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

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Proving that leftists are not able to do math.

Do tell... how exactly have we dismantled the middle class? Is it even possible, using 'math' to eliminate the middle class? Think for yourself for once, before making statements that prove your stupidity.

What, are you fucking retarded?

Let's see now.
1) Free Trade Treaties that made it easier to move factories overseas.
2) Right to Work Laws that got rid of union representation.
3) At-Will Employment laws that let companies fire employees and hire c
Again, great work.

1. Clinton a Dem signed NAFTA
2. Right to work laws didn't get rid of unions
3. Oh God forbid both a company and a employee can choose to end a contract any time they wish

Clinton signed the treaty Bush-41 wrote. He shouldn't have.
Right to work makes it impossible for unions to operate. That's the whole point.
If you fire an employee, you should have a reason. and if you laid them off, those are the people you should rehire when things get better.

President's dont write treaties LOL

Right to work doesn't make it impossible for unions to operate , they simply make it possible to work somewhere without joining the union, DUH

Do you have to have a reason to quit a job?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Saying that if these people were not employed by Walmart that the government would have to pay more in welfare and to thank Walmart for how it treats its employees and the low wages they pay to a majority of their employees is ridiculous! Walmart employs a large number of Americans and the Walton family has done quite well for itself at the behest of the American taxpayers subsidizing them. As one of the nations largest employers they should act accordingly and own up to their responsibilities to their employees and to the country to provide a fair and living wage and provide regular schedules their employees can count on and full time work for their employees and a lot more advancement opportunities than currently exist. The only people Walmart shows any responsibility and loyalty to are the shareholders and the Walton family's putting more money in their pockets at the expense of the employees of the company.

Their average wage is $1.60 OVER the current minimum wage. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? They do NOT pay minimum wage.

 

[boedicca]

Saying that if these people were not employed by Walmart that the government would have to pay more in welfare and to thank Walmart for how it treats its employees and the low wages they pay to a majority of their employees is ridiculous! Walmart employs a large number of Americans and the Walton family has done quite well for itself at the behest of the American taxpayers subsidizing them. As one of the nations largest employers they should act accordingly and own up to their responsibilities to their employees and to the country to provide a fair and living wage and provide regular schedules their employees can count on and full time work for their employees and a lot more advancement opportunities than currently exist. The only people Walmart shows any responsibility and loyalty to are the shareholders and the Walton family's putting more money in their pockets at the expense of the employees of the company.

Their average wage is $1.60 OVER the current minimum wage. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? They do NOT pay minimum wage.

Only 4% of workers in the U.S. earn minimum wage...and yet government transfer payments are given to multiples of that amount. Vote buying > Relieving poverty.

 

[Rozman]

How many people who hate Walmart's policies shop there?

 

[Andylusion]

[
You' re willing to volunteer to raise other people's taxes to pay out more to keep people dependent on the government.
Just so we're clear here.

Yup.

And you guys created that dependency for us. You were in such a hurry to dismantle the Middle class you created the government dependency you hate.

Good job.

Proving that leftists are not able to do math.

Do tell... how exactly have we dismantled the middle class? Is it even possible, using 'math' to eliminate the middle class? Think for yourself for once, before making statements that prove your stupidity.

Now perhaps you'd like to argue WHY those numbers rose and fell when they did, but there is no arguing that they HAVE rose and fallen, mostly fallen.

Isn't it interesting however that the highest high was when a Rep was in the WH and the lowest low was when a Dem was in the WH.

I would argue these numbers are largely meaningless. What these numbers don't account for, is unemployed.

No one who lived through the 70s and the 90s, is going to argue that the 70s were superior to the 90s. Has nothing to do with who is president.

If you included all the unemployed, factoring into the average, those zero wages, most of that graph, not all, but most would completely flip.

Then you have inflation, and while the CPI is a better index than nothing, it certainly isn't a perfect measurement.

But between 1971 and 1973, the unemployment rate doubled. And unsurprisingly, the average wage went up.

Who is most likely to be laid off? The lowest income workers. The people with the least experience, and least time on the job. So during any economic slow down, whether it is a recession or not, the people most likely to be laid off, are the lowest income people.

Just like when I worked at Wendy's and the minimum wage went up, they laid off 3 employees. Which employees? The three lowest paid part time people. Without question the average hourly wage at the store would have gone up drastically, for no other reason, than the lowest 3 wages were cut out. If you had counted them, with their new wage of zero, the average wage would have gone down.

