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

[AntiParty]

Let's see?... Cheap Sneakers/Dead Children or More Expensive Sneakers/Healthy Living Children? It's a no-brainer. Most Americans would choose Cheap Sneakers/Dead Children. That's how bad things have gotten in our country. Such shocking greed and hate. Very depressing.

Well considering those dead children are Chinese, absolutely. China is already overpopulated as it is, after all.

Now if they were American children, you might have a point.

Nice try, though.

Now there's an idea. How bout we bring back Child Slave Labor here? Why outsource all that Child Slave Labor? Whata ya say?

Import the Chinese kids? Nah, then we'd have to feed them, and I don't want to have to increase our dependency on China for rice.

I like the current situation just fine.

Nah, bring back the good ole days. The days when American children died horrific deaths trying to make ends meet for a starving family. Oh those were the days.

Now THAT is Freedom! (R)ight?

Seriously, why should Walmart Outsource all that wonderful Child Slave Labor? Why not give our American kids a shot? Why should China have all the fun? Please run it by Walmart. We can make America even greater. Bring the Child Slave Labor back home. Do it for America.

Then children would be happy again!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg

Hey, ignore the bruses. They came out of the elevator that way LOL! I KNOW that was a very insensitive sports joke.

 

[House]

Let's see?... Cheap Sneakers/Dead Children or More Expensive Sneakers/Healthy Living Children? It's a no-brainer. Most Americans would choose Cheap Sneakers/Dead Children. That's how bad things have gotten in our country. Such shocking greed and hate. Very depressing.

Well considering those dead children are Chinese, absolutely. China is already overpopulated as it is, after all.

Now if they were American children, you might have a point.

Nice try, though.

Now there's an idea. How bout we bring back Child Slave Labor here? Why outsource all that Child Slave Labor? Whata ya say?

Import the Chinese kids? Nah, then we'd have to feed them, and I don't want to have to increase our dependency on China for rice.

I like the current situation just fine.

Nah, bring back the good ole days. The days when American children died horrific deaths trying to make ends meet for a starving family. Oh those were the days.

Now THAT is Freedom! (R)ight?

Seriously, why should Walmart Outsource all that wonderful Child Slave Labor? Why not give our American kids a shot? Why should China have all the fun? Please run it by Walmart. We can make America even greater. Bring the Child Slave Labor back home. Do it for America.

Then children would be happy again!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg

Hey, ignore the bruses. They came out of the elevator that way LOL! I KNOW that was a very insensitive sports joke.

The problem with bruising children is you have to keep reapplying.

 

[Andylusion]

Things you probably have already seen or will see about this topic is people saying WalMart will have to raise prices if they pay their workers better. Like the McDonalds debate, this is ignorance of the topic. One person, Christie Walton is worth $36.7 BILLION. I would like someone to do the math to see how much workers would have got if she was just worth 1 billion, I guarantee she didn't work for all of that money alone, it took a team.

But then Christie would have to learn how to live with $1Billion and the WalMart Managers won't be obligated to hand out Welfare information to the people that ask for a raise.

A little research goes a long way people. Stay smart. Stop letting Corporations own your thinking. The Commerce Claus in the Constitution and the laws against Monopolies were there for a reason. Stop justifying everything America is against because Fox News says we should. YOU SHOULD BE SMARTER THAN THAT.

But the entire premise you gave is flawed.

Christie Walton, is not getting $36.7 Billion in DOLLARS from Walmart. You can't collect $36.7 Billion in dollars from Christie Walton, and give it to the workers, because she does not have $36.7 Billion in dollars.

Christie Walton has $36.7 Billion in ASSETS. And a kicker... not even all those are assets are Walmart stock.

Christie Walton also had majority ownership of Arvest Bank. Christie also owns a large chunk of First Solar.

Now how do you propose we deal with that? Do you just forcibly confiscate Christie's stock? And then what? Sell the stock? Who do you think is going to buy the stock, so that you can give the money to the workers, when a stock holder just had their stock confiscated? Would you want to buy the stock after that?

Even if you did... let's magically say you did force Christie Walton to sell the stock, confiscated her money, and give it to the employees, which would be let's even say the full $36.7 Billion, that would be a ONE TIME SUM of $16,600 for each employee. Knock off taxes, and the fact this would bump most of the employees up a tax bracket, and then chop out all the benefits Walmart has.

