Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well, maybe we can start at the point they no longer need public assistanceThe Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
Watch the video.
$300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees. Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods. One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?
Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"
Won't happen. The Earned Income Tax Credit saw a growth in single mom's going to work part-time and Walmart is happy to hire such people, unlike many businesses. If you increase wages to what those people would need to support themselves and their families today, then prices would go up so high (or the purchasing power of a dollar go so low, whichever you prefer) that it becomes a wash and those people stay on the dole.
Sort of... the way the rules work the feds don't care if you get paid 500 an hour. What they care about is you don't earn more than the minimum amount necessary to receive welfare checks. Thus giving part time employees a raise from 7.50 to 15 bucks an hour would just mean the part time employees would stop working at 15 hours instead of stopping at 30hrs as any work over 15hrs would mean they loose their welfare checks.
True. Never understood why we have minimum wages at all, but even more so do not understand why you would have them and they not be tied to an index. I mean what's the point? To keep it political every election?Well, maybe we can start at the point they no longer need public assistanceThe Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
Watch the video.
$300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees. Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods. One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?
Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"
Won't happen. The Earned Income Tax Credit saw a growth in single mom's going to work part-time and Walmart is happy to hire such people, unlike many businesses. If you increase wages to what those people would need to support themselves and their families today, then prices would go up so high (or the purchasing power of a dollar go so low, whichever you prefer) that it becomes a wash and those people stay on the dole.
Sort of... the way the rules work the feds don't care if you get paid 500 an hour. What they care about is you don't earn more than the minimum amount necessary to receive welfare checks. Thus giving part time employees a raise from 7.50 to 15 bucks an hour would just mean the part time employees would stop working at 15 hours instead of stopping at 30hrs as any work over 15hrs would mean they loose their welfare checks.
More likely the programs would just reindex to the new higher COL. It isn't like all the employees in those government agencies are going to be like "Yeah we solved poverty. Last person out the door, please turn out the lights."
True. Never understood why we have minimum wages at all, but even more so do not understand why you would have them and they not be tied to an index. I mean what's the point? To keep it political every election?
I'm not sure I'd say they are being less effective at the state level. At the state level minimums make no sense for conservative states where the cost of living is low and the unemployment is also low and economies are booming. Why screw things up by switching to socialism? My only point was that the socialists/communists should have gone for lower minimums with an index. Then raised the percentage vs the index without moving the requirement for the index. Why were the socialists so dumb? Or... is it that the socialists don't really give a shit about minimum wages and really just wanted to use them as a voting gimmick each election season.True. Never understood why we have minimum wages at all, but even more so do not understand why you would have them and they not be tied to an index. I mean what's the point? To keep it political every election?
The problem IMO is that the states have not done more to be proactive on the issue over the years. They want to keep wages low to attract business usually, but you would think that people would be more effective doing this at the state level.
I'm not sure I'd say they are being less effective at the state level. At the state level minimums make no sense for conservative states where the cost of living is low and the unemployment is also low and economies are booming. Why screw things up by switching to socialism? My only point was that the socialists/communists should have gone for lower minimums with an index. Then raised the percentage vs the index without moving the requirement for the index. Why were the socialists so dumb? Or... is it that the socialists don't really give a shit about minimum wages and really just wanted to use them as a voting gimmick each election season.True. Never understood why we have minimum wages at all, but even more so do not understand why you would have them and they not be tied to an index. I mean what's the point? To keep it political every election?
The problem IMO is that the states have not done more to be proactive on the issue over the years. They want to keep wages low to attract business usually, but you would think that people would be more effective doing this at the state level.
The win-win is obvious. (1) Hand-ups, no more hand-outs. (2) Break up monopolies on wages. (3) people go to work for a fair wage negotiated between employee and employer with the threat of directly competing with them if they don't.I'm not sure I'd say they are being less effective at the state level. At the state level minimums make no sense for conservative states where the cost of living is low and the unemployment is also low and economies are booming. Why screw things up by switching to socialism? My only point was that the socialists/communists should have gone for lower minimums with an index. Then raised the percentage vs the index without moving the requirement for the index. Why were the socialists so dumb? Or... is it that the socialists don't really give a shit about minimum wages and really just wanted to use them as a voting gimmick each election season.True. Never understood why we have minimum wages at all, but even more so do not understand why you would have them and they not be tied to an index. I mean what's the point? To keep it political every election?