So Reagan comes into office, and there is a huge recession, with unemployment spiking up to 11%. Notice in 1980 to 1982-3, the average wage is... ticking up slightly.

Then 1983 rolls around, and the Reagan tax cuts are in place, the recession is over, and the economy start moving faster. What happens? Unemployment drops to less than half, from 11% to 5% in 5 years, and what does the average wage do? It drops.

People who were earning ZERO, are now earning a wage. But you don't hire people off the street, for $100,000 a year. They start out at the bottom, like all of us. Thus the vast majority of the millions of people moving into the work force, are all starting out at the lowest pay, thus dropping the average wage.

So my view.... those numbers don't mean a whole lot.

 

[LiberalMedia]

Nobody is forced to work at Walmart.

Absolutely agree. They shouldn't be attempting to earn their own living; they are automatically entitled to one by virtue of being in the United States. The government has a responsibility to provide for us. Why else would we even have a government?

Personally, I think that all of these entry-level minimum wage jobs need to disappear. Everyone at Walmart, Burger King, Target, McDonald's--every minimum wage job everywhere needs to quit and go 100% onto government assistance. If they want to eventually get a real job--one that pays more than minimum wage--fine. But until then, the government should be providing for us. Doing for the masses and the individuals therein what they cannot do for themselves is literally one of the most basic principles behind having a government at all.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

[
You' re willing to volunteer to raise other people's taxes to pay out more to keep people dependent on the government.
Just so we're clear here.

Yup.

And you guys created that dependency for us. You were in such a hurry to dismantle the Middle class you created the government dependency you hate.

Good job.

Proving that leftists are not able to do math.

Do tell... how exactly have we dismantled the middle class? Is it even possible, using 'math' to eliminate the middle class? Think for yourself for once, before making statements that prove your stupidity.

Now perhaps you'd like to argue WHY those numbers rose and fell when they did, but there is no arguing that they HAVE rose and fallen, mostly fallen.

Isn't it interesting however that the highest high was when a Rep was in the WH and the lowest low was when a Dem was in the WH.

I would argue these numbers are largely meaningless. What these numbers don't account for, is unemployed.

No one who lived through the 70s and the 90s, is going to argue that the 70s were superior to the 90s. Has nothing to do with who is president.

If you included all the unemployed, factoring into the average, those zero wages, most of that graph, not all, but most would completely flip.

Then you have inflation, and while the CPI is a better index than nothing, it certainly isn't a perfect measurement.

But between 1971 and 1973, the unemployment rate doubled. And unsurprisingly, the average wage went up.

Who is most likely to be laid off? The lowest income workers. The people with the least experience, and least time on the job. So during any economic slow down, whether it is a recession or not, the people most likely to be laid off, are the lowest income people.

Just like when I worked at Wendy's and the minimum wage went up, they laid off 3 employees. Which employees? The three lowest paid part time people. Without question the average hourly wage at the store would have gone up drastically, for no other reason, than the lowest 3 wages were cut out. If you had counted them, with their new wage of zero, the average wage would have gone down.

So Reagan comes into office, and there is a huge recession, with unemployment spiking up to 11%. Notice in 1980 to 1982-3, the average wage is... ticking up slightly.

Then 1983 rolls around, and the Reagan tax cuts are in place, the recession is over, and the economy start moving faster. What happens? Unemployment drops to less than half, from 11% to 5% in 5 years, and what does the average wage do? It drops.

People who were earning ZERO, are now earning a wage. But you don't hire people off the street, for $100,000 a year. They start out at the bottom, like all of us. Thus the vast majority of the millions of people moving into the work force, are all starting out at the lowest pay, thus dropping the average wage.

So my view.... those numbers don't mean a whole lot.

In short, the numbers don't say what you want them to say, so you dismiss them out of hand. That is pathetic.

Here's another graph for you

CLEARLY the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation and thus one can NOT buy with it what they could in years past.

 

[petro]

How many people who hate Walmart's policies shop there?

That is a good question. If you hate the policies of Wal-Mart start your boycott and shop at another retailer. With all the venom being spewed you should be able to bankrupt the Corporation. If you bitch about Wal-Mart and continue enjoy the low prices you are part of the very problem you are bitching about. Put your wallet where your mouth freely flows.

 

[The Rabbi]

[
You' re willing to volunteer to raise other people's taxes to pay out more to keep people dependent on the government.
Just so we're clear here.

Yup.