We're talking $10,000 for each employee, for one year. Or one lump sum at the end of the year.

Now catch this..... what happens the following year? Everyone goes back to their original pay.

You have solved absolutely nothing. Everyone is right back where they were before your plan.

But here is what has changed. Now everyone knows that stocks are not safe investments, because you just stole Christie's assets.

So now, Walmart stock dropped in value like a rock. Because it drops in value, Walmart can't sell stocks to get the money they need to open new stores, or renovate existing stores. So no new jobs are created, and old stores start losing customers and closing, losing jobs.

So you have not only solved nothing, but you have created a bunch of problems, harming society.

Are you saying you can gain assets for free.........lol........It takes money to make these investments you call "assets"..........

No, it doesn't. It doesn't take any money at all. That exactly why companies pay CEOs with stock.

Have you not ever wondered why CEOs are paid with company stock, instead of cash? Wouldn't the CEO rather have actual money, instead of a bit of paper that says he owns shares in a company?

Of course. Wouldn't you rather be paid in cash than stock?

The whole reason there are 'stock options', is because it doesn't cost the company anything to give the CEO stock. The company itself, owns it's own stock. A company can sell millions of shares in itself on the public market, and get capital.

But, for a CEO, he doesn't pay the company for the stock. The company just gives him the stock, as part of his compensation, and that costs the company nothing.

Now outside of that, is the owners. If you start a company, and sell stock, then I would have to buy into the company, by purchasing stock. That's true. That would require me to have dollars, to buy the shares.

But *YOU* don't have to buy stock. You created the company. You own it. By definition, you own 100% of the shares in the company.

Christie Walton owns stock, because her father owned the stock, because her father created the company. She didn't have to spend a penny. Nor did Sam Walton spend a penny. They OWNED the company. Originally 100% of the shares were theirs.

So yes, you can gain assets for free.... if you own the company. As the company grew, the stocks went up in value, then split.... when went up in value again, and split again. During that same time, the company has paid the Walton executives, with stock options. Those added to the rest, also grew in value, and split, and grew, and split.

As that happens for decades, a few thousands shares in a small store, ends up hundreds of millions of shares, worth Billions.... and you haven't collected a penny in real dollars.

And by the way... I don't know why that's surprising to you. If you buy land, it can grow in value very fast, increasing your asset values many times in a few decades.... and you haven't added a penny in real dollars to your assets.

-->No, it doesn't. It doesn't take any money at all. That exactly why companies pay CEOs with stock.<-- Oxymoron alert

Stock is free, yay!

Yes, it is. If you own the company to begin with, yes, it is free. Am I wrong?

Let's paint a smaller picture for you then..............

I am a small town grocery store. I'm going to pay you in paper towls. Did those paper towls cost money?

So.... that sheet of paper that the stock shares are printed on, did in fact cost an entire 0.6¢.

I stand corrected. It did cost the company a good $50, to give Christie Walton 8,333 shares in the company.

That assumes they transferred physically, rather than electronically.

I don't think that was your point, but if it is, then it's a fairly bad point to make.

 

[AntiParty]

Let's see?... Cheap Sneakers/Dead Children or More Expensive Sneakers/Healthy Living Children? It's a no-brainer. Most Americans would choose Cheap Sneakers/Dead Children. That's how bad things have gotten in our country. Such shocking greed and hate. Very depressing.

Well considering those dead children are Chinese, absolutely. China is already overpopulated as it is, after all.

Now if they were American children, you might have a point.

Nice try, though.

Now there's an idea. How bout we bring back Child Slave Labor here? Why outsource all that Child Slave Labor? Whata ya say?

Import the Chinese kids? Nah, then we'd have to feed them, and I don't want to have to increase our dependency on China for rice.

I like the current situation just fine.

Nah, bring back the good ole days. The days when American children died horrific deaths trying to make ends meet for a starving family. Oh those were the days.

Now THAT is Freedom! (R)ight?

Seriously, why should Walmart Outsource all that wonderful Child Slave Labor? Why not give our American kids a shot? Why should China have all the fun? Please run it by Walmart. We can make America even greater. Bring the Child Slave Labor back home. Do it for America.

