"I am not telling you how to vote, but ... "

[CA95380]

I was wrong. You are correct. Actually WalMart has contributed more to Dems than Target. WalMart still sucks though.

Here is the list of retail contributions. I love OpenSecrets....

Retail Sales: Top Contributors to Federal Candidates and Parties | OpenSecrets

Interesting site. Thanks! Have never seen it before.

But .... it does not matter which "party" these big corporations "give" money to. They STILL do not have the right to even insinuate to their employees who they should vote for. It is the "white-collar exec's" of that company that benefit from this kind of "A$$ kissing" - not the "hourly paid" employee.

 

[dilloduck]

Interesting site. Thanks! Have never seen it before.

But .... it does not matter which "party" these big corporations "give" money to. They STILL do not have the right to even insinuate to their employees who they should vote for. It is the "white-collar exec's" of that company that benefit from this kind of "A$$ kissing" - not the "hourly paid" employee.

You do understand that these execs can just take thier money and run which would leave every single Wal-mart worker unemployed ?

 

[CA95380]

You do understand that these execs can just take thier money and run which would leave every single Wal-mart worker unemployed ?

dillo .... you know what? I have come to believe that you are one of the most intelligent posters on this site. But the statement above is beginning to make me wonder.

Wal-mart .... (whoever is running it) ... is not going anywhere! Are they not the top retailer in the country? Or am I misinformed on that fact

Why are they the top retailer in the country? Because they buy shit from China and sell it to the majority of the U.S. population that can afford it! We the middle class people of the country!

 

[Gunny]

dillo .... you know what? I have come to believe that you are one of the most intelligent posters on this site. But the statement above is beginning to make me wonder.

Wal-mart .... (whoever is running it) ... is not going anywhere! Are they not the top retailer in the country? Or am I misinformed on that fact

Why are they the top retailer in the country? Because they buy shit from China and sell it to the majority of the U.S. population that can afford it! We the middle class people of the country!

I think he's alluding to an Enron-type thing. The companies mismanaged, they get insider tips the shit's going to hit the fan, and the corporate exec's took care of themselves and left everyone else high and dry. While improbable at this point in time, not impossible.

A lot of people resent and despise WalMart. Of them, only the lazy ones STILL go there anyway. Like I said, I won't unless it's an emergency. I am by no means perfect, but I try to support American industry, American-made products and the "little man" whenever I can. It isn't always feasible.

 

[CA95380]

Gunny .... I think we all try to "buy American", when we can and when we can afford it.

I go to Wal-mart to buy a medication that I can get there for $4.00 for a months supply - where my regular co-payment is $25.00 at Walgreens. So I am cheap! I am also an American Senior Citizen.

There! I said it! I shop at Wal-mart. Shoot me! But I shop there as little as I absoultely need to. Why? Because the isles are so full of RUDE, non English-speaking people that have the manners of BIG UGLY GNAT's!

 

[Shattered]

Gunny .... I think we all try to "buy American", when we can and when we can afford it.

I go to Wal-mart to buy a medication that I can get there for $4.00 for a months supply - where my regular co-payment is $25.00 at Walgreens. So I am cheap! I am also an American Senior Citizen.

There! I said it! I shop at Wal-mart. Shoot me! But I shop there as little as I absoultely need to. Why? Because the isles are so full of RUDE, non English-speaking people that have the manners of BIG UGLY GNAT's!

If you have a Shopko, try them for your prescriptions. They're even cheaper than WalMart, and have a better selection of generic alternatives.. An antibiotic that I pay $96 for typically, I can get at Shopko for $23.00. Another that was $200 was like $30 for the generic version.

 

[CA95380]

If you have a Shopko, try them for your prescriptions. They're even cheaper than WalMart, and have a better selection of generic alternatives.. An antibiotic that I pay $96 for typically, I can get at Shopko for $23.00. Another that was $200 was like $30 for the generic version.

No Shopko, in California, never heard of it, if there is. But in these days we have to "shop" where we can find the best price. It is as simple as that.

I had even considered buying from those Canadian websites that sell cheap medication that we Americans have to have ... but ... I won't do that either. It is kind of like going into one of those "drug stores" on the streets of Tijuana! Holy $hit!

