Bernie: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

[Cecilie1200]

See, I'm caught on wondering WHY anyone would NEED to justify it.

Because, as has been reiterated numerous times in this thread and others, some of us don't want to pay their taxes for them.

Of course, because we'd rather Wal-Mart go out of business and they have NO job at all.

Maybe that's what you want, but those of us who know how to spell the company name would prefer that when they start closing stores - which they will - better employers such as Costco and WinCo will move into those markets.

Of course they will, and bring with them higher prices. Why do you want to deny the poor of this country access to low cost electronics, food, clothing, and automotive goods?

You don't really think leftists care about the poor, do you? The poor are just markers on the lifesized board game they're playing to make themselves feel good.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wal-Mart doesn't receive SNAP benefits.

And neither does Walmart.

The employees of Walmart, however, are paid so little that they're eligible for SNAP benefits.

Figure that out and we can move forward.

Is it WalMart's fault that their labor isn't worth more, or the employees' fault that their skills aren't good for anything more than running a cash register?

Neither is necessarily the case.

I worked as a supermarket cashier a long time ago, and while I would certainly have liked to make more than I did, honesty compels me to say that the pay was commensurate with the job. I didn't deal with my low income by pissing and moaning and demanding that the market pay me as though I was doing more than swiping bar codes and punching buttons; I got a better job.

So Walmart wasn't the only employer in your area? You were lucky. If you look at a map of where many Walmarts are located, you'll see they've pushed out every little grocery store, service station, hardware store, garden supply store, appliance store, etc., etc., until they're all there is. That's their business model.

But, hey, thanks for finally addressing the content of one of my posts instead of resorting to your usual fly-by. I appreciate that.

Oh, whatever. "Ehrmagerd, there's a WalMart. That means they're the ONLY STORE IN THE AREA!"

What part of "supermarket" was too difficult for your peabrain to grasp, fucknut? Too many syllables?

Their business model is to establish stores in areas with enough population to sustain the store's profit margin. Like every other successful business.

There is nothing inherently superior or moral about small businesses, dumbass. While they make up the majority of businesses in America, and we certainly want entrepreneurs to open them, they have no value if they cannot fill a need sufficiently and efficiently enough to sustain themselves without having to fall back on "you're immoral if you don't shop here" pity marketing.

 

[Arianrhod]

WalMart not only pays taxes that go to those people's SNAP benefits, but it ALSO provides them gainful employment to go along with them.

That's backwards. First they say "We'll pay you $<$8 an hour and designate you as part-time so there are no benefits, take it or leave it. We know you've got to take it because it's a 40-mile drive to the next town and - guess what! - we're the only employer in that town, too!"

Then the employee applies for SNAP, the cost of which is passed on to the middle-class people in the state, because the Waltons live somewhere else. And they get these billion-dollar income tax breaks every year, which the middle-class taxpayer also absorbs.

If you've got stats to the contrary, I'd love to see them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Costco is a luxury retailer by comparison, the Neiman Marcus of the discount space.

In nearly every story written today about retail in general, and Walmart in particular, this idea that people should just shop at Costco comes up in the comments section. It’s a nice thought, but not a realistic one.

For the more than 15 percent of the U.S. population that lives at or below the poverty line, those membership fees stands between them and the more social conscious retail choice, as does the higher total prices paid

They simply don't have the money all in a lump sum to purchase things in bulk, nor do they usually have the space to store it. Rental housing generally isn't the roomiest living space in the world.

 

[Arianrhod]

See, I'm caught on wondering WHY anyone would NEED to justify it.

Because, as has been reiterated numerous times in this thread and others, some of us don't want to pay their taxes for them.

Of course, because we'd rather Wal-Mart go out of business and they have NO job at all.

Maybe that's what you want, but those of us who know how to spell the company name would prefer that when they start closing stores - which they will - better employers such as Costco and WinCo will move into those markets.

Of course they will, and bring with them higher prices. Why do you want to deny the poor of this country access to low cost electronics, food, clothing, and automotive goods?

You don't really think leftists care about the poor, do you? The poor are just markers on the lifesized board game they're playing to make themselves feel good.

Ah, well, you managed a whole five minutes of civility before another relapse into Stereotype City.

 

[Arianrhod]

Wal-Mart doesn't receive SNAP benefits.

