Walmart on Welfare: We support their employees so they don't have to.

[The Rabbi]

This is why I believe the Republicans should push for a $10/hr minimum wage and tell the liberals to shut the fuck up. $7.25 an hour is NOT a reasonable wage, it just isn't. But this "living wage" crap is ridiculous.

Of course if you bump the minimum wage to $10 an hour you better be ready to see all the low skilled barely do enough to get by employees get let go. Companies will not pay that for employees who aren't worth it.

You seem to labor under the illusion that if the GOP agrees to some of the Democrats' demands then they will be good guys again. That's utter bullshit. If the GOP agrees to 10/hr, the Democrats will accuse them of being heartless for not pushing for 15/hr/
7.25 is a reasonable wage. Why do you think it is not? 5/hr is a reasonable wage. 2/hr is a reasonable wage. It just depends on the job and the skil. Why do we have to mandate this anyway? If an employer wants to offer 50cents/hr let him. When no one takes the job, he'll have to raise his offer until he can find someone who will.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why doesn't Walmart pay a living wage? Answer: because the owners are greedy and want taxpayers to subsidize their employees.

They don't pay a "living wage" because it not their responsibility to make sure you live to a standard you are comfortable with.

Then it seems like people like you would quit bitching about all those "people" on government assistance.

Every time you bitch about "those people" who are on the government handouts and then defend the low wages they are paid, you are acknowledging just how much of a hypocrite you all are.

You can't have and do both. Accept that a great many working Americans are on government assistance because their income qualifies them for assistance.

or

acknowledge that a great many working Americans are under paid.

But quit bitching about one (those on government assistance) and defending the other (low wages). The one causes the other.

And this ain't Burger King. You don't get it both ways.

No one is underpaid, Zeke. People get paid what they are worth. Plenty of people are overpaid, however, thanks to unions and government meddling.

 

[zeke]

Why doesn't Walmart pay a living wage? Answer: because the owners are greedy and want taxpayers to subsidize their employees.

They don't pay a "living wage" because it not their responsibility to make sure you live to a standard you are comfortable with.

Then it seems like people like you would quit bitching about all those "people" on government assistance.

Every time you bitch about "those people" who are on the government handouts and then defend the low wages they are paid, you are acknowledging just how much of a hypocrite you all are.

You can't have and do both. Accept that a great many working Americans are on government assistance because their income qualifies them for assistance.

or

acknowledge that a great many working Americans are under paid.

But quit bitching about one (those on government assistance) and defending the other (low wages). The one causes the other.

And this ain't Burger King. You don't get it both ways.

No one is underpaid, Zeke. People get paid what they are worth. Plenty of people are overpaid, however, thanks to unions and government meddling.

I didn't say anyone was "underpaid" as YOU define it. I said quit bitching about the number of working poor who qualify for giverment benefits. If you want low wages, fine. But quit bitching that the low wage worker can qualify for benefits.

How many people with jobs could be dropped from government assistance if they made more money at their jobs? Which is something you claim you want. Fewer people collecting government benefits.

But to get the working poor to NOT QUALIFY for government assistance, these people would need to make more money. Which you are OPPOSED to IF it is a mandatory increase in income. Like a minimum wage raise.

Quit bitching about working people getting government assistance IF you don't want employers like a Walmart to HAVE to pay higher wages.

 

[The Rabbi]

Zeke, you have outdone yourself. You lie about your own posts. You have no idea what you're tlaking about.
People remain on government assistance because the incentives to do that are huge. A person working a low wage job effectively pays over 100% in taxes if they work enough to get off assistance. IN a situation like that, who would want to? You'd do everything you could NOT to make enough money to lose benefits.

 

[zeke]

Wait, I just figured it out. You all want the low wage worker who qualifies for government assistance to just suck it up and NOT APPLY for food benefits and Sec 8 housing vouchers.

LOW WAGE WORKERS JUST NEED TO SUCK IT UP. They've got it to good anyway. Right rabbit?
Hell, the rabbit would LOVE to get hired at Walmart. Working in the "produce" section.

 

[zeke]

Zeke, you have outdone yourself. You lie about your own posts. You have no idea what you're tlaking about.
People remain on government assistance because the incentives to do that are huge. A person working a low wage job effectively pays over 100% in taxes if they work enough to get off assistance. IN a situation like that, who would want to? You'd do everything you could NOT to make enough money to lose benefits.