The problem IMO is that the states have not done more to be proactive on the issue over the years. They want to keep wages low to attract business usually, but you would think that people would be more effective doing this at the state level.
I don't really believe there are conservative and liberal states necessarily. In less densely populated states, keeping the MW lower makes sense. In more densely populated states, less so. The problem, comes with states like Virginia where you have such a massive median income gap in the state between NoVA and parts of the Tidewater Area and the rest of the state. I can see both sides of the debate, don't particularly like either viewpoint, and cannot think of a way that is a win-win for everybody.
The win-win is obvious. (1) Hand-ups, no more hand-outs. (2) Break up monopolies on wages. (3) people go to work for a fair wage negotiated between employee and employer with the threat of directly competing with them if they don't.I'm not sure I'd say they are being less effective at the state level. At the state level minimums make no sense for conservative states where the cost of living is low and the unemployment is also low and economies are booming. Why screw things up by switching to socialism? My only point was that the socialists/communists should have gone for lower minimums with an index. Then raised the percentage vs the index without moving the requirement for the index. Why were the socialists so dumb? Or... is it that the socialists don't really give a shit about minimum wages and really just wanted to use them as a voting gimmick each election season.True. Never understood why we have minimum wages at all, but even more so do not understand why you would have them and they not be tied to an index. I mean what's the point? To keep it political every election?
The problem IMO is that the states have not done more to be proactive on the issue over the years. They want to keep wages low to attract business usually, but you would think that people would be more effective doing this at the state level.
I don't really believe there are conservative and liberal states necessarily. In less densely populated states, keeping the MW lower makes sense. In more densely populated states, less so. The problem, comes with states like Virginia where you have such a massive median income gap in the state between NoVA and parts of the Tidewater Area and the rest of the state. I can see both sides of the debate, don't particularly like either viewpoint, and cannot think of a way that is a win-win for everybody.
The win-win is obvious. (1) Hand-ups, no more hand-outs. (2) Break up monopolies on wages. (3) people go to work for a fair wage negotiated between employee and employer with the threat of directly competing with them if they don't.I'm not sure I'd say they are being less effective at the state level. At the state level minimums make no sense for conservative states where the cost of living is low and the unemployment is also low and economies are booming. Why screw things up by switching to socialism? My only point was that the socialists/communists should have gone for lower minimums with an index. Then raised the percentage vs the index without moving the requirement for the index. Why were the socialists so dumb? Or... is it that the socialists don't really give a shit about minimum wages and really just wanted to use them as a voting gimmick each election season.True. Never understood why we have minimum wages at all, but even more so do not understand why you would have them and they not be tied to an index. I mean what's the point? To keep it political every election?
The problem IMO is that the states have not done more to be proactive on the issue over the years. They want to keep wages low to attract business usually, but you would think that people would be more effective doing this at the state level.
I don't really believe there are conservative and liberal states necessarily. In less densely populated states, keeping the MW lower makes sense. In more densely populated states, less so. The problem, comes with states like Virginia where you have such a massive median income gap in the state between NoVA and parts of the Tidewater Area and the rest of the state. I can see both sides of the debate, don't particularly like either viewpoint, and cannot think of a way that is a win-win for everybody.
Sounds good, but I live in a city where one local factory for the better part of a century was able to keep a great many of their competitors for labor out and wages depressed by taking that money and buying up all the land along the river, thereby denying companies access to the water supply.
I don't think I've ever met anyone who enjoyed their min wage job or would want it as a career.So 3 who hate the poor and want to force them to go to college or school of some kind to rack up more debt instead of letting them earn a decent wage at a job they enjoy.
no, i think they DO enjoy their minimum wage jobs.
they just what to be paid MORE for the very little that they do.