And neither does Walmart.

The employees of Walmart, however, are paid so little that they're eligible for SNAP benefits.

Figure that out and we can move forward.

Is it WalMart's fault that their labor isn't worth more, or the employees' fault that their skills aren't good for anything more than running a cash register?

Neither is necessarily the case.

I worked as a supermarket cashier a long time ago, and while I would certainly have liked to make more than I did, honesty compels me to say that the pay was commensurate with the job. I didn't deal with my low income by pissing and moaning and demanding that the market pay me as though I was doing more than swiping bar codes and punching buttons; I got a better job.

So Walmart wasn't the only employer in your area? You were lucky. If you look at a map of where many Walmarts are located, you'll see they've pushed out every little grocery store, service station, hardware store, garden supply store, appliance store, etc., etc., until they're all there is. That's their business model.

But, hey, thanks for finally addressing the content of one of my posts instead of resorting to your usual fly-by. I appreciate that.

Oh, whatever. "Ehrmagerd, there's a WalMart. That means they're the ONLY STORE IN THE AREA!"

You have evidence to the contrary? Present it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

WalMart not only pays taxes that go to those people's SNAP benefits, but it ALSO provides them gainful employment to go along with them.

That's backwards. First they say "We'll pay you $<$8 an hour and designate you as part-time so there are no benefits, take it or leave it. We know you've got to take it because it's a 40-mile drive to the next town and - guess what! - we're the only employer in that town, too!"

Then the employee applies for SNAP, the cost of which is passed on to the middle-class people in the state, because the Waltons live somewhere else. And they get these billion-dollar income tax breaks every year, which the middle-class taxpayer also absorbs.

If you've got stats to the contrary, I'd love to see them.

WalMart hires employees according to their needs, like any other successful business. About half their employees are full-time, and the other half are part-time, assigned according to when they're needed. Shockingly, their purpose is to make sure the store is staffed sufficiently, not to give people money to stand around. Not only is retail by its very nature a low-income proposition, it is also a low and unreliable hours proposition. WalMart is certainly not unique to this.

If you don't like the growing underemployed class in this country, perhaps you should have thought of that before you advocated government policies that created disincentives to full-time employment. We told you exactly how it was going to play out, and you lefties told us we were imagining things. Now that we've been proven right, you want to blame people for reacting in a perfectly normal fashion, rather than yourselves for being too stupid to realize what the normal reaction would be.

Your lack of foresight is no one's fault but yours.

And please keep in mind, we are talking about jobs that were never intended to be someone's lifetime career.

 

[Rustic]

It's has to feel extremely cowardly to be envious towards others all the time, I would not know, I guess I just don't understand.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because, as has been reiterated numerous times in this thread and others, some of us don't want to pay their taxes for them.

Of course, because we'd rather Wal-Mart go out of business and they have NO job at all.

Maybe that's what you want, but those of us who know how to spell the company name would prefer that when they start closing stores - which they will - better employers such as Costco and WinCo will move into those markets.

Of course they will, and bring with them higher prices. Why do you want to deny the poor of this country access to low cost electronics, food, clothing, and automotive goods?

You don't really think leftists care about the poor, do you? The poor are just markers on the lifesized board game they're playing to make themselves feel good.

Ah, well, you managed a whole five minutes of civility before another relapse into Stereotype City.

Fuckstain, you get the civility you deserve, and you personally don't deserve the effort it would take for me to piss on you, if it required crossing the street first.

Be glad I'm deigning to even notice that you're still breathing. Take the compliment and stop interrupting the grownups.

 

[Arianrhod]

Of course, because we'd rather Wal-Mart go out of business and they have NO job at all.

Maybe that's what you want, but those of us who know how to spell the company name would prefer that when they start closing stores - which they will - better employers such as Costco and WinCo will move into those markets.

Of course they will, and bring with them higher prices. Why do you want to deny the poor of this country access to low cost electronics, food, clothing, and automotive goods?

You don't really think leftists care about the poor, do you? The poor are just markers on the lifesized board game they're playing to make themselves feel good.

Ah, well, you managed a whole five minutes of civility before another relapse into Stereotype City.

Fuckstain, you get the civility you deserve, and you personally don't deserve the effort it would take for me to piss on you, if it required crossing the street first.