Then children would be happy again!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg

Hey, ignore the bruses. They came out of the elevator that way LOL! I KNOW that was a very insensitive sports joke.

The problem with bruising children is you have to keep reapplying.

I'll let your posts about grinding up children and abusing them speak for themselves on the topic. Smart stuff.

 

[AntiParty]

Things you probably have already seen or will see about this topic is people saying WalMart will have to raise prices if they pay their workers better. Like the McDonalds debate, this is ignorance of the topic. One person, Christie Walton is worth $36.7 BILLION. I would like someone to do the math to see how much workers would have got if she was just worth 1 billion, I guarantee she didn't work for all of that money alone, it took a team.

But then Christie would have to learn how to live with $1Billion and the WalMart Managers won't be obligated to hand out Welfare information to the people that ask for a raise.

A little research goes a long way people. Stay smart. Stop letting Corporations own your thinking. The Commerce Claus in the Constitution and the laws against Monopolies were there for a reason. Stop justifying everything America is against because Fox News says we should. YOU SHOULD BE SMARTER THAN THAT.

But the entire premise you gave is flawed.

Christie Walton, is not getting $36.7 Billion in DOLLARS from Walmart. You can't collect $36.7 Billion in dollars from Christie Walton, and give it to the workers, because she does not have $36.7 Billion in dollars.

Christie Walton has $36.7 Billion in ASSETS. And a kicker... not even all those are assets are Walmart stock.

Christie Walton also had majority ownership of Arvest Bank. Christie also owns a large chunk of First Solar.

Now how do you propose we deal with that? Do you just forcibly confiscate Christie's stock? And then what? Sell the stock? Who do you think is going to buy the stock, so that you can give the money to the workers, when a stock holder just had their stock confiscated? Would you want to buy the stock after that?

Even if you did... let's magically say you did force Christie Walton to sell the stock, confiscated her money, and give it to the employees, which would be let's even say the full $36.7 Billion, that would be a ONE TIME SUM of $16,600 for each employee. Knock off taxes, and the fact this would bump most of the employees up a tax bracket, and then chop out all the benefits Walmart has.

We're talking $10,000 for each employee, for one year. Or one lump sum at the end of the year.

Now catch this..... what happens the following year? Everyone goes back to their original pay.

You have solved absolutely nothing. Everyone is right back where they were before your plan.

But here is what has changed. Now everyone knows that stocks are not safe investments, because you just stole Christie's assets.

So now, Walmart stock dropped in value like a rock. Because it drops in value, Walmart can't sell stocks to get the money they need to open new stores, or renovate existing stores. So no new jobs are created, and old stores start losing customers and closing, losing jobs.

So you have not only solved nothing, but you have created a bunch of problems, harming society.

Are you saying you can gain assets for free.........lol........It takes money to make these investments you call "assets"..........

No, it doesn't. It doesn't take any money at all. That exactly why companies pay CEOs with stock.

Have you not ever wondered why CEOs are paid with company stock, instead of cash? Wouldn't the CEO rather have actual money, instead of a bit of paper that says he owns shares in a company?

Of course. Wouldn't you rather be paid in cash than stock?

The whole reason there are 'stock options', is because it doesn't cost the company anything to give the CEO stock. The company itself, owns it's own stock. A company can sell millions of shares in itself on the public market, and get capital.

But, for a CEO, he doesn't pay the company for the stock. The company just gives him the stock, as part of his compensation, and that costs the company nothing.

Now outside of that, is the owners. If you start a company, and sell stock, then I would have to buy into the company, by purchasing stock. That's true. That would require me to have dollars, to buy the shares.

But *YOU* don't have to buy stock. You created the company. You own it. By definition, you own 100% of the shares in the company.

Christie Walton owns stock, because her father owned the stock, because her father created the company. She didn't have to spend a penny. Nor did Sam Walton spend a penny. They OWNED the company. Originally 100% of the shares were theirs.

So yes, you can gain assets for free.... if you own the company. As the company grew, the stocks went up in value, then split.... when went up in value again, and split again. During that same time, the company has paid the Walton executives, with stock options. Those added to the rest, also grew in value, and split, and grew, and split.