And you guys created that dependency for us. You were in such a hurry to dismantle the Middle class you created the government dependency you hate.

Good job.

Proving that leftists are not able to do math.

Do tell... how exactly have we dismantled the middle class? Is it even possible, using 'math' to eliminate the middle class? Think for yourself for once, before making statements that prove your stupidity.

Now perhaps you'd like to argue WHY those numbers rose and fell when they did, but there is no arguing that they HAVE rose and fallen, mostly fallen.

Isn't it interesting however that the highest high was when a Rep was in the WH and the lowest low was when a Dem was in the WH.

I would argue these numbers are largely meaningless. What these numbers don't account for, is unemployed.

No one who lived through the 70s and the 90s, is going to argue that the 70s were superior to the 90s. Has nothing to do with who is president.

If you included all the unemployed, factoring into the average, those zero wages, most of that graph, not all, but most would completely flip.

Then you have inflation, and while the CPI is a better index than nothing, it certainly isn't a perfect measurement.

But between 1971 and 1973, the unemployment rate doubled. And unsurprisingly, the average wage went up.

Who is most likely to be laid off? The lowest income workers. The people with the least experience, and least time on the job. So during any economic slow down, whether it is a recession or not, the people most likely to be laid off, are the lowest income people.

Just like when I worked at Wendy's and the minimum wage went up, they laid off 3 employees. Which employees? The three lowest paid part time people. Without question the average hourly wage at the store would have gone up drastically, for no other reason, than the lowest 3 wages were cut out. If you had counted them, with their new wage of zero, the average wage would have gone down.

So Reagan comes into office, and there is a huge recession, with unemployment spiking up to 11%. Notice in 1980 to 1982-3, the average wage is... ticking up slightly.

Then 1983 rolls around, and the Reagan tax cuts are in place, the recession is over, and the economy start moving faster. What happens? Unemployment drops to less than half, from 11% to 5% in 5 years, and what does the average wage do? It drops.

People who were earning ZERO, are now earning a wage. But you don't hire people off the street, for $100,000 a year. They start out at the bottom, like all of us. Thus the vast majority of the millions of people moving into the work force, are all starting out at the lowest pay, thus dropping the average wage.

So my view.... those numbers don't mean a whole lot.

In short, the numbers don't say what you want them to say, so you dismiss them out of hand. That is pathetic.

Here's another graph for you

CLEARLY the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation and thus one can NOT buy with it what they could in years past.

No wages have kept up with inflation. So what? Min wage is a starting/training wage, not something a head of household aspires to.
So the choice is not jobs at 7/hr vs jobs at 10/hr. The choice is jobs at 7/hr vs no job at all. Since most people who start at min wage spend less than a year on it before getting raises, the min wage is an entry way to the work world. When you raise that wage, the entry way is slammed shut on many people.
Do I need to repost for the umpteenth time the chart of min wage and black teenage unemployment?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

How many people who hate Walmart's policies shop there?

That is a good question. If you hate the policies of Wal-Mart start your boycott and shop at another retailer. With all the venom being spewed you should be able to bankrupt the Corporation. If you bitch about Wal-Mart and continue enjoy the low prices you are part of the very problem you are bitching about. Put your wallet where your mouth freely flows.

LOL yeah right. I would bet that half the people in this thread bitching about welfare are on SNAP. I would almost guarantee it LOL

 

[The Rabbi]

How many people who hate Walmart's policies shop there?

That is a good question. If you hate the policies of Wal-Mart start your boycott and shop at another retailer. With all the venom being spewed you should be able to bankrupt the Corporation. If you bitch about Wal-Mart and continue enjoy the low prices you are part of the very problem you are bitching about. Put your wallet where your mouth freely flows.

People who never set foot in WM still benefit from WM to the tune of thousands of dollars a year. These people should be kissing Sam Walton's decayed tuchas.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

[
You' re willing to volunteer to raise other people's taxes to pay out more to keep people dependent on the government.
Just so we're clear here.

Yup.

And you guys created that dependency for us. You were in such a hurry to dismantle the Middle class you created the government dependency you hate.

Good job.

Proving that leftists are not able to do math.

Do tell... how exactly have we dismantled the middle class? Is it even possible, using 'math' to eliminate the middle class? Think for yourself for once, before making statements that prove your stupidity.

Now perhaps you'd like to argue WHY those numbers rose and fell when they did, but there is no arguing that they HAVE rose and fallen, mostly fallen.

