Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Politicians make the decisions on redistribution of money. Walmart pays market wages. That Walmart needs to pay wages based on money government chose to take from someone and give to someone else or it's "corporate welfare" is idiotic.
Corporate welfare is when government takes money earned from someone else and gives it to the corporation, which isn't happening when Walmart pays market wages. Earmarks are an example of actual corporate welfare. So are a lot of laws implemented by both parties to use force to restrict and regulate competition.
Now what if you answer my question. How exactly if you raise wages to $10 an hour are people only worth $7.25 going to get any job? Why would Walmart not fire them and hire better workers since you are forcing them to pay more?
Walmart is reaping the profits from taxpayer subsidized employees. Why does Walmart deserve to have it's payroll subsidized by taxpayers?
I have a solution. Let Walmart continue paying the employees as they are since the wages are equivalent to the skills needed to do those jobs, stop all welfare programs, then the good intentioned, bleeding hearts can prove they are as compassionate as they claim by giving the ones they think need it their money.
Agreed, then Walmart won't be getting "corporate welfare." You in, derideo?
You don't like the more accurate term of "corporate welfare" eh.
Well then lets call it something you will like. How about "government subsidized hourly employees of Walmart"
Is that "better" for you?
Nope. It could only "subsidized" if there was some mandated wage the Walmart was obligated to pay. It's not legally obligated to pay a higher wage, so what legitimate authority is claiming its obligated to pay more?
NoWhen a bank uses up people's savings and then goes bankrupt and did so because of a complete lack of regulation, doesn't this mean that "supply and demand is out of whack"?
Not unless those putting their savings in the bank weren't aware of what the bank was doing. If someone puts their money into some form of investment that, because of a higher risk, can bring a higher return and it goes bad, they made a choice to do what was being supplied. If the investment was being done illegally, yes.
And if it's illegal it's because it's being regulated. So you agree with the need for regulation of companies!
When it comes to things involving unsafe practices such as working conditions. When it comes to what a company pays it's employees, absolutely not.
NoWhen a bank uses up people's savings and then goes bankrupt and did so because of a complete lack of regulation, doesn't this mean that "supply and demand is out of whack"?
Not unless those putting their savings in the bank weren't aware of what the bank was doing. If someone puts their money into some form of investment that, because of a higher risk, can bring a higher return and it goes bad, they made a choice to do what was being supplied. If the investment was being done illegally, yes.
And if it's illegal it's because it's being regulated. So you agree with the need for regulation of companies!
When it comes to things involving unsafe practices such as working conditions. When it comes to what a company pays it's employees, absolutely not.
Nope, not even involving unsafe practices in the workplace. Those case can be handled by the tort process. In fact law suites are the most effective means to get companies to adopt safer practices and technology. Government regulations have had little effect.
What could unions have done to save the jobs lost to foreign countries, like China?
Should American labor have said,
instead of moving all those jobs to China to get labor for a buck an hour, keep them here, and we'll work for a buck an hour...
Really? That's your vision of America.
And the reason that companies are moving to China is... ?
To exploit cheap labor.
When they spend money on iPhone, Nike's, PlayStation and other non-essential items, why should I care if they don't have enough for food?
Well that's a different matter, isn't it?
What could unions have done to save the jobs lost to foreign countries, like China?
Should American labor have said,
instead of moving all those jobs to China to get labor for a buck an hour, keep them here, and we'll work for a buck an hour...
Really? That's your vision of America.
And the reason that companies are moving to China is... ?
To exploit cheap labor.
True. And who created climate for businesses to go abroad?
NoWhen a bank uses up people's savings and then goes bankrupt and did so because of a complete lack of regulation, doesn't this mean that "supply and demand is out of whack"?
Not unless those putting their savings in the bank weren't aware of what the bank was doing. If someone puts their money into some form of investment that, because of a higher risk, can bring a higher return and it goes bad, they made a choice to do what was being supplied. If the investment was being done illegally, yes.
And if it's illegal it's because it's being regulated. So you agree with the need for regulation of companies!
When they spend money on iPhone, Nike's, PlayStation and other non-essential items, why should I care if they don't have enough for food?
Well that's a different matter, isn't it?
Related. They still cry for increase in MW and handouts.