As that happens for decades, a few thousands shares in a small store, ends up hundreds of millions of shares, worth Billions.... and you haven't collected a penny in real dollars.

And by the way... I don't know why that's surprising to you. If you buy land, it can grow in value very fast, increasing your asset values many times in a few decades.... and you haven't added a penny in real dollars to your assets.

-->No, it doesn't. It doesn't take any money at all. That exactly why companies pay CEOs with stock.<-- Oxymoron alert

Stock is free, yay!

Yes, it is. If you own the company to begin with, yes, it is free. Am I wrong?

Let's paint a smaller picture for you then..............

I am a small town grocery store. I'm going to pay you in paper towls. Did those paper towls cost money?

So.... that sheet of paper that the stock shares are printed on, did in fact cost an entire 0.6¢.

I stand corrected. It did cost the company a good $50, to give Christie Walton 8,333 shares in the company.

That assumes they transferred physically, rather than electronically.

I don't think that was your point, but if it is, then it's a fairly bad point to make.

Yea, checks aren't worth very much either lol. Just paper.

I'm guessing you are one of those one topic voters, possibly Abortion due to your pic. Politics is way beyond one topic and basic business seems to be beyond you.

If you are truly a Christian then start loving your fellow man. "give everything you have to the poor and follow me" someone once said. Guess who!

 

[House]

Things you probably have already seen or will see about this topic is people saying WalMart will have to raise prices if they pay their workers better. Like the McDonalds debate, this is ignorance of the topic. One person, Christie Walton is worth $36.7 BILLION. I would like someone to do the math to see how much workers would have got if she was just worth 1 billion, I guarantee she didn't work for all of that money alone, it took a team.

But then Christie would have to learn how to live with $1Billion and the WalMart Managers won't be obligated to hand out Welfare information to the people that ask for a raise.

A little research goes a long way people. Stay smart. Stop letting Corporations own your thinking. The Commerce Claus in the Constitution and the laws against Monopolies were there for a reason. Stop justifying everything America is against because Fox News says we should. YOU SHOULD BE SMARTER THAN THAT.

But the entire premise you gave is flawed.

Christie Walton, is not getting $36.7 Billion in DOLLARS from Walmart. You can't collect $36.7 Billion in dollars from Christie Walton, and give it to the workers, because she does not have $36.7 Billion in dollars.

Christie Walton has $36.7 Billion in ASSETS. And a kicker... not even all those are assets are Walmart stock.

Christie Walton also had majority ownership of Arvest Bank. Christie also owns a large chunk of First Solar.

Now how do you propose we deal with that? Do you just forcibly confiscate Christie's stock? And then what? Sell the stock? Who do you think is going to buy the stock, so that you can give the money to the workers, when a stock holder just had their stock confiscated? Would you want to buy the stock after that?

Even if you did... let's magically say you did force Christie Walton to sell the stock, confiscated her money, and give it to the employees, which would be let's even say the full $36.7 Billion, that would be a ONE TIME SUM of $16,600 for each employee. Knock off taxes, and the fact this would bump most of the employees up a tax bracket, and then chop out all the benefits Walmart has.

We're talking $10,000 for each employee, for one year. Or one lump sum at the end of the year.

Now catch this..... what happens the following year? Everyone goes back to their original pay.

You have solved absolutely nothing. Everyone is right back where they were before your plan.

But here is what has changed. Now everyone knows that stocks are not safe investments, because you just stole Christie's assets.

So now, Walmart stock dropped in value like a rock. Because it drops in value, Walmart can't sell stocks to get the money they need to open new stores, or renovate existing stores. So no new jobs are created, and old stores start losing customers and closing, losing jobs.

So you have not only solved nothing, but you have created a bunch of problems, harming society.

Are you saying you can gain assets for free.........lol........It takes money to make these investments you call "assets"..........

No, it doesn't. It doesn't take any money at all. That exactly why companies pay CEOs with stock.

Have you not ever wondered why CEOs are paid with company stock, instead of cash? Wouldn't the CEO rather have actual money, instead of a bit of paper that says he owns shares in a company?

Of course. Wouldn't you rather be paid in cash than stock?