Be glad I'm deigning to even notice that you're still breathing. Take the compliment and stop interrupting the grownups.

"Zone 2: Political Forum / Israel and Palestine Forum / Race Relations/Racism Forum / Religion & Ethics Forum / Environment Forum: Baiting and polarizing OP's (Opening Posts), and thread titles risk the thread either being moved or trashed. Keep it relevant, choose wisely. Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject, in addition to any flame. No trolling. No hit and run flames. No hijacking or derailing threads."

 

[Missouri_Mike]

None of Walton's heirs are worth $50 billion.

Good point. There are six of them divvying up the $144.7 billion, but can you show where they're each receiving an equal amount?

She opposes the minimum wage because it's bad for the people it claims to help.

The rationalization for this should be fascinating...

Christy is the richest of them, and she only has $25 billion, not $50 billion.

Only $25 billion? Poor dear, how does she manage?

Now, about this:

She opposes the minimum wage because it's bad for the people it claims to help.

You can always count on a lib to fail to get the point. They think acting stupid is a winning debate strategy.

Your point was quite clear. You worship the wealthy, facts be damned.

Your precious princess's company is tanking. You should offer to let her crash on your couch when things get really ugly.

Nobody worships rich people, they do respect what they have done. And want the same chance of doing the same. If Walmart is tanking isn't that what you left wing retards wanted? How much better off would poor people be without affordable food and clothing?

You left wing people are idiots. You hate Walmart but at the same time you want the government to become Walmart. The only problem is the government can't even do what they do.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Maybe that's what you want, but those of us who know how to spell the company name would prefer that when they start closing stores - which they will - better employers such as Costco and WinCo will move into those markets.

Of course they will, and bring with them higher prices. Why do you want to deny the poor of this country access to low cost electronics, food, clothing, and automotive goods?

You don't really think leftists care about the poor, do you? The poor are just markers on the lifesized board game they're playing to make themselves feel good.

Ah, well, you managed a whole five minutes of civility before another relapse into Stereotype City.

Fuckstain, you get the civility you deserve, and you personally don't deserve the effort it would take for me to piss on you, if it required crossing the street first.

Be glad I'm deigning to even notice that you're still breathing. Take the compliment and stop interrupting the grownups.

"Zone 2: Political Forum / Israel and Palestine Forum / Race Relations/Racism Forum / Religion & Ethics Forum / Environment Forum: Baiting and polarizing OP's (Opening Posts), and thread titles risk the thread either being moved or trashed. Keep it relevant, choose wisely. Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject, in addition to any flame. No trolling. No hit and run flames. No hijacking or derailing threads."

You're a ****.

 

[Arianrhod]

Good point. There are six of them divvying up the $144.7 billion, but can you show where they're each receiving an equal amount?

The rationalization for this should be fascinating...

Christy is the richest of them, and she only has $25 billion, not $50 billion.

Only $25 billion? Poor dear, how does she manage?

Now, about this:

She opposes the minimum wage because it's bad for the people it claims to help.

You can always count on a lib to fail to get the point. They think acting stupid is a winning debate strategy.

Your point was quite clear. You worship the wealthy, facts be damned.

Your precious princess's company is tanking. You should offer to let her crash on your couch when things get really ugly.

Nobody worships rich people, they do respect what they have done.

I respect what Sam Walton did. I think it's a crying shame that his grandchildren, who have never worked a day in their lives, are tarnishing his legacy. Why don't you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wal-Mart doesn't receive SNAP benefits.

And neither does Walmart.

The employees of Walmart, however, are paid so little that they're eligible for SNAP benefits.

Figure that out and we can move forward.

Is it WalMart's fault that their labor isn't worth more, or the employees' fault that their skills aren't good for anything more than running a cash register?

Neither is necessarily the case.

I worked as a supermarket cashier a long time ago, and while I would certainly have liked to make more than I did, honesty compels me to say that the pay was commensurate with the job. I didn't deal with my low income by pissing and moaning and demanding that the market pay me as though I was doing more than swiping bar codes and punching buttons; I got a better job.

So Walmart wasn't the only employer in your area? You were lucky. If you look at a map of where many Walmarts are located, you'll see they've pushed out every little grocery store, service station, hardware store, garden supply store, appliance store, etc., etc., until they're all there is. That's their business model.