Walker is right in saying that minimum wage jobs are not the jobs wanted or needed in any circumstance. Jobs that pay 3x that per hour at a minimum are the jobs we need. Minimum wage jobs are for students and those who want some extra money for basically only showing up. Frankly minimum wage jobs are meant to have a huge rate of turnover and employers would just as soon not have really good workers doing them.
Walmart is reaping the profits from taxpayer subsidized employees. Why does Walmart deserve to have it's payroll subsidized by taxpayers?
I have a solution. Let Walmart continue paying the employees as they are since the wages are equivalent to the skills needed to do those jobs, stop all welfare programs, then the good intentioned, bleeding hearts can prove they are as compassionate as they claim by giving the ones they think need it their money.
Agreed, then Walmart won't be getting "corporate welfare." You in, derideo?
You don't like the more accurate term of "corporate welfare" eh.
Well then lets call it something you will like. How about "government subsidized hourly employees of Walmart"
Is that "better" for you?
Nope. It could only "subsidized" if there was some mandated wage the Walmart was obligated to pay. It's not legally obligated to pay a higher wage, so what legitimate authority is claiming its obligated to pay more?
If the government is subsidizing, that's a choice the government made. That they want to blame it on Walmart because they think they should be able to tell Walmart what they have to pay someone is their problem.
Conservative65 said:If the government is subsidizing, that's a choice the government made. That they want to blame it on Walmart because they think they should be able to tell Walmart what they have to pay someone is their problem.
What a stupid fuck you are proving to be. Evidently you don't pay ANY tax to the government or you would be pissed that YOUR tax dollars are being used to pay a worker who has a full time job with income so low that they NEED assistance to make it in this mean ole world.
Sounds like chapter and verse out of The Marxist Manifesto. What do you own that wasn't brought to you by way of capitalism? You are using products and services brought to you by a system you hate. I can't imagine what life must be like.The cheap labor in foreign countries, and the mentality of Capitalism.
It has nothing to do with evil greedy unions.
Companies in fact are now leaving China for even cheaper labor in places like Cambodia. Capitalism exploits labor until there's no exploitation opportunity left.
I get a kick out of guys like you, you live off of capitalism while propagandizing how evil it is.
Don't feel bad, I exploit the people. Taking their hard earned money and buying food and stuff for my greedy self. I feel so ashamed!I get a kick out of guys like you, you live off of capitalism while propagandizing how evil it is.
I started a company and funded it. People come to work for me and I ... pay them ... You don't think I'm exploiting them?
I'm curious without companies to work for or for government to plunder how the Marxists think they would live exactly.
NoWhen a bank uses up people's savings and then goes bankrupt and did so because of a complete lack of regulation, doesn't this mean that "supply and demand is out of whack"?
Not unless those putting their savings in the bank weren't aware of what the bank was doing. If someone puts their money into some form of investment that, because of a higher risk, can bring a higher return and it goes bad, they made a choice to do what was being supplied. If the investment was being done illegally, yes.
And if it's illegal it's because it's being regulated. So you agree with the need for regulation of companies!
So you don't believe in ANY regulation at all? No regulation about health and safety for example? No regulation on monopolies, no regulation of swindling people out of money etc etc?
A major free for all?
I get a kick out of guys like you, you live off of capitalism while propagandizing how evil it is.
I started a company and funded it. People come to work for me and I ... pay them ... You don't think I'm exploiting them?
I'm curious without companies to work for or for government to plunder how the Marxists think they would live exactly.
NoWhen a bank uses up people's savings and then goes bankrupt and did so because of a complete lack of regulation, doesn't this mean that "supply and demand is out of whack"?
Not unless those putting their savings in the bank weren't aware of what the bank was doing. If someone puts their money into some form of investment that, because of a higher risk, can bring a higher return and it goes bad, they made a choice to do what was being supplied. If the investment was being done illegally, yes.
And if it's illegal it's because it's being regulated. So you agree with the need for regulation of companies!
So you don't believe in ANY regulation at all? No regulation about health and safety for example? No regulation on monopolies, no regulation of swindling people out of money etc etc?
A major free for all?
You're talking about two different things. Rules for safety are quite different than regulation of day to day functioning. Businesses shouldn't be able to do things to cheat people as that is illegal whether it's a business doing it or not. What a business pays it's employees, what benefits a business has to offer it's employees (i.e. - healthcare), and things like that should not be regulated. They are known factors when the person takes the job. If the person doesn't like what's offered, don't accept.