 

[Shogun]

I was wrong. You are correct. Actually WalMart has contributed more to Dems than Target. WalMart still sucks though.

Here is the list of retail contributions. I love OpenSecrets....

Retail Sales: Top Contributors to Federal Candidates and Parties | OpenSecrets

yea.. THIS year now that a dem pres in imminent. check out the last 10 years

 

[Prefx]

Having worked retail, I'm hardly biased. Your attitude toward live, and the public dictates what type of retail job you hold, if that's your choice. There's good retail, and there's crappy retail, and only YOU can make that decision. If you can't fill out a simple job application in complete, and legible detail, you're going to end up at the likes of Walmart. Customer service skills, and a better attitude will likely land you behind the jewelry counter at a higher end department store.

You make your own choices in life. Having dealt with the ammbition of the typical Walmart employee, I stand by my original assessment that one gets what one is qualified for.

A new Wal-Mart was built in the immediate proximity of my neighborhood. Although wages may have changed (unlikely), six months ago they were hiring jewelery counter service persons for $10. Starting wages at Wal-Mart were $8.

The labor market suffers directly from the monopoly over land. There is hardly any "good retail" when talking about employment. It's an abnormality mostly restricted to CostCo, where the union ensures good pay (~ $12+/hr), a decent amount of benefits, and restricts wage discrepancy (the CEO only gets 10x more than the lowest paid employee).

You are contradicting yourself by stating these earnings are what they deserve - even higher. Few meet subsistence levels working for retail - they rely on the state, charities, or second and third jobs. Since obviously these jobs are wanted - they exist - they "should" (and by that I mean the market under natural conditions should) be able to meet a subsistence working 40 hours a week. Anything less equates to a corpse propped up against the cash register.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny .... I think we all try to "buy American", when we can and when we can afford it.

I go to Wal-mart to buy a medication that I can get there for $4.00 for a months supply - where my regular co-payment is $25.00 at Walgreens. So I am cheap! I am also an American Senior Citizen.

There! I said it! I shop at Wal-mart. Shoot me! But I shop there as little as I absoultely need to. Why? Because the isles are so full of RUDE, non English-speaking people that have the manners of BIG UGLY GNAT's!

I don't have a problem with people who shop at Walmart. I mentioned only those that gripe loudly about it but turn around and shop there every week like clockwork.

As I said, I go there out of necessity at times. I'm just not going to support the place if I don't have to. I didn't have a problem shopping there when Sam Walton was alive. His wife has sold out to the almighty $.

 

[Chris]

A new Wal-Mart was built in the immediate proximity of my neighborhood. Although wages may have changed (unlikely), six months ago they were hiring jewelery counter service persons for $10. Starting wages at Wal-Mart were $8.

The labor market suffers directly from the monopoly over land. There is hardly any "good retail" when talking about employment. It's an abnormality mostly restricted to CostCo, where the union ensures good pay (~ $12+/hr), a decent amount of benefits, and restricts wage discrepancy (the CEO only gets 10x more than the lowest paid employee).

You are contradicting yourself by stating these earnings are what they deserve - even higher. Few meet subsistence levels working for retail - they rely on the state, charities, or second and third jobs. Since obviously these jobs are wanted - they exist - they "should" (and by that I mean the market under natural conditions should) be able to meet a subsistence working 40 hours a week. Anything less equates to a corpse propped up against the cash register.

Costco is the company that gave the highest percentage of their campaign contributions to the Democrats. It sounds like they are running their company the right way.

 

[Gunny]

A new Wal-Mart was built in the immediate proximity of my neighborhood. Although wages may have changed (unlikely), six months ago they were hiring jewelery counter service persons for $10. Starting wages at Wal-Mart were $8.

The labor market suffers directly from the monopoly over land. There is hardly any "good retail" when talking about employment. It's an abnormality mostly restricted to CostCo, where the union ensures good pay (~ $12+/hr), a decent amount of benefits, and restricts wage discrepancy (the CEO only gets 10x more than the lowest paid employee).

You are contradicting yourself by stating these earnings are what they deserve - even higher. Few meet subsistence levels working for retail - they rely on the state, charities, or second and third jobs. Since obviously these jobs are wanted - they exist - they "should" (and by that I mean the market under natural conditions should) be able to meet a subsistence working 40 hours a week. Anything less equates to a corpse propped up against the cash register.

