Walmart subsidizes the U.S. government's welfare program to a tune of. $15,080 per employee a year

[Dragonlady]

Yes but nobody can live working at walmart full time. Cant buy a house and car etc.

That's not Walmart's responsibility.

Yes it is. If you need the government to subsidize your workers' pay in order to survive, you shouldn't be in business.

It is not the government's place to provide aid to people with full time jobs.

I can see government breaks for new startups in their first two years of operation, but after that, companies should be paying their own way.

Under no circumstances should large profitable corporations' employees be receiving government assistance on any sort of regular or permanent basis.

 

[hadit]

$7;25×40×52=15,080

According to MSNBC the US government then kicks in another $5,800
None


So if walmart didn't exists the us welfare system would be paying 20 grand per person instead of 6 grand per person.

Worst spin attempt ever.

Prove me wrong...

Walmart solely exist to support th US government welfare program...

What else could it be?

If you don't think the fed govt should set a minimum level of benefits, just have the balls to say so

If government wants everyone to have a minimum level of benefits, than government should supply those benefits. Quit trying to force business to do it. In fact, the whole concept of benefits came about when government capped what companies could pay their employees. Benefits were a way around the caps.

what cap on wages? I was merely saying that anyone who opposes min wage should have the balls to say they oppose it.

Government should stay out of business to the greatest extent possible. That's what I'm saying. If society wants a minimal standard of living for everyone than don't try to force business to provide it.

 

[hadit]

Yes but nobody can live working at walmart full time. Cant buy a house and car etc.

That's not Walmart's responsibility.

Yes it is. If you need the government to subsidize your workers' pay in order to survive, you shouldn't be in business.

It is not the government's place to provide aid to people with full time jobs.

I can see government breaks for new startups in their first two years of operation, but after that, companies should be paying their own way.

Under no circumstances should large profitable corporations' employers be receiving government assistance.

On the contrary, if society decrees that all shall receive a minimal standard of living, than society should provide said standard. Working would then allow you to increase that standard. Business should not be forced to do what society won't.

 

[Dekster]

Yes but nobody can live working at walmart full time. Cant buy a house and car etc.

That's not Walmart's responsibility.

It also isn't true. The single, entry-level people may not be able to, but Walmart employees certainly own houses. Some of these people are just empty-nesters or moms looking for a few hours a week who voluntarily underemployed. The one thing since Walmart and Sam's opened in my area, you never see a want ad for an employee at either of them. They have a waiting list of people wanting to work for them.

 

[hadit]

Yes but nobody can live working at walmart full time. Cant buy a house and car etc.

That's not Walmart's responsibility.

It also isn't true. The single, entry-level people may not be able to, but Walmart employees certainly own houses. Some of these people are just empty-nesters or moms looking for a few hours a week who voluntarily underemployed. The one thing since Walmart and Sam's opened in my area, you never see a want ad for an employee at either of them. They have a waiting list of people wanting to work for them.

When every job has to pay an artificially high wage, those not needing that high a wage or working for a different reason are priced out of the market. My brother in law apprenticed himself to a cabinet maker for two years, then became one of the most successful businesses in his home state. They would make that virtually impossible today.

 

[Dragonlady]

When every job has to pay an artificially high wage, those not needing that high a wage or working for a different reason are priced out of the market. My brother in law apprenticed himself to a cabinet maker for two years, then became one of the most successful businesses in his home state. They would make that virtually impossible today.

Wrong. Apprenticeship programs are the one area of employment where wages should be subsidized, because the employer is also teaching the worker and imparting a skill. In Canada, the government pays all or part of the wages for apprentices to encourage skilled trades people to train others.

Walmart, McDonald's and similar corporations are simply taking advantage of the overly large pool of low skill workers who lost their manufacturing jobs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes it is. If you need the government to subsidize your workers' pay in order to survive, you shouldn't be in business.

It is not the government's place to provide aid to people with full time jobs.

I can see government breaks for new startups in their first two years of operation, but after that, companies should be paying their own way.

Under no circumstances should large profitable corporations' employees be receiving government assistance on any sort of regular or permanent basis.

Then complain about the government--not the business. The business has nothing to do with what government does.

 

[CowboyTed]

$7;25×40×52=15,080

According to MSNBC the US government then kicks in another $5,800
None


So if walmart didn't exists the us welfare system would be paying 20 grand per person instead of 6 grand per person.

Your thread title is ass backwards. Taxpayers subsidize Walmart because they're too cheap to pay a living wage.

The problem with your theory is that the taxpayers aren't obligate to pay Walmart workers a damn thing.

No, we could just let them starve and not have any access to healthcare. Is that compassionate Conservatism?

Compassion is providing a free K-12 education. To bad so many people waste that opportunity. Not to mention the trillions of dollars a year in handouts. Add up of the State and Federal programs to assist the poor. We spend more than any country on the poor.