Isn't it interesting however that the highest high was when a Rep was in the WH and the lowest low was when a Dem was in the WH.

I would argue these numbers are largely meaningless. What these numbers don't account for, is unemployed.

No one who lived through the 70s and the 90s, is going to argue that the 70s were superior to the 90s. Has nothing to do with who is president.

If you included all the unemployed, factoring into the average, those zero wages, most of that graph, not all, but most would completely flip.

Then you have inflation, and while the CPI is a better index than nothing, it certainly isn't a perfect measurement.

But between 1971 and 1973, the unemployment rate doubled. And unsurprisingly, the average wage went up.

Who is most likely to be laid off? The lowest income workers. The people with the least experience, and least time on the job. So during any economic slow down, whether it is a recession or not, the people most likely to be laid off, are the lowest income people.

Just like when I worked at Wendy's and the minimum wage went up, they laid off 3 employees. Which employees? The three lowest paid part time people. Without question the average hourly wage at the store would have gone up drastically, for no other reason, than the lowest 3 wages were cut out. If you had counted them, with their new wage of zero, the average wage would have gone down.

So Reagan comes into office, and there is a huge recession, with unemployment spiking up to 11%. Notice in 1980 to 1982-3, the average wage is... ticking up slightly.

Then 1983 rolls around, and the Reagan tax cuts are in place, the recession is over, and the economy start moving faster. What happens? Unemployment drops to less than half, from 11% to 5% in 5 years, and what does the average wage do? It drops.

People who were earning ZERO, are now earning a wage. But you don't hire people off the street, for $100,000 a year. They start out at the bottom, like all of us. Thus the vast majority of the millions of people moving into the work force, are all starting out at the lowest pay, thus dropping the average wage.

So my view.... those numbers don't mean a whole lot.

In short, the numbers don't say what you want them to say, so you dismiss them out of hand. That is pathetic.

Here's another graph for you

CLEARLY the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation and thus one can NOT buy with it what they could in years past.

No wages have kept up with inflation. So what? Min wage is a starting/training wage, not something a head of household aspires to.
So the choice is not jobs at 7/hr vs jobs at 10/hr. The choice is jobs at 7/hr vs no job at all. Since most people who start at min wage spend less than a year on it before getting raises, the min wage is an entry way to the work world. When you raise that wage, the entry way is slammed shut on many people.
Do I need to repost for the umpteenth time the chart of min wage and black teenage unemployment?

You aren't very smart are you

The minimum wage law was meant to provide a basis from which one person working 40 hours a week could support themselves. As such the wage should always have kept up with inflation.

No other factors matter in determining what the minimum wage should be.

 

[The Rabbi]

[
You' re willing to volunteer to raise other people's taxes to pay out more to keep people dependent on the government.
Just so we're clear here.

Yup.

And you guys created that dependency for us. You were in such a hurry to dismantle the Middle class you created the government dependency you hate.

Good job.

Proving that leftists are not able to do math.

Do tell... how exactly have we dismantled the middle class? Is it even possible, using 'math' to eliminate the middle class? Think for yourself for once, before making statements that prove your stupidity.

Now perhaps you'd like to argue WHY those numbers rose and fell when they did, but there is no arguing that they HAVE rose and fallen, mostly fallen.

Isn't it interesting however that the highest high was when a Rep was in the WH and the lowest low was when a Dem was in the WH.

I would argue these numbers are largely meaningless. What these numbers don't account for, is unemployed.

No one who lived through the 70s and the 90s, is going to argue that the 70s were superior to the 90s. Has nothing to do with who is president.

If you included all the unemployed, factoring into the average, those zero wages, most of that graph, not all, but most would completely flip.

Then you have inflation, and while the CPI is a better index than nothing, it certainly isn't a perfect measurement.

But between 1971 and 1973, the unemployment rate doubled. And unsurprisingly, the average wage went up.

Who is most likely to be laid off? The lowest income workers. The people with the least experience, and least time on the job. So during any economic slow down, whether it is a recession or not, the people most likely to be laid off, are the lowest income people.

Just like when I worked at Wendy's and the minimum wage went up, they laid off 3 employees. Which employees? The three lowest paid part time people. Without question the average hourly wage at the store would have gone up drastically, for no other reason, than the lowest 3 wages were cut out. If you had counted them, with their new wage of zero, the average wage would have gone down.

So Reagan comes into office, and there is a huge recession, with unemployment spiking up to 11%. Notice in 1980 to 1982-3, the average wage is... ticking up slightly.