But, hey, thanks for finally addressing the content of one of my posts instead of resorting to your usual fly-by. I appreciate that.

Oh, whatever. "Ehrmagerd, there's a WalMart. That means they're the ONLY STORE IN THE AREA!"

You have evidence to the contrary? Present it.

It's called common sense, which I realize means that you are excluded.

WalMart doesn't move into areas that aren't populous enough to have other stores. There's not enough profit. They aren't just positioning stores by throwing darts at a map. They choose communities based on population, stores currently present, and how many people in that community travel to nearby WalMarts in other communities to shop, among other things.

For example, I grew up in a small town in eastern New Mexico. This was just before the rise of WalMart. Most of the time I spent there, the town had no big box stores, three supermarkets (small ones), and a main street full of small businesses, most of which were priced out of the reach of the poorer people in town. Serious shopping was done by driving to one of the two larger towns about a half-hour drive away in opposite directions.

When WalMart started taking off, they opened their first store in that area in the largest of the three towns, then one in the second-largest a few years later. By the time the town I grew up in got a WalMart, it had acquired a KMart and two large supermarkets, among other larger retailers.

Yes, some of the small businesses closed. The ones that survived did so by adapting to fill a need that no one else was filling, just like every other successful business in history.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Christy is the richest of them, and she only has $25 billion, not $50 billion.

Only $25 billion? Poor dear, how does she manage?

Now, about this:

She opposes the minimum wage because it's bad for the people it claims to help.

You can always count on a lib to fail to get the point. They think acting stupid is a winning debate strategy.

Your point was quite clear. You worship the wealthy, facts be damned.

Your precious princess's company is tanking. You should offer to let her crash on your couch when things get really ugly.

Nobody worships rich people, they do respect what they have done.

I respect what Sam Walton did. I think it's a crying shame that his grandchildren, who have never worked a day in their lives, are tarnishing his legacy. Why don't you?

Maybe because we understand the difference between "my business" and "not my business". Sam Walton's legacy is of no concern to me whatsoever, except to the extent that I shop in the stores. Never knew the guy. The money was made legally, it was inherited legally, it does not belong to me and never has, and I do not waste time coveting what others have.

 

[Rustic]

Christy is the richest of them, and she only has $25 billion, not $50 billion.

Only $25 billion? Poor dear, how does she manage?

Now, about this:

She opposes the minimum wage because it's bad for the people it claims to help.

You can always count on a lib to fail to get the point. They think acting stupid is a winning debate strategy.

Your point was quite clear. You worship the wealthy, facts be damned.

Your precious princess's company is tanking. You should offer to let her crash on your couch when things get really ugly.

Nobody worships rich people, they do respect what they have done.

I respect what Sam Walton did. I think it's a crying shame that his grandchildren, who have never worked a day in their lives, are tarnishing his legacy. Why don't you?

It's a crying shame, people let envy do all their thinking for them, cowards...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Maybe that's what you want, but those of us who know how to spell the company name would prefer that when they start closing stores - which they will - better employers such as Costco and WinCo will move into those markets.

Of course they will, and bring with them higher prices. Why do you want to deny the poor of this country access to low cost electronics, food, clothing, and automotive goods?

You don't really think leftists care about the poor, do you? The poor are just markers on the lifesized board game they're playing to make themselves feel good.

Ah, well, you managed a whole five minutes of civility before another relapse into Stereotype City.

Fuckstain, you get the civility you deserve, and you personally don't deserve the effort it would take for me to piss on you, if it required crossing the street first.

Be glad I'm deigning to even notice that you're still breathing. Take the compliment and stop interrupting the grownups.

"Zone 2: Political Forum / Israel and Palestine Forum / Race Relations/Racism Forum / Religion & Ethics Forum / Environment Forum: Baiting and polarizing OP's (Opening Posts), and thread titles risk the thread either being moved or trashed. Keep it relevant, choose wisely. Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject, in addition to any flame. No trolling. No hit and run flames. No hijacking or derailing threads."

If you want to whine to someone, go report me. If you want to tell me what and how to post, consider yourself cordially invited to piss off.

Try not diverging from the topic to personally attack people if you're too big a pantywaist to handle the response.

Topic closed. Moving back to the topic of the thread, and also back to ignoring your worthless, disruptive posts.

 

[Arianrhod]

And neither does Walmart.