You are full of shit rabbit. Posting nonsense.

Incentives are huge eh to the person working a minimum wage job that makes it possible for them to qualify for government assistance because they need to eat and feed their families and put a roof over their heads.

I guess they have an incentive to survive.

No shit rabbit. People have an incentive to survive.

What wisdom from you next rabbit; people need to eat?

Fucking stupid rabbit. If low wage people were paid more they wouldn't qualify for as much if any government assistance.
It ain't rocket science, even for a rabbit.

 

[bripat9643]

Why doesn't Walmart pay a living wage? Answer: because the owners are greedy and want taxpayers to subsidize their employees.

Translation: Walmart pays the market wage for people with the skills that Walmart employees posses. Petulant liberals insist that people without valuable skills should be paid more than they are worth.

 

[bripat9643]

Wait, I just figured it out. You all want the low wage worker who qualifies for government assistance to just suck it up and NOT APPLY for food benefits and Sec 8 housing vouchers.

LOW WAGE WORKERS JUST NEED TO SUCK IT UP. They've got it to good anyway. Right rabbit?
Hell, the rabbit would LOVE to get hired at Walmart. Working in the "produce" section.

Why should the taxpayers SUCK IT UP?

 

[bripat9643]

Why doesn't Walmart pay a living wage? Answer: because the owners are greedy and want taxpayers to subsidize their employees.

They don't pay a "living wage" because it not their responsibility to make sure you live to a standard you are comfortable with.

Then it seems like people like you would quit bitching about all those "people" on government assistance.

Every time you bitch about "those people" who are on the government handouts and then defend the low wages they are paid, you are acknowledging just how much of a hypocrite you all are.

You can't have and do both. Accept that a great many working Americans are on government assistance because their income qualifies them for assistance.

or

acknowledge that a great many working Americans are under paid.

But quit bitching about one (those on government assistance) and defending the other (low wages). The one causes the other.

And this ain't Burger King. You don't get it both ways.

Sorry, but those aren't the only two possibilities. Here's a third one:

They are paid exactly what their skills are worth, but they still qualify for government benefits, and no one turns down free money.

 

[Dreadnaught1968]

Why is it that the lefties are so hung up on Wal-Mart, but never seem to say anything about Target, Shopko, K-Mart, Sears, Toys-R-Us, and others who pay similarly?

Wal-Mart pays what everybody else pays. Don't like it, go somewhere else. You can move up at places like Wal-Mart, work hard and get promoted. Make your way into management. Don't just sit there and whine about it.

Oh, and those who want to compare Wal-Mart to Costco? Apples and Oranges. It's not too hard to figure out why, either...

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

This is why I believe the Republicans should push for a $10/hr minimum wage and tell the liberals to shut the fuck up. $7.25 an hour is NOT a reasonable wage, it just isn't. But this "living wage" crap is ridiculous.

Of course if you bump the minimum wage to $10 an hour you better be ready to see all the low skilled barely do enough to get by employees get let go. Companies will not pay that for employees who aren't worth it.

You seem to labor under the illusion that if the GOP agrees to some of the Democrats' demands then they will be good guys again. That's utter bullshit. If the GOP agrees to 10/hr, the Democrats will accuse them of being heartless for not pushing for 15/hr/
7.25 is a reasonable wage. Why do you think it is not? 5/hr is a reasonable wage. 2/hr is a reasonable wage. It just depends on the job and the skil. Why do we have to mandate this anyway? If an employer wants to offer 50cents/hr let him. When no one takes the job, he'll have to raise his offer until he can find someone who will.

Why do we have to mandate a minimum wage? Well because history has proven what happens when we don't.

Obviously right now is an employer's market. To say "hey no one will agree to a wage if it is too low is stupid and insulting. If I had no choice and my kids were hungry I would absolutely take a job at Wal Mart at whatever meager pay they were paying, so would tons of other people.

And guess what you sanctimonious ass, there are LOTS of people working minimum wage jobs who have "bettered themselves" but there are no jobs available so they've done the best they could and took what is available. Are you suggesting that they should say "fuck that " and sit at home forcing McD or whomever to offer more to get them off the couch? That's dumb.

And yes, I am suggesting the Republicans (and the Democrats) should try fucking compromising once in awhile, why anyone would find that a bad thing is beyond me.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Why is it that the lefties are so hung up on Wal-Mart, but never seem to say anything about Target, Shopko, K-Mart, Sears, Toys-R-Us, and others who pay similarly?