The whole reason there are 'stock options', is because it doesn't cost the company anything to give the CEO stock. The company itself, owns it's own stock. A company can sell millions of shares in itself on the public market, and get capital.

But, for a CEO, he doesn't pay the company for the stock. The company just gives him the stock, as part of his compensation, and that costs the company nothing.

Now outside of that, is the owners. If you start a company, and sell stock, then I would have to buy into the company, by purchasing stock. That's true. That would require me to have dollars, to buy the shares.

But *YOU* don't have to buy stock. You created the company. You own it. By definition, you own 100% of the shares in the company.

Christie Walton owns stock, because her father owned the stock, because her father created the company. She didn't have to spend a penny. Nor did Sam Walton spend a penny. They OWNED the company. Originally 100% of the shares were theirs.

So yes, you can gain assets for free.... if you own the company. As the company grew, the stocks went up in value, then split.... when went up in value again, and split again. During that same time, the company has paid the Walton executives, with stock options. Those added to the rest, also grew in value, and split, and grew, and split.

As that happens for decades, a few thousands shares in a small store, ends up hundreds of millions of shares, worth Billions.... and you haven't collected a penny in real dollars.

And by the way... I don't know why that's surprising to you. If you buy land, it can grow in value very fast, increasing your asset values many times in a few decades.... and you haven't added a penny in real dollars to your assets.

-->No, it doesn't. It doesn't take any money at all. That exactly why companies pay CEOs with stock.<-- Oxymoron alert

Stock is free, yay!

Yes, it is. If you own the company to begin with, yes, it is free. Am I wrong?

Let's paint a smaller picture for you then..............

I am a small town grocery store. I'm going to pay you in paper towls. Did those paper towls cost money?

So.... that sheet of paper that the stock shares are printed on, did in fact cost an entire 0.6¢.

I stand corrected. It did cost the company a good $50, to give Christie Walton 8,333 shares in the company.

That assumes they transferred physically, rather than electronically.

I don't think that was your point, but if it is, then it's a fairly bad point to make.

Yea, checks aren't worth very much either lol. Just paper.

I'm guessing you are one of those one topic voters, possibly Abortion due to your pic. Politics is way beyond one topic and basic business seems to be beyond you.

If you are truly a Christian then start loving your fellow man. "give everything you have to the poor and follow me" someone once said. Guess who!

Joseph Smith?

 

[JoeB131]

Which explains why the Soviet Union was such an example of how well that worked.

Um, yeah, your average russian was better off under the USSR than he was under the Tsar, and better off than he is today when his Sister is considering selling herself off as a Mail Order Bride.

When your economy is based on competing with the Philippines for "Women willing to fuck fat old American Men", you probably have a problem.

Oh, wait. The Russians have "Freedom" and "Democracy" and "Captialism" now. It's so much better for them.

 

[paulitician]

We joke about bringing back Child Slave Labor in America. But if you proposed it to Walmart and other greedy Corporations in private, they would actually likely consider it. I truly believe they would have no problem with it if it meant higher profits. I mean after all, they don't have any problem supporting it in China. But hey, fat greedy Americans gotta have their cheap sneakers, right?

 

[SwimExpert]

Dunce!
If WalMart didnt hire them the taxpayer would be on the hook for their entire subsistence. WalMart subsidizes the state, not the other way around.

That is without a doubt the dumbest thing I've heard all week. And that's even after listening to the AGW cultists in the Enviro section. You fancy yourself a conservative, but you're committing the quintessential sins of liberal thinking.

1) We are not here to serve the almighty state.
2) Walmart needs to take responsibility for their own fucking payroll.

 

[SwimExpert]

Walmart pays what the market dictates they pay. It's that simple. If people won't work for the wages they offer they'll have a shortage of workers and will be forced to pay more. They are not obligated to pay anyone what you think they should be paid. That is how the free market works, Komrade.

And it all goes to show why the government should stay OUT of it altogether. Government intervention just makes things worse, not better. All the food stamps and other welfare that people can get....that's how companies like Walmart, Burger King, McDonalds, et el, can get away with it from their employees. It all adds up to government intervention into the labor and wage market. Get the government out of it, and the market will balance itself.