Hogwash. There is nothing inherent in employment that states jobs should provide the level of subsistence at 40 hours. That's that socialist mind of yours at work.

There should be something inherent in the employees that say I will work as many hours as it takes to attain a level of subsistence. If I want more, I work more. If I want to get paid more, I provide a skill employers are willing to pay for. If I want even more, I acquire even more skills.

It's not that hard to get ahead. All you have to do is work for what you want.

 

[dilloduck]

Hogwash. There is nothing inherent in employment that states jobs should provide the level of subsistence at 40 hours. That's that socialist mind of yours at work.

There should be something inherent in the employees that say I will work as many hours as it takes to attain a level of subsistence. If I want more, I work more. If I want to get paid more, I provide a skill employers are willing to pay for. If I want even more, I acquire even more skills.

It's not that hard to get ahead. All you have to do is work for what you want.

WORK ?????????????????????

Anyone remember Maynard G Krebbs from Dobie Gillis ??? Probably not--never mind. I forget my age sometimes.

But Maynard G. Krebs will always be best remembered for his response whenever anyone mentioned the subject of work. He would instantaneously shudder, and let out a plaintiff cry of "WORK!?!?"

http://bobdenver.com/Maynard_s_Coff...y/Maynard_G__Krebs/body_maynard_g__krebs.html

 

[Prefx]

Hogwash. There is nothing inherent in employment that states jobs should provide the level of subsistence at 40 hours.

That's an obvious statement. There would not be an issue to talk about otherwise.

That's that socialist mind of yours at work.

Ouch. You called out a socialist as being... socialist.

There should be something inherent in the employees that say I will work as many hours as it takes to attain a level of subsistence.

As many hours as it takes to reach subsistence is fantastic for the Victorian era. Most civilized societies stopped accepting 12-14 hour work days a little over sixty years ago. That mentality does exist, though: in China you can find plenty of employees working 15 hour work days for .30 cents (in regions where the minimum wage is technically closer to a dollar).

If I want more, I work more.

To benefit someone else? Someone else who shouldn't even be in possession of exclusive rights? I wonder what would have happened if serfs accepted this same conclusion.

Working more is actually implausible for most people. Moving up requires working for a longer duration of time, to establish a resume. Most companies will push their employees for more than 40 hours on a salaried position, but refuse to allot overtime payment. An average part-time employee does "only" work about 20 hours a week, so said person could (gratefully - for he lives in a country of opportunities!) take on a 60 hour work week. Here we have that magical number "twelve" again. Twelve hours away from your child.

So now said person spends his part-time paycheck on keeping a babysitter while he's away compensating for his full-time job.

If I want to get paid more, I provide a skill employers are willing to pay for.

Such skills exist in retailing by the simple fact there is demand for it. Without your service buddies in retail, the store would be looted, and all the niceness attributed to shopping would be zilch.

If I want even more, I acquire even more skills.

I already stated that most people in retail are either younger than 25 or older than the official retirement age. They suffer the most from economic rent imposed on them by an authoritarian land ownership system. It's not a matter of acquiring new skills. I'm talking about those putting up with their jobs at this moment. These companies are claiming exclusive use to resources and land. Their existence automatically prevents these employees from utilizing the taken resources. To say they shouldn't necessarily meet subsistence levels is ridiculous.

Your logic revolves around the sun. Supposing everyone did work their darnedest every minute of every clocked hour (which nobody does), there would still be a need for cashiers, stockers, and floor attendants. You are saying these jobs should exist, but the weakest in our society should not reach subsistence - even if they're trying their hardest.

Absolutely atrocious, clumsy, and illogical.

It's not that hard to get ahead. All you have to do is work for what you want.

Getting ahead is relative terminology. I consider something wrong when a child born to a family in the bottom 90% of wage earners has about a 2% chance of making it into the top 5%. Top ten'ers are quite immobile.

 

[Gunny]

That's an obvious statement. There would not be an issue to talk about otherwise.

Just what I need. Another expand-a-post, literalist who wants to bring something up them attempt blow off someone else commenting on it. Bet you think you're an original.