Per Capita not even close... Not even in the ball park... Just saying that is completely naive

 

[Wyatt earp]

$7;25×40×52=15,080

According to MSNBC the US government then kicks in another $5,800
None


So if walmart didn't exists the us welfare system would be paying 20 grand per person instead of 6 grand per person.

Worst spin attempt ever.

Prove me wrong...

Walmart solely exist to support th US government welfare program...

What else could it be?

If you don't think the fed govt should set a minimum level of benefits, just have the balls to say so

Well the way I figure their set minimum is around 20 grand a year..so again walmart is subsidizing the US government welfare program....

 

[Dragonlady]

Yes it is. If you need the government to subsidize your workers' pay in order to survive, you shouldn't be in business.

It is not the government's place to provide aid to people with full time jobs.

I can see government breaks for new startups in their first two years of operation, but after that, companies should be paying their own way.

Under no circumstances should large profitable corporations' employees be receiving government assistance on any sort of regular or permanent basis.

Then complain about the government--not the business. The business has nothing to do with what government does.

The government isn't encouraging their workers to apply for government assistance WALMART IS.

While not illegal, it is highly immoral to pay your workers less than you can afford to pay them and pad your profits at the taxpayers' expense. Greedy, Selfish, and arrogant too.

That YOU think they're doing nothing wrong, shows your ignorance.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yes it is. If you need the government to subsidize your workers' pay in order to survive, you shouldn't be in business.

It is not the government's place to provide aid to people with full time jobs.

I can see government breaks for new startups in their first two years of operation, but after that, companies should be paying their own way.

Under no circumstances should large profitable corporations' employees be receiving government assistance on any sort of regular or permanent basis.

Then complain about the government--not the business. The business has nothing to do with what government does.

The government isn't encouraging their workers to apply for government assistance WALMART IS.

While not illegal, it is highly immoral to pay your workers less than you can afford to pay them and pad your profits at the taxpayers' expense. Greedy, Selfish, and arrogant too.

That YOU think they're doing nothing wrong, shows your ignorance.

What? What company like walmart wouldn't care enough for their employees to learn about tax loop holes and free money from the government?

 

[Dragonlady]

What? What company like walmart wouldn't care enough for their employees to learn about tax loop holes and free money from the government?

If they cared about their employees, they'd pay them a fair wage. That people as rich as the Walton's would exploit their workers in this way is shameful. That you see nothing wrong with these practices, shows how ignorant you are. This is a classic example of what government SHOULDN'T be doing, and yet Walmart lobbied to continue these practices for years.

To their credit, they've stopped doing this, in no small part due to people constantly talking about it in the press and in social media.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If they cared about their employees, they'd pay them a fair wage. That people as rich as the Walton's would exploit their workers in this way is shameful. That you see nothing wrong with these practices, shows how ignorant you are. This is a classic example of what government SHOULDN'T be doing, and yet Walmart lobbied to continue these practices for years.

To their credit, they've stopped doing this, in no small part due to people constantly talking about it in the press and in social media.

How is providing jobs that people want exploiting anybody? That's like buying a new car today for a price that you are satisfied with, and then somebody saying you were exploited by the car dealership. Especially when all the other dealerships were charging around the same price as the dealership you purchase your car from.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes it is. If you need the government to subsidize your workers' pay in order to survive, you shouldn't be in business.

It is not the government's place to provide aid to people with full time jobs.

I can see government breaks for new startups in their first two years of operation, but after that, companies should be paying their own way.

Under no circumstances should large profitable corporations' employees be receiving government assistance on any sort of regular or permanent basis.

Then complain about the government--not the business. The business has nothing to do with what government does.

The government isn't encouraging their workers to apply for government assistance WALMART IS.

While not illegal, it is highly immoral to pay your workers less than you can afford to pay them and pad your profits at the taxpayers' expense. Greedy, Selfish, and arrogant too.

That YOU think they're doing nothing wrong, shows your ignorance.

So if they make any profit above zero they are immoral? What do you think a "just" level of profit is, 10%? 5%? 0%?

since everyone who works at Walmart is there voluntarily, how are they doing anything immoral? What is your definition of "moral?" What is the arbitrary number that makes one rate of pay moral and another immoral? What is the basis for drawing this line?

 

[bripat9643]

What? What company like walmart wouldn't care enough for their employees to learn about tax loop holes and free money from the government?

If they cared about their employees, they'd pay them a fair wage. That people as rich as the Walton's would exploit their workers in this way is shameful. That you see nothing wrong with these practices, shows how ignorant you are. This is a classic example of what government SHOULDN'T be doing, and yet Walmart lobbied to continue these practices for years.

To their credit, they've stopped doing this, in no small part due to people constantly talking about it in the press and in social media.

The word "exploit" is meaningless leftist twaddle. We all exploit each other. I exploit my employer and he exploits me. You claim paying a wage to someone who takes it voluntarily is immoral? How so? What ethical principle does it violate? What "practices" did Walmart lobby to continue? The same practices that every other business engages in?

 

[bripat9643]

When every job has to pay an artificially high wage, those not needing that high a wage or working for a different reason are priced out of the market. My brother in law apprenticed himself to a cabinet maker for two years, then became one of the most successful businesses in his home state. They would make that virtually impossible today.