At the very least, I truly believe that we need to institute an employer charge back system for welfare subsidized payrolls. The large companies are no different than individuals. They need to take responsibility for their own payrolls. If you pay your workers so badly that they end up on the government dime, you should have to pay the costs of their welfare. If we do that, companies will learn very quickly that it's cheaper for them to pay their people a better wage that keeps them off the dole in the first place, than to pay the much higher costs of inefficiently run government welfare programs.

 

[Andylusion]

Things you probably have already seen or will see about this topic is people saying WalMart will have to raise prices if they pay their workers better. Like the McDonalds debate, this is ignorance of the topic. One person, Christie Walton is worth $36.7 BILLION. I would like someone to do the math to see how much workers would have got if she was just worth 1 billion, I guarantee she didn't work for all of that money alone, it took a team.

But then Christie would have to learn how to live with $1Billion and the WalMart Managers won't be obligated to hand out Welfare information to the people that ask for a raise.

A little research goes a long way people. Stay smart. Stop letting Corporations own your thinking. The Commerce Claus in the Constitution and the laws against Monopolies were there for a reason. Stop justifying everything America is against because Fox News says we should. YOU SHOULD BE SMARTER THAN THAT.

But the entire premise you gave is flawed.

Christie Walton, is not getting $36.7 Billion in DOLLARS from Walmart. You can't collect $36.7 Billion in dollars from Christie Walton, and give it to the workers, because she does not have $36.7 Billion in dollars.

Christie Walton has $36.7 Billion in ASSETS. And a kicker... not even all those are assets are Walmart stock.

Christie Walton also had majority ownership of Arvest Bank. Christie also owns a large chunk of First Solar.

Now how do you propose we deal with that? Do you just forcibly confiscate Christie's stock? And then what? Sell the stock? Who do you think is going to buy the stock, so that you can give the money to the workers, when a stock holder just had their stock confiscated? Would you want to buy the stock after that?

Even if you did... let's magically say you did force Christie Walton to sell the stock, confiscated her money, and give it to the employees, which would be let's even say the full $36.7 Billion, that would be a ONE TIME SUM of $16,600 for each employee. Knock off taxes, and the fact this would bump most of the employees up a tax bracket, and then chop out all the benefits Walmart has.

We're talking $10,000 for each employee, for one year. Or one lump sum at the end of the year.

Now catch this..... what happens the following year? Everyone goes back to their original pay.

You have solved absolutely nothing. Everyone is right back where they were before your plan.

But here is what has changed. Now everyone knows that stocks are not safe investments, because you just stole Christie's assets.

So now, Walmart stock dropped in value like a rock. Because it drops in value, Walmart can't sell stocks to get the money they need to open new stores, or renovate existing stores. So no new jobs are created, and old stores start losing customers and closing, losing jobs.

So you have not only solved nothing, but you have created a bunch of problems, harming society.

Are you saying you can gain assets for free.........lol........It takes money to make these investments you call "assets"..........

No, it doesn't. It doesn't take any money at all. That exactly why companies pay CEOs with stock.

Have you not ever wondered why CEOs are paid with company stock, instead of cash? Wouldn't the CEO rather have actual money, instead of a bit of paper that says he owns shares in a company?

Of course. Wouldn't you rather be paid in cash than stock?

The whole reason there are 'stock options', is because it doesn't cost the company anything to give the CEO stock. The company itself, owns it's own stock. A company can sell millions of shares in itself on the public market, and get capital.

But, for a CEO, he doesn't pay the company for the stock. The company just gives him the stock, as part of his compensation, and that costs the company nothing.

Now outside of that, is the owners. If you start a company, and sell stock, then I would have to buy into the company, by purchasing stock. That's true. That would require me to have dollars, to buy the shares.

But *YOU* don't have to buy stock. You created the company. You own it. By definition, you own 100% of the shares in the company.

Christie Walton owns stock, because her father owned the stock, because her father created the company. She didn't have to spend a penny. Nor did Sam Walton spend a penny. They OWNED the company. Originally 100% of the shares were theirs.

So yes, you can gain assets for free.... if you own the company. As the company grew, the stocks went up in value, then split.... when went up in value again, and split again. During that same time, the company has paid the Walton executives, with stock options. Those added to the rest, also grew in value, and split, and grew, and split.