Ouch. You called out a socialist as being... socialist.

Please DO take a condescending remark for what it is.

As many hours as it takes to reach subsistence is fantastic for the Victorian era. Most civilized societies stopped accepting 12-14 hour work days a little over sixty years ago. That mentality does exist, though: in China you can find plenty of employees working 15 hour work days for .30 cents (in regions where the minimum wage is technically closer to a dollar).

Society huh? You mean people like you within a society who has a one-size fits all cookie cutter plan so everyone can achieve their dream of mediocrity.

Wake up. It happens here. Thought you said you were from Texas? What do you suppose is going on with these illegals?

To benefit someone else? Someone else who shouldn't even be in possession of exclusive rights? I wonder what would have happened if serfs accepted this same conclusion.

What kind of response is this? I said if I want more I work more. That most certainly is NOT to benefit anyone but me and mine. Why do I want to work more so someone like you can redistribue my income to someone who works less?

Working more is actually implausible for most people. Moving up requires working for a longer duration of time, to establish a resume. Most companies will push their employees for more than 40 hours on a salaried position, but refuse to allot overtime payment. An average part-time employee does "only" work about 20 hours a week, so said person could (gratefully - for he lives in a country of opportunities!) take on a 60 hour work week. Here we have that magical number "twelve" again. Twelve hours away from your child.

There's no "magical number." Obviously if you are working those hours, you have no business try to be a parent to a child, or you figure out how to deal with it. Try being an active duty Marine and single parent at the same time. It CAN be done, and the pay's the same, 80 hrs a week or 20 in the Corps.

So now said person spends his part-time paycheck on keeping a babysitter while he's away compensating for his full-time job.

So? Sounds a whole lot like you're whining about having to actually work for a living.

Such skills exist in retailing by the simple fact there is demand for it. Without your service buddies in retail, the store would be looted, and all the niceness attributed to shopping would be zilch.

Assumptive, and not my problem. No one is forced to take those retail jobs. Bottom line. You can apply for whatever job you wish and if retail doesn't pay enough, I suggest applying for one that pays better.

I already stated that most people in retail are either younger than 25 or older than the official retirement age. They suffer the most from economic rent imposed on them by an authoritarian land ownership system. It's not a matter of acquiring new skills. I'm talking about those putting up with their jobs at this moment. These companies are claiming exclusive use to resources and land. Their existence automatically prevents these employees from utilizing the taken resources. To say they shouldn't necessarily meet subsistence levels is ridiculous.

To pay people more than are worth just because you believe there is an inherent right to equality that disregards qualification is what's ridiculous. The use of resources and land is irrelevant, and perverted reasoning.

When you prop up unqualified people with artifical payscales to meet your idea of a subsistence level, and do so by redistributing the wealth of those who make more for excelling, you remove the incentive to excel and turn this country into just another mediocre nation of vacillators as most of Europe has become.

No thanks.

Your logic revolves around the sun. Supposing everyone did work their darnedest every minute of every clocked hour (which nobody does), there would still be a need for cashiers, stockers, and floor attendants. You are saying these jobs should exist, but the weakest in our society should not reach subsistence - even if they're trying their hardest.

Newsflash ... the WORLD revolves around the sun. I haven't said there is a need for anyone. YOU have. I also have not said the weakest in our society should not reach subsistence. The LAZY should not reach subsistence without earning it.

Absolutely atrocious, clumsy, and illogical.

Yeah, I'd say that sums up YOUR argument in a nutshell.

Getting ahead is relative terminology. I consider something wrong when a child born to a family in the bottom 90% of wage earners has about a 2% chance of making it into the top 5%. Top ten'ers are quite immobile.

Getting ahead is not measured solely by the absolute bottom and top of the scale. That's BS. It is only relative insofar as one stands on the socio-economic scale and where one wants to be.

The bottom line is you are an envious thief who would hide behind the "equality" in an attempt to justify your theft. You would take from those who have earned and redistribute to those who have not. That's theft. Nothing less.

It's already being perpetrated against us. I work over a day a week for free. To support a lameass government and its social programs.

You just don't want to earn what you have. It's as simple as that. You want it handed to you cradle to grave.