Tell me, what walmart greeter doesn't want $15 an hour?
Is being a greeter worth $15 dollars an hour?
I don't think I've ever met anyone who enjoyed their min wage job or would want it as a career.So 3 who hate the poor and want to force them to go to college or school of some kind to rack up more debt instead of letting them earn a decent wage at a job they enjoy.
no, i think they DO enjoy their minimum wage jobs.
they just what to be paid MORE for the very little that they do.
Tell me, what walmart greeter doesn't want $15 an hour?
Is being a greeter worth $15 dollars an hour?
Is anything done at Wal-Mart worth $15/hr?
Hell, everytime I'm there the "associates" seem to have vanished, and if I do find one to ask for assistance, I wonder how they were hired: All the smart ones know how to hide, and you're left with Wandering Morons.
The win-win is obvious. (1) Hand-ups, no more hand-outs. (2) Break up monopolies on wages. (3) people go to work for a fair wage negotiated between employee and employer with the threat of directly competing with them if they don't.I'm not sure I'd say they are being less effective at the state level. At the state level minimums make no sense for conservative states where the cost of living is low and the unemployment is also low and economies are booming. Why screw things up by switching to socialism? My only point was that the socialists/communists should have gone for lower minimums with an index. Then raised the percentage vs the index without moving the requirement for the index. Why were the socialists so dumb? Or... is it that the socialists don't really give a shit about minimum wages and really just wanted to use them as a voting gimmick each election season.The problem IMO is that the states have not done more to be proactive on the issue over the years. They want to keep wages low to attract business usually, but you would think that people would be more effective doing this at the state level.
I don't really believe there are conservative and liberal states necessarily. In less densely populated states, keeping the MW lower makes sense. In more densely populated states, less so. The problem, comes with states like Virginia where you have such a massive median income gap in the state between NoVA and parts of the Tidewater Area and the rest of the state. I can see both sides of the debate, don't particularly like either viewpoint, and cannot think of a way that is a win-win for everybody.
Sounds good, but I live in a city where one local factory for the better part of a century was able to keep a great many of their competitors for labor out and wages depressed by taking that money and buying up all the land along the river, thereby denying companies access to the water supply.
Where's the "but?" Providing evidence for #2 in my three step solution isn't a but, it's validation.
If the checkout clerk at walmart is the only place in town where you can get a job.. here's your sign.Why do American Conservatives hate working families? I guess the only noble way of making money, according to American Conservatives, is to make a killing in the market. Working for a wage is disgusting, revolting, worthy of scorn and derision from the American Conservative.
Just look at how they regard employees of WalMart! After all the sneering 'get a job' comments from American Conservatives, apparently getting a job at what may be the only place in town to get a job still makes lazy, stupid, unworthy workers out of WalMart employees.
Why on Earth should we take the American Conservative seriously when they are so disdainful of the American working family?
Why do American Conservatives hate working families? I guess the only noble way of making money, according to American Conservatives, is to make a killing in the market. Working for a wage is disgusting, revolting, worthy of scorn and derision from the American Conservative.
Just look at how they regard employees of WalMart! After all the sneering 'get a job' comments from American Conservatives, apparently getting a job at what may be the only place in town to get a job still makes lazy, stupid, unworthy workers out of WalMart employees.
Why on Earth should we take the American Conservative seriously when they are so disdainful of the American working family?
What makes me think that American Conservatives hate working families? I told you why in my post. Conservatives, right here in this very thread, have said so themselves. Conservatives admire, ah Hell, LOVE the rich in hopes that, one day, they too can be rich. That's not the reason to admire the rich. The reason to admire the rich is for their nobles oblige. Their support of the communities of their workers.Why do American Conservatives hate working families? I guess the only noble way of making money, according to American Conservatives, is to make a killing in the market. Working for a wage is disgusting, revolting, worthy of scorn and derision from the American Conservative.