Wal-Mart pays what everybody else pays. Don't like it, go somewhere else. You can move up at places like Wal-Mart, work hard and get promoted. Make your way into management. Don't just sit there and whine about it.

Oh, and those who want to compare Wal-Mart to Costco? Apples and Oranges. It's not too hard to figure out why, either...

Because Wal Mart is the biggest and easiest target. As I said earlier, there are companies out there who take advantage of employees, Wal Mart wouldn't make the top 50 nationally

 

[The Rabbi]

This is why I believe the Republicans should push for a $10/hr minimum wage and tell the liberals to shut the fuck up. $7.25 an hour is NOT a reasonable wage, it just isn't. But this "living wage" crap is ridiculous.

Of course if you bump the minimum wage to $10 an hour you better be ready to see all the low skilled barely do enough to get by employees get let go. Companies will not pay that for employees who aren't worth it.

You seem to labor under the illusion that if the GOP agrees to some of the Democrats' demands then they will be good guys again. That's utter bullshit. If the GOP agrees to 10/hr, the Democrats will accuse them of being heartless for not pushing for 15/hr/
7.25 is a reasonable wage. Why do you think it is not? 5/hr is a reasonable wage. 2/hr is a reasonable wage. It just depends on the job and the skil. Why do we have to mandate this anyway? If an employer wants to offer 50cents/hr let him. When no one takes the job, he'll have to raise his offer until he can find someone who will.

Why do we have to mandate a minimum wage? Well because history has proven what happens when we don't.

Obviously right now is an employer's market. To say "hey no one will agree to a wage if it is too low is stupid and insulting. If I had no choice and my kids were hungry I would absolutely take a job at Wal Mart at whatever meager pay they were paying, so would tons of other people.

And guess what you sanctimonious ass, there are LOTS of people working minimum wage jobs who have "bettered themselves" but there are no jobs available so they've done the best they could and took what is available. Are you suggesting that they should say "fuck that " and sit at home forcing McD or whomever to offer more to get them off the couch? That's dumb.

And yes, I am suggesting the Republicans (and the Democrats) should try fucking compromising once in awhile, why anyone would find that a bad thing is beyond me.

Really? What history has shown what effect where there was no minimum wage? You're talking out of your ass, no doubt.
Whose fault is it there are no jobs available Under most of Bush's presidency the UE rate was under 5%/ Anyone who wanted to work could. Under Obama there arent as many jobs. The problem is Democratic economic policies, including mn wage.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

This is why I believe the Republicans should push for a $10/hr minimum wage and tell the liberals to shut the fuck up. $7.25 an hour is NOT a reasonable wage, it just isn't. But this "living wage" crap is ridiculous.

Of course if you bump the minimum wage to $10 an hour you better be ready to see all the low skilled barely do enough to get by employees get let go. Companies will not pay that for employees who aren't worth it.

You seem to labor under the illusion that if the GOP agrees to some of the Democrats' demands then they will be good guys again. That's utter bullshit. If the GOP agrees to 10/hr, the Democrats will accuse them of being heartless for not pushing for 15/hr/
7.25 is a reasonable wage. Why do you think it is not? 5/hr is a reasonable wage. 2/hr is a reasonable wage. It just depends on the job and the skil. Why do we have to mandate this anyway? If an employer wants to offer 50cents/hr let him. When no one takes the job, he'll have to raise his offer until he can find someone who will.

Why do we have to mandate a minimum wage? Well because history has proven what happens when we don't.

Obviously right now is an employer's market. To say "hey no one will agree to a wage if it is too low is stupid and insulting. If I had no choice and my kids were hungry I would absolutely take a job at Wal Mart at whatever meager pay they were paying, so would tons of other people.

And guess what you sanctimonious ass, there are LOTS of people working minimum wage jobs who have "bettered themselves" but there are no jobs available so they've done the best they could and took what is available. Are you suggesting that they should say "fuck that " and sit at home forcing McD or whomever to offer more to get them off the couch? That's dumb.

And yes, I am suggesting the Republicans (and the Democrats) should try fucking compromising once in awhile, why anyone would find that a bad thing is beyond me.