Wrong. Apprenticeship programs are the one area of employment where wages should be subsidized, because the employer is also teaching the worker and imparting a skill. In Canada, the government pays all or part of the wages for apprentices to encourage skilled trades people to train others.

Walmart, McDonald's and similar corporations are simply taking advantage of the overly large pool of low skill workers who lost their manufacturing jobs.

You can blame the Dims for people losing their manufacturing jobs. Obama and Hillary gave all the jobs away to low wage labor imported from third world countries.

Subsidizing apprenticeships is a way to subsidize unions. Democrats love that because then they get the union vote. It's just another vote buying scam.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So if they make any profit above zero they are immoral? What do you think a "just" level of profit is, 10%? 5%? 0%?

since everyone who works at Walmart is there voluntarily, how are they doing anything immoral? What is your definition of "moral?" What is the arbitrary number that makes one rate of pay moral and another immoral? What is the basis for drawing this line?

Because libs believe that company owners, CEO's, and investors should all share the wealth they've made with the company with the employees.

For a lib, forget about what the job is worth. That's meaningless. Forget about the fact they can pay wages and still attract willing workers. Again, meaningless to a lib. Forget the fact that companies heavily rely on investors, and investors put their money where the best growth is. Meaningless to a liberal.

What matters is that owners, CEO's and investors live the same lifestyle as the workers.....or perhaps just slightly better. To live much better is immoral as far as liberals are concerned.

"Just how much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

 

[bripat9643]

So if they make any profit above zero they are immoral? What do you think a "just" level of profit is, 10%? 5%? 0%?

since everyone who works at Walmart is there voluntarily, how are they doing anything immoral? What is your definition of "moral?" What is the arbitrary number that makes one rate of pay moral and another immoral? What is the basis for drawing this line?

Because libs believe that company owners, CEO's, and investors should all share the wealth they've made with the company with the employees.

For a lib, forget about what the job is worth. That's meaningless. Forget about the fact they can pay wages and still attract willing workers. Again, meaningless to a lib. Forget the fact that companies heavily rely on investors, and investors put their money where the best growth is. Meaningless to a liberal.

What matters is that owners, CEO's and investors live the same lifestyle as the workers.....or perhaps just slightly better. To live much better is immoral as far as liberals are concerned.

"Just how much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

Company owners, CEO's, and investors do share the wealth with their employees. That's why they get a wage or a salary. But the greedy socialists think the workers are entitled to all of it.

 

[Dragonlady]

So if they make any profit above zero they are immoral? What do you think a "just" level of profit is, 10%? 5%? 0%?

since everyone who works at Walmart is there voluntarily, how are they doing anything immoral? What is your definition of "moral?" What is the arbitrary number that makes one rate of pay moral and another immoral? What is the basis for drawing this line?

Because libs believe that company owners, CEO's, and investors should all share the wealth they've made with the company with the employees.

For a lib, forget about what the job is worth. That's meaningless. Forget about the fact they can pay wages and still attract willing workers. Again, meaningless to a lib. Forget the fact that companies heavily rely on investors, and investors put their money where the best growth is. Meaningless to a liberal.

What matters is that owners, CEO's and investors live the same lifestyle as the workers.....or perhaps just slightly better. To live much better is immoral as far as liberals are concerned.

"Just how much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

The Walmart employees worked for that money. Walmart was, at the time, the second most profitable company in America. That profit was made on the labour of Walmart Employees. To suggest that the employees don't deserve their fair share of such profit, is to promote feudalism.

 

[bripat9643]

So if they make any profit above zero they are immoral? What do you think a "just" level of profit is, 10%? 5%? 0%?

since everyone who works at Walmart is there voluntarily, how are they doing anything immoral? What is your definition of "moral?" What is the arbitrary number that makes one rate of pay moral and another immoral? What is the basis for drawing this line?

Because libs believe that company owners, CEO's, and investors should all share the wealth they've made with the company with the employees.

For a lib, forget about what the job is worth. That's meaningless. Forget about the fact they can pay wages and still attract willing workers. Again, meaningless to a lib. Forget the fact that companies heavily rely on investors, and investors put their money where the best growth is. Meaningless to a liberal.

What matters is that owners, CEO's and investors live the same lifestyle as the workers.....or perhaps just slightly better. To live much better is immoral as far as liberals are concerned.

"Just how much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

The Walmart employees worked for that money. Walmart was, at the time, the second most profitable company in America. That profit was made on the labour of Walmart Employees. To suggest that the employees don't deserve their fair share of such profit, is to promote feudalism.

Employees don't deserve any of the profit. They agreed to work for a wage. If the want part of the profit, then they can buy stock in the company. Feudalism is where the employees are property. They are virtual slaves. Capitalism is where you are free to contract your labor to whomever you want to sell it to.

You obviously don't know jack shit about economics, and your moral theories are obvious horseshit based purely on your hatred of rich people.