Just look at how they regard employees of WalMart! After all the sneering 'get a job' comments from American Conservatives, apparently getting a job at what may be the only place in town to get a job still makes lazy, stupid, unworthy workers out of WalMart employees.
Why on Earth should we take the American Conservative seriously when they are so disdainful of the American working family?
I don't know a single conservative whom I believe hates working families. What makes you think any do?
I know a lot who think the democrats will sell them down the river if given the chance to buy some deadbeat votes. I know a lot who think that people should be more self sufficient. I know a lot who have contempt for the federal government swallowing up more and more of the American economy. Can't think of a single one who hates working families.
What makes me think that American Conservatives hate working families? I told you why in my post. Conservatives, right here in this very thread, have said so themselves. Conservatives admire, ah Hell, LOVE the rich in hopes that, one day, they too can be rich. That's not the reason to admire the rich. The reason to admire the rich is for their nobles oblige. Their support of the communities of their workers.Why do American Conservatives hate working families? I guess the only noble way of making money, according to American Conservatives, is to make a killing in the market. Working for a wage is disgusting, revolting, worthy of scorn and derision from the American Conservative.
Just look at how they regard employees of WalMart! After all the sneering 'get a job' comments from American Conservatives, apparently getting a job at what may be the only place in town to get a job still makes lazy, stupid, unworthy workers out of WalMart employees.
Why on Earth should we take the American Conservative seriously when they are so disdainful of the American working family?
I don't know a single conservative whom I believe hates working families. What makes you think any do?
I know a lot who think the democrats will sell them down the river if given the chance to buy some deadbeat votes. I know a lot who think that people should be more self sufficient. I know a lot who have contempt for the federal government swallowing up more and more of the American economy. Can't think of a single one who hates working families.
Conservatives sneer at the working poor. They deride them as lazy, stupid, unmotivated and entitled. Do you suppose the poor see themselves that way? No. These are epithets that reveal more about the speaker than the spoken of.
Conservatives denounce a raise in the minimum wage as costly to business, in spite strong evidence to the contrary. Conservatives want to cut away the social safety net which results in more poverty, fewer chances and far fewer choices.
None of the Conservative policies are designed to actually help.
And you ask why I think the American Conservative hates the working poor.
Have you been reading this thread, or do you refuse to see the forest for all the trees? Tell you what. You point out all the love and respect for the working poor in the previous posts here on this page!What makes me think that American Conservatives hate working families? I told you why in my post. Conservatives, right here in this very thread, have said so themselves. Conservatives admire, ah Hell, LOVE the rich in hopes that, one day, they too can be rich. That's not the reason to admire the rich. The reason to admire the rich is for their nobles oblige. Their support of the communities of their workers.Why do American Conservatives hate working families? I guess the only noble way of making money, according to American Conservatives, is to make a killing in the market. Working for a wage is disgusting, revolting, worthy of scorn and derision from the American Conservative.
Just look at how they regard employees of WalMart! After all the sneering 'get a job' comments from American Conservatives, apparently getting a job at what may be the only place in town to get a job still makes lazy, stupid, unworthy workers out of WalMart employees.
Why on Earth should we take the American Conservative seriously when they are so disdainful of the American working family?
I don't know a single conservative whom I believe hates working families. What makes you think any do?
I know a lot who think the democrats will sell them down the river if given the chance to buy some deadbeat votes. I know a lot who think that people should be more self sufficient. I know a lot who have contempt for the federal government swallowing up more and more of the American economy. Can't think of a single one who hates working families.
Conservatives sneer at the working poor. They deride them as lazy, stupid, unmotivated and entitled. Do you suppose the poor see themselves that way? No. These are epithets that reveal more about the speaker than the spoken of.
Conservatives denounce a raise in the minimum wage as costly to business, in spite strong evidence to the contrary. Conservatives want to cut away the social safety net which results in more poverty, fewer chances and far fewer choices.
None of the Conservative policies are designed to actually help.
And you ask why I think the American Conservative hates the working poor.