Really? What history has shown what effect where there was no minimum wage? You're talking out of your ass, no doubt.
Whose fault is it there are no jobs available Under most of Bush's presidency the UE rate was under 5%/ Anyone who wanted to work could. Under Obama there arent as many jobs. The problem is Democratic economic policies, including mn wage.

I have no desire to debate the topic with a simpleton who boils it down to Republican/Democrat

Good evening to you sir.

 

[bripat9643]

This is why I believe the Republicans should push for a $10/hr minimum wage and tell the liberals to shut the fuck up. $7.25 an hour is NOT a reasonable wage, it just isn't. But this "living wage" crap is ridiculous.

Of course if you bump the minimum wage to $10 an hour you better be ready to see all the low skilled barely do enough to get by employees get let go. Companies will not pay that for employees who aren't worth it.

You seem to labor under the illusion that if the GOP agrees to some of the Democrats' demands then they will be good guys again. That's utter bullshit. If the GOP agrees to 10/hr, the Democrats will accuse them of being heartless for not pushing for 15/hr/
7.25 is a reasonable wage. Why do you think it is not? 5/hr is a reasonable wage. 2/hr is a reasonable wage. It just depends on the job and the skil. Why do we have to mandate this anyway? If an employer wants to offer 50cents/hr let him. When no one takes the job, he'll have to raise his offer until he can find someone who will.

Why do we have to mandate a minimum wage? Well because history has proven what happens when we don't.

Obviously right now is an employer's market. To say "hey no one will agree to a wage if it is too low is stupid and insulting. If I had no choice and my kids were hungry I would absolutely take a job at Wal Mart at whatever meager pay they were paying, so would tons of other people.

And guess what you sanctimonious ass, there are LOTS of people working minimum wage jobs who have "bettered themselves" but there are no jobs available so they've done the best they could and took what is available. Are you suggesting that they should say "fuck that " and sit at home forcing McD or whomever to offer more to get them off the couch? That's dumb.

And yes, I am suggesting the Republicans (and the Democrats) should try fucking compromising once in awhile, why anyone would find that a bad thing is beyond me.

Really? What history has shown what effect where there was no minimum wage? You're talking out of your ass, no doubt.
Whose fault is it there are no jobs available Under most of Bush's presidency the UE rate was under 5%/ Anyone who wanted to work could. Under Obama there arent as many jobs. The problem is Democratic economic policies, including mn wage.

I have no desire to debate the topic with a simpleton who boils it down to Republican/Democrat

Good evening to you sir.

That's because you're a Democrat.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

This is why I believe the Republicans should push for a $10/hr minimum wage and tell the liberals to shut the fuck up. $7.25 an hour is NOT a reasonable wage, it just isn't. But this "living wage" crap is ridiculous.

Of course if you bump the minimum wage to $10 an hour you better be ready to see all the low skilled barely do enough to get by employees get let go. Companies will not pay that for employees who aren't worth it.

You seem to labor under the illusion that if the GOP agrees to some of the Democrats' demands then they will be good guys again. That's utter bullshit. If the GOP agrees to 10/hr, the Democrats will accuse them of being heartless for not pushing for 15/hr/
7.25 is a reasonable wage. Why do you think it is not? 5/hr is a reasonable wage. 2/hr is a reasonable wage. It just depends on the job and the skil. Why do we have to mandate this anyway? If an employer wants to offer 50cents/hr let him. When no one takes the job, he'll have to raise his offer until he can find someone who will.

Why do we have to mandate a minimum wage? Well because history has proven what happens when we don't.

Obviously right now is an employer's market. To say "hey no one will agree to a wage if it is too low is stupid and insulting. If I had no choice and my kids were hungry I would absolutely take a job at Wal Mart at whatever meager pay they were paying, so would tons of other people.

And guess what you sanctimonious ass, there are LOTS of people working minimum wage jobs who have "bettered themselves" but there are no jobs available so they've done the best they could and took what is available. Are you suggesting that they should say "fuck that " and sit at home forcing McD or whomever to offer more to get them off the couch? That's dumb.

And yes, I am suggesting the Republicans (and the Democrats) should try fucking compromising once in awhile, why anyone would find that a bad thing is beyond me.

Really? What history has shown what effect where there was no minimum wage? You're talking out of your ass, no doubt.
Whose fault is it there are no jobs available Under most of Bush's presidency the UE rate was under 5%/ Anyone who wanted to work could. Under Obama there arent as many jobs. The problem is Democratic economic policies, including mn wage.