The employees of Walmart, however, are paid so little that they're eligible for SNAP benefits.

Figure that out and we can move forward.

Is it WalMart's fault that their labor isn't worth more, or the employees' fault that their skills aren't good for anything more than running a cash register?

Neither is necessarily the case.

I worked as a supermarket cashier a long time ago, and while I would certainly have liked to make more than I did, honesty compels me to say that the pay was commensurate with the job. I didn't deal with my low income by pissing and moaning and demanding that the market pay me as though I was doing more than swiping bar codes and punching buttons; I got a better job.

So Walmart wasn't the only employer in your area? You were lucky. If you look at a map of where many Walmarts are located, you'll see they've pushed out every little grocery store, service station, hardware store, garden supply store, appliance store, etc., etc., until they're all there is. That's their business model.

But, hey, thanks for finally addressing the content of one of my posts instead of resorting to your usual fly-by. I appreciate that.

Oh, whatever. "Ehrmagerd, there's a WalMart. That means they're the ONLY STORE IN THE AREA!"

You have evidence to the contrary? Present it.

It's called common sense, which I realize means that you are excluded.

WalMart doesn't move into areas that aren't populous enough to have other stores. There's not enough profit. They aren't just positioning stores by throwing darts at a map. They choose communities based on population, stores currently present, and how many people in that community travel to nearby WalMarts in other communities to shop, among other things.

For example, I grew up in a small town in eastern New Mexico. This was just before the rise of WalMart. Most of the time I spent there, the town had no big box stores, three supermarkets (small ones), and a main street full of small businesses, most of which were priced out of the reach of the poorer people in town. Serious shopping was done by driving to one of the two larger towns about a half-hour drive away in opposite directions.

When WalMart started taking off, they opened their first store in that area in the largest of the three towns, then one in the second-largest a few years later. By the time the town I grew up in got a WalMart, it had acquired a KMart and two large supermarkets, among other larger retailers.

Yes, some of the small businesses closed. The ones that survived did so by adapting to fill a need that no one else was filling, just like every other successful business in history.

Didn't realize you had so much detailed knowledge of the Walmart history. Would love to see your research. If you can show me exact figures, you might change my mind.

 

[Arianrhod]

Only $25 billion? Poor dear, how does she manage?

Now, about this:

You can always count on a lib to fail to get the point. They think acting stupid is a winning debate strategy.

Your point was quite clear. You worship the wealthy, facts be damned.

Your precious princess's company is tanking. You should offer to let her crash on your couch when things get really ugly.

Nobody worships rich people, they do respect what they have done.

I respect what Sam Walton did. I think it's a crying shame that his grandchildren, who have never worked a day in their lives, are tarnishing his legacy. Why don't you?

It's a crying shame, people let envy do all their thinking for them, cowards...

Not sure if it's envy exactly, but posts like this:

You can always count on a lib to fail to get the point. They think acting stupid is a winning debate strategy.

certainly don't enhance communication. I believe he's one of yours. What can you do to help him become more flexible?

 

[Arianrhod]

Of course they will, and bring with them higher prices. Why do you want to deny the poor of this country access to low cost electronics, food, clothing, and automotive goods?

You don't really think leftists care about the poor, do you? The poor are just markers on the lifesized board game they're playing to make themselves feel good.

Ah, well, you managed a whole five minutes of civility before another relapse into Stereotype City.

Fuckstain, you get the civility you deserve, and you personally don't deserve the effort it would take for me to piss on you, if it required crossing the street first.

Be glad I'm deigning to even notice that you're still breathing. Take the compliment and stop interrupting the grownups.

"Zone 2: Political Forum / Israel and Palestine Forum / Race Relations/Racism Forum / Religion & Ethics Forum / Environment Forum: Baiting and polarizing OP's (Opening Posts), and thread titles risk the thread either being moved or trashed. Keep it relevant, choose wisely. Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject, in addition to any flame. No trolling. No hit and run flames. No hijacking or derailing threads."

Try not diverging from the topic to personally attack people...

I didn't realize the Waltons posted here. I'll try to be more considerate of their widdle feelings from now on.

Topic closed. Moving back to the topic of the thread.

Good. Glad you saw the wisdom of dialing back on the tantrums.

So tell us more about your intimate relationship with the Walton family.