blooper]

Then start a trend.

Donate the computer you are using to the homeless. Give the amount you pay to your ISP to the poor and live without.

Like most - virtually all - leftists; You're willing to give every dime your neighbor has to the poor.

THEY should give more... The primary difference between left and right is that the Right supports their beliefs with there own capital, where the left believes that charity begins by picking the pocket of others.

Nobody's saying that. Improving the condition of the workers can be done through workplace restructuring - and by decreasing the rate of profit and leisure class compensation, in favor of benefits to the producers.

It takes special kind of idiot to compose a post like yours.

You may be in a class by yourself!

Once again, while I do appreciate the insults, actually addressing what I wrote would serve you better.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another erudite and enlightening comment by a right-wing jerk off.

Good to see the real you come out.

You don't know me from a hole in the wall, but whatever floats your boat.

No...really, I do.


I know that you're a fool, and you have the energy to let everybody know it.