Can you point to a conservative right here in this thread that said, "I hate working families"? Just give the post # and I will gladly find it. Otherwise, I will just chalk your assertion up to partisan inferences.
Have you been reading this thread, or do you refuse to see the forest for all the trees? Tell you what. You point out all the love and respect for the working poor in the previous posts here on this page!
Spoken like a true dumb ass with his hands out.What makes me think that American Conservatives hate working families? I told you why in my post. Conservatives, right here in this very thread, have said so themselves. Conservatives admire, ah Hell, LOVE the rich in hopes that, one day, they too can be rich. That's not the reason to admire the rich. The reason to admire the rich is for their nobles oblige. Their support of the communities of their workers.Why do American Conservatives hate working families? I guess the only noble way of making money, according to American Conservatives, is to make a killing in the market. Working for a wage is disgusting, revolting, worthy of scorn and derision from the American Conservative.
Just look at how they regard employees of WalMart! After all the sneering 'get a job' comments from American Conservatives, apparently getting a job at what may be the only place in town to get a job still makes lazy, stupid, unworthy workers out of WalMart employees.
Why on Earth should we take the American Conservative seriously when they are so disdainful of the American working family?
I don't know a single conservative whom I believe hates working families. What makes you think any do?
I know a lot who think the democrats will sell them down the river if given the chance to buy some deadbeat votes. I know a lot who think that people should be more self sufficient. I know a lot who have contempt for the federal government swallowing up more and more of the American economy. Can't think of a single one who hates working families.
Conservatives sneer at the working poor. They deride them as lazy, stupid, unmotivated and entitled. Do you suppose the poor see themselves that way? No. These are epithets that reveal more about the speaker than the spoken of.
Conservatives denounce a raise in the minimum wage as costly to business, in spite strong evidence to the contrary. Conservatives want to cut away the social safety net which results in more poverty, fewer chances and far fewer choices.
None of the Conservative policies are designed to actually help.
And you ask why I think the American Conservative hates the working poor.
Yeah cause giving only hand-outs to make sure the poor stay poor is love and giving only hand-ups to teach the poor to get out of being poor is hate.Have you been reading this thread, or do you refuse to see the forest for all the trees? Tell you what. You point out all the love and respect for the working poor in the previous posts here on this page!What makes me think that American Conservatives hate working families? I told you why in my post. Conservatives, right here in this very thread, have said so themselves. Conservatives admire, ah Hell, LOVE the rich in hopes that, one day, they too can be rich. That's not the reason to admire the rich. The reason to admire the rich is for their nobles oblige. Their support of the communities of their workers.Why do American Conservatives hate working families? I guess the only noble way of making money, according to American Conservatives, is to make a killing in the market. Working for a wage is disgusting, revolting, worthy of scorn and derision from the American Conservative.
Just look at how they regard employees of WalMart! After all the sneering 'get a job' comments from American Conservatives, apparently getting a job at what may be the only place in town to get a job still makes lazy, stupid, unworthy workers out of WalMart employees.
Why on Earth should we take the American Conservative seriously when they are so disdainful of the American working family?
I don't know a single conservative whom I believe hates working families. What makes you think any do?
I know a lot who think the democrats will sell them down the river if given the chance to buy some deadbeat votes. I know a lot who think that people should be more self sufficient. I know a lot who have contempt for the federal government swallowing up more and more of the American economy. Can't think of a single one who hates working families.
Conservatives sneer at the working poor. They deride them as lazy, stupid, unmotivated and entitled. Do you suppose the poor see themselves that way? No. These are epithets that reveal more about the speaker than the spoken of.
Conservatives denounce a raise in the minimum wage as costly to business, in spite strong evidence to the contrary. Conservatives want to cut away the social safety net which results in more poverty, fewer chances and far fewer choices.
None of the Conservative policies are designed to actually help.
And you ask why I think the American Conservative hates the working poor.
Can you point to a conservative right here in this thread that said, "I hate working families"? Just give the post # and I will gladly find it. Otherwise, I will just chalk your assertion up to partisan inferences.