I can see that you and I ain't gonna' get along.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yup the Military pays one amount based on years and rank. No matter how many HOURS you work. Now there are a few extra pay items, like combat zone. But you also lose your meals ration.

When you go to the field you are basically working 24 hours a day the entire time with no extra pay and you LOSE separate rations to boot.

Yet we have dumb ass's on this board that call retirement pay from such a career welfare. I wonder if you are one of those too?

 

[Ravi]

Yet we have dumb ass's on this board that call retirement pay from such a career welfare.

It isn't welfare, and no one has called it that. The military is, however, a social program. The federal government collects taxes and uses some of them for a program that protects the nation. A member of the military is an employee of a government social program. Why you scream and cry over this is an amusing question.

 

[dilloduck]

It isn't welfare, and no one has called it that. The military is, however, a social program. The federal government collects taxes and uses some of them for a program that protects the nation. A member of the military is an employee of a government social program. Why you scream and cry over this is an amusing question.

social program

Up early just to troll ?

 

[editec]

A new Wal-Mart was built in the immediate proximity of my neighborhood. Although wages may have changed (unlikely), six months ago they were hiring jewelery counter service persons for $10. Starting wages at Wal-Mart were $8.

​

non sequiter alert!​

Average compensation in 2007 for the top 25 CEOs of hedge funds on Wall street?​

$877,000,000 ​

Assuming those guys work 24 hours a day, 356 days a year, that means their hourly rate of compensation is​

$100,114.15 per hour​

Best regards,​

ed (does this gilded age make my ass look fat?) itec​

 

[Prefx]

Not everything is worth responding to, so I'll just pick and choose:

Assumptive, and not my problem. No one is forced to take those retail jobs.

Right. You live in candyland, where everything is just one space away from new stardom.

It's assumptive to say without retail associates retail stores wouldn't function? No, I would call that common sense.

You mean people like you [...]

I'm willing to bet any sum you want that most people would find 12 hours a day atrocious.

So? Sounds a whole lot like you're whining about having to actually work for a living.

Because I said nobody in the United States should have to work 12 hours a day just to reach subsistence, you're telling me I have an opposition to all work. That's a very astute observation.

Obviously if you are working those hours, you have no business try to be a parent to a child

Not all people are interested in abortion and adoption. To teach their own, I say.

To pay people more than are worth just because you believe there is an inherent right to equality that disregards qualification is what's ridiculous. The use of resources and land is irrelevant, and perverted reasoning.

And you called me assumptive.

The use of resources is not irrelevant, especially when talking about retail jobs where there is a sizable demographic present in the work force. Economics is social. As much as some would like to decry that reality, my consumption of an apple already puts you at a disadvantage. Claiming ownership over land - when it is not the product of any person's toil - is atrocious, and it creates economic rent - or reliance on landowners. Land owners should have to pay a tax on land they're claiming exclusive right to, and the money from that should go towards benefiting the land-less. It supplies people with more bargaining power for the right reason, especially the young.

Milton Friedman, far from a socialist, agreed with Henry George's analysis: a land value tax would actually improve production, wages, while making involuntary poverty obsolete and dramatically decreasing land speculation.

Getting ahead is not measured solely by the absolute bottom and top of the scale.

To complete my analogy, there were poor peasants and well-to-do peasants, but they were all still peasants [...]

Clearly, you're redirecting my beliefs to be something they're not. I am stating that, in a free society, there would be enough pressure (certainly on the biggest companies) to push wages above their current levels. But at this moment our society is controlled by the rich investors. There's $150+ billion subsidization, tax loopholes galore, inane personhood protection, tax laws targeting worker income, and authoritarian land rights which naturally put landless individuals at a disadvantage.

Which, to tie in with the OP, has me laughing whenever I hear about forced unions "hurting free market competition." Hullo. Free market competition isn't Wal-Mart. As Proudhon, Tucker, and Spooner pointed out (it isn't coincidental that the first two are considered free market socialists, and the latter deplored capitalism), the giant monoliths we see today wouldn't exist in a free market. Without legal protection, corporations are too risky to expand. Cooperatives are naturally more productive, but bankers don't invest in them because there's no promise of dividends.

The only firm which shouldn't pay into the LVT system is a workers' council.