As that happens for decades, a few thousands shares in a small store, ends up hundreds of millions of shares, worth Billions.... and you haven't collected a penny in real dollars.

And by the way... I don't know why that's surprising to you. If you buy land, it can grow in value very fast, increasing your asset values many times in a few decades.... and you haven't added a penny in real dollars to your assets.

-->No, it doesn't. It doesn't take any money at all. That exactly why companies pay CEOs with stock.<-- Oxymoron alert

Stock is free, yay!

Yes, it is. If you own the company to begin with, yes, it is free. Am I wrong?

Let's paint a smaller picture for you then..............

I am a small town grocery store. I'm going to pay you in paper towls. Did those paper towls cost money?

So.... that sheet of paper that the stock shares are printed on, did in fact cost an entire 0.6¢.

I stand corrected. It did cost the company a good $50, to give Christie Walton 8,333 shares in the company.

That assumes they transferred physically, rather than electronically.

I don't think that was your point, but if it is, then it's a fairly bad point to make.

Yea, checks aren't worth very much either lol. Just paper.

I'm guessing you are one of those one topic voters, possibly Abortion due to your pic. Politics is way beyond one topic and basic business seems to be beyond you.

If you are truly a Christian then start loving your fellow man. "give everything you have to the poor and follow me" someone once said. Guess who!

The fact that you are bringing up multiple unrelated strawman arguments, suggests that you know you lost this argument.

Back to the checks..... checks actually transfer money, from the account of the check owners, to the person given the check.

That's not how a stock works. I don't take a stock to a bank, and have them take money, from the company the share belongs to, and give it to me.

The only way the company gives you money for the stock, is only if the company does a stock buy back.

But outside of that, the whole purpose of selling stock is to gain the company money to expand the business. It doesn't cost the company anything to sell or give out stock. If it did, that would defeat the whole purpose of stock. And there is no 'stock production'. You don't hire a 'stock maker' in the back to pump out new stock. You simply 'issue' new stock. Doesn't cost you anything.

 

[The Rabbi]

Dunce!
If WalMart didnt hire them the taxpayer would be on the hook for their entire subsistence. WalMart subsidizes the state, not the other way around.

That is without a doubt the dumbest thing I've heard all week. And that's even after listening to the AGW cultists in the Enviro section. You fancy yourself a conservative, but you're committing the quintessential sins of liberal thinking.

1) We are not here to serve the almighty state.
2) Walmart needs to take responsibility for their own fucking payroll.

You aer a moron of the highest caliber. Who do you think is taking care of Walmart's payroll? Yeah, WalMart. That some of their employees qualify for government aid is irrelevant to Walmart. Any more than some of their employees are probably living rent free in their parents' home. Like you, no doubt.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which explains why the Soviet Union was such an example of how well that worked.

Um, yeah, your average russian was better off under the USSR than he was under the Tsar, and better off than he is today when his Sister is considering selling herself off as a Mail Order Bride.

When your economy is based on competing with the Philippines for "Women willing to fuck fat old American Men", you probably have a problem.

Oh, wait. The Russians have "Freedom" and "Democracy" and "Captialism" now. It's so much better for them.

I have trouble understanding how someone could be as stupid and ill informed as you are. I know we're the same age roughly but how is that I am well informed and coherent and you are a total dumbass? You've posted about your so called work experience. It is amazing to me that anyone would hire such an obvious whiner and gold bricker like you to begin with. So its no surprise they canned you at the first opportunity.
But instead of doing something to make youself more employable and more pleasant human being you simply double down on fat dumb and stupid.

 

[SwimExpert]

You aer a moron of the highest caliber. Who do you think is taking care of Walmart's payroll? Yeah, WalMart. That some of their employees qualify for government aid is irrelevant to Walmart. Any more than some of their employees are probably living rent free in their parents' home. Like you, no doubt.

That Walmart pays so poorly that their employees require government aid is BECAUSE of Walmart. That Walmart actively encourages its employees to rely upon government aid is ENTIRELY within their sphere of responsibility.

 

[The Rabbi]

You aer a moron of the highest caliber. Who do you think is taking care of Walmart's payroll? Yeah, WalMart. That some of their employees qualify for government aid is irrelevant to Walmart. Any more than some of their