I have no desire to debate the topic with a simpleton who boils it down to Republican/Democrat

Good evening to you sir.

That's because you're a Democrat.

A Democrat who despises Obama and voted Republican in the last two Presidential elections? Who knew............

 

[zeke]

Why doesn't Walmart pay a living wage? Answer: because the owners are greedy and want taxpayers to subsidize their employees.

They don't pay a "living wage" because it not their responsibility to make sure you live to a standard you are comfortable with.

Then it seems like people like you would quit bitching about all those "people" on government assistance.

Every time you bitch about "those people" who are on the government handouts and then defend the low wages they are paid, you are acknowledging just how much of a hypocrite you all are.

You can't have and do both. Accept that a great many working Americans are on government assistance because their income qualifies them for assistance.

or

acknowledge that a great many working Americans are under paid.

But quit bitching about one (those on government assistance) and defending the other (low wages). The one causes the other.

And this ain't Burger King. You don't get it both ways.

Sorry, but those aren't the only two possibilities. Here's a third one:

They are paid exactly what their skills are worth, but they still qualify for government benefits, and no one turns down free money.

If you finally understand what you wrote, THEN QUIT BITCHING ABOUT PEOPLE GETTING GOVERNMENT MONEY. Why should a person not apply for this free money and why should Walmart pay any more that they have to?

You say they are paid what they are worth and that they still qualify for government benefits and you understand how this situation has occurred.

Then why is it something to be bitched about, rehashed and argued about over and over? It is what it is because that's the way we want it. Companies get to pay low wages, the public gets to help support the low wage earner while the low wage earner provides cheap labor to the companies. Who make a fortune for their stockholders and principals. Just the why it ought to be.

Makes sense. Right? Quit bitching about these low wage people on government benefits. You should love them.
They are the reason the Walmarts of the world are making lots of money. Low wages, cheap goods, American consumers/taxpayers . A capitalists dream.

 

[whitehall]

Well what do you know? The Walmart corporation isn't part of the government, it's in it to....gasp..make money and the money they make helps increase the DOW that the radical left loves or hates depending on the political climate. Walmart pays a decent salary to people who would not be employed otherwise. Does the low information left think that the fascist government should determine the salaries of employees? Didn't the freaking left wing Burger King hypocrite Warren Buffet teach the fascist left anything?

 

[zeke]

Well what do you know? The Walmart corporation isn't part of the government, it's in it to....gasp..make money and the money they make helps increase the DOW that the radical left loves or hates depending on the political climate. Walmart pays a decent salary to people who would not be employed otherwise. Does the low information left think that the fascist government should determine the salaries of employees? Didn't the freaking left wing Burger King hypocrite Warren Buffet teach the fascist left anything?

You got a choice. Pay the employees what they make now and quit bitching that they qualify for government benefits, pay the employees enough that they DON'T qualify for government benefits or lower the income levels for qualifying, ie, if some one makes more than 10k a year, they don't qualify for any government benefits.

But what's to argue about? It's one or the other. And the idea of paying the employees more is not going to fly.
And lowering the qualifying income hasn't even been discussed by anyone other than me, so us taxpayers will just keep on helping the Walmarts make a fortune. Cause cheap labor is a real plus in the retail world.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Well what do you know? The Walmart corporation isn't part of the government, it's in it to....gasp..make money and the money they make helps increase the DOW that the radical left loves or hates depending on the political climate. Walmart pays a decent salary to people who would not be employed otherwise. Does the low information left think that the fascist government should determine the salaries of employees? Didn't the freaking left wing Burger King hypocrite Warren Buffet teach the fascist left anything?

You got a choice. Pay the employees what they make now and quit bitching that they qualify for government benefits, pay the employees enough that they DON'T qualify for government benefits or lower the income levels for qualifying, ie, if some one makes more than 10k a year, they don't qualify for any government benefits.

But what's to argue about? It's one or the other. And the idea of paying the employees more is not going to fly.
And lowering the qualifying income hasn't even been discussed by anyone other than me, so us taxpayers will just keep on helping the Walmarts make a fortune. Cause cheap labor is a real plus in the retail world.

I don't see what's so difficult here. You look up the lowest figure a single person with no dependants can make and qualify for welfare, you add $1 then you divide by 2080 hour and bam you your minimum wage . No company can pay you less than that figure. You chose to have kids? too fucking bad you still don't qualify for welfare. Make better choices.