Then 1983 rolls around, and the Reagan tax cuts are in place, the recession is over, and the economy start moving faster. What happens? Unemployment drops to less than half, from 11% to 5% in 5 years, and what does the average wage do? It drops.

People who were earning ZERO, are now earning a wage. But you don't hire people off the street, for $100,000 a year. They start out at the bottom, like all of us. Thus the vast majority of the millions of people moving into the work force, are all starting out at the lowest pay, thus dropping the average wage.

So my view.... those numbers don't mean a whole lot.

In short, the numbers don't say what you want them to say, so you dismiss them out of hand. That is pathetic.

Here's another graph for you

CLEARLY the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation and thus one can NOT buy with it what they could in years past.

No wages have kept up with inflation. So what? Min wage is a starting/training wage, not something a head of household aspires to.
So the choice is not jobs at 7/hr vs jobs at 10/hr. The choice is jobs at 7/hr vs no job at all. Since most people who start at min wage spend less than a year on it before getting raises, the min wage is an entry way to the work world. When you raise that wage, the entry way is slammed shut on many people.
Do I need to repost for the umpteenth time the chart of min wage and black teenage unemployment?

You aren't very smart are you

The minimum wage law was meant to provide a basis from which one person working 40 hours a week could support themselves. As such the wage should always have kept up with inflation.

No other factors matter in determining what the minimum wage should be.

For someone who thinks he's really smart you show your ignorance over and over.
THe min wage was not meant to be the basis from which one person working 40 hrs could support himself. Nothing anywhere supports that ridiculous notion.
But how do people support themselves without jobs? Because that's what raising the min wage does.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nobody is forced to work at Walmart.

Absolutely agree. They shouldn't be attempting to earn their own living; they are automatically entitled to one by virtue of being in the United States. The government has a responsibility to provide for us. Why else would we even have a government?

Personally, I think that all of these entry-level minimum wage jobs need to disappear. Everyone at Walmart, Burger King, Target, McDonald's--every minimum wage job everywhere needs to quit and go 100% onto government assistance. If they want to eventually get a real job--one that pays more than minimum wage--fine. But until then, the government should be providing for us. Doing for the masses and the individuals therein what they cannot do for themselves is literally one of the most basic principles behind having a government at all.

You continue to prove you are a troll out to discredit liberal lesbian women.

Government should provde to each according to his needs, right Comrade? Derp.

 

[Progressivedude2014]

Saying that if these people were not employed by Walmart that the government would have to pay more in welfare and to thank Walmart for how it treats its employees and the low wages they pay to a majority of their employees is ridiculous! Walmart employs a large number of Americans and the Walton family has done quite well for itself at the behest of the American taxpayers subsidizing them. As one of the nations largest employers they should act accordingly and own up to their responsibilities to their employees and to the country to provide a fair and living wage and provide regular schedules their employees can count on and full time work for their employees and a lot more advancement opportunities than currently exist. The only people Walmart shows any responsibility and loyalty to are the shareholders and the Walton family's putting more money in their pockets at the expense of the employees of the company.

Their average wage is $1.60 OVER the current minimum wage. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? They do NOT pay minimum wage.

Only 4% of workers in the U.S. earn minimum wage...and yet government transfer payments are given to multiples of that amount. Vote buying > Relieving poverty.

I said low wages and not the minimum wage, Walmart pays most of its employees very low wages whether it is exactly the minimum wage or not. Raising the federal minimum wage to I believe it is 10.10 an hour would help lift a lot of people up, give them more spending power and boost economic activity. I support much more than a raise to the federal minimum wage over a course of several years however but a living wage tied to inflation. A living wage is a wage that is sufficient to live locally given the local costs of living. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has a living wage calculator where you can figure out the how much it would costs you to live in a given area. I have provided a link to this page as well as links to Wikipedia page on income inequality in the United States and an article by The Huffington Post on income inequality in the United States. and also a link to The Stanford Center page on Poverty and Inequality.

Poverty in America Living Wage Calculator Living Wage Calculator-Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator

Income inequality in the United States
Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The U.S. Is Even More Unequal Than You Realized.
The U.S. Is Even More Unequal Than You Realized

20 Facts About U.S. Inequality that Everyone Should Know The Stanford Center for the Study of Poverty and Inequality - 20 Facts About U.S. Inequality that Everyone Should Know

 

[boedicca]

Walmart had net income of 3.4% in its last fiscal year. So, how much more should they pay for labor? Should they make themselves unprofitable...and then lay off a bunch of people they can no longer afford?

Walmart pays what the jobs are worth to Walmart. If people don't want the jobs, then they don't have to accept them.

 

[Progressivedude2014]

That is a scapegoat answer leaving Walmart without blame for the low wages of its workers. The low wages and part time hours most Walmart employees have is directly the fault of the company's decisions. Putting the blame on the employees for choosing to work there is a false argument as well, the economy is struggling and has been for a long time and in a lot of places around the country there are not a lot of jobs available. That argument is assuming people have options in choosing where they work or how much they work for and it is wholly inaccurate. Do you truly think Walmart does not have huge profits? The Waltons own over 50% of the company shares and the Walton family have a combined worth of over 150 billion dollars. Here is a link to another article on why Walmart can afford to give its workers raises and a link to an article on The Walton Family.

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise.
Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50 raise - Fortune

The Walton Family: America's New Robber Barons
The Walton Family America s New Robber Barons

 

[petro]

That is a scapegoat answer leaving Walmart without blame for the low wages of its workers. The low wages and part time hours most Walmart employees have is directly the fault of the company's decisions. Putting the blame on the employees for choosing to work there is a false argument as well, the economy is struggling and has been for a long time and in a lot of places around the country there are not a lot of jobs available. That argument is assuming people have options in choosing where they work or how much they work for and it is wholly inaccurate. Do you truly think Walmart does not have huge profits? The Waltons own over 50% of the company shares and the Walton family have a combined worth of over 150 billion dollars. Here is a link to another article on why Walmart can afford to give its workers raises and a link to an article on The Walton Family.

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise.
Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50 raise - Fortune

The Walton Family: America's New Robber Barons
The Walton Family America s New Robber Barons[/QUOTE

That is a scapegoat answer leaving Walmart without blame for the low wages of its workers. The low wages and part time hours most Walmart employees have is directly the fault of the company's decisions. Putting the blame on the employees for choosing to work there is a false argument as well, the economy is struggling and has been for a long time and in a lot of places around the country there are not a lot of jobs available. That argument is assuming people have options in choosing where they work or how much they work for and it is wholly inaccurate. Do you truly think Walmart does not have huge profits? The Waltons own over 50% of the company shares and the Walton family have a combined worth of over 150 billion dollars. Here is a link to another article on why Walmart can afford to give its workers raises and a link to an article on The Walton Family.

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise.
Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50 raise - Fortune

The Walton Family: America's New Robber Barons
The Walton Family America s New Robber Barons

You must be first in line for the boycott then.

 

[Progressivedude2014]

That is a scapegoat answer leaving Walmart without blame for the low wages of its workers. The low wages and part time hours most Walmart employees have is directly the fault of the company's decisions. Putting the blame on the employees for choosing to work there is a false argument as well, the economy is struggling and has been for a long time and in a lot of places around the country there are not a lot of jobs available. That argument is assuming people have options in choosing where they work or how much they work for and it is wholly inaccurate. Do you truly think Walmart does not have huge profits? The Waltons own over 50% of the company shares and the Walton family have a combined worth of over 150 billion dollars. Here is a link to another article on why Walmart can afford to give its workers raises and a link to an article on The Walton Family.

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise.
Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50 raise - Fortune

The Walton Family: America's New Robber Barons
The Walton Family America s New Robber Barons[/QUOTE

That is a scapegoat answer leaving Walmart without blame for the low wages of its workers. The low wages and part time hours most Walmart employees have is directly the fault of the company's decisions. Putting the blame on the employees for choosing to work there is a false argument as well, the economy is struggling and has been for a long time and in a lot of places around the country there are not a lot of jobs available. That argument is assuming people have options in choosing where they work or how much they work for and it is wholly inaccurate. Do you truly think Walmart does not have huge profits? The Waltons own over 50% of the company shares and the Walton family have a combined worth of over 150 billion dollars. Here is a link to another article on why Walmart can afford to give its workers raises and a link to an article on The Walton Family.

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise.
Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50 raise - Fortune

The Walton Family: America's New Robber Barons
The Walton Family America s New Robber Barons

You must be first in line for the boycott then.

I never shop at Walmart, I don't support low wages, part time hours or buying goods from China of which Walmart is a big contributor to this problem as well.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Those poor underpaid workers should quit and stay home.
If they did, would the government spend more or less on foodstamps and other programs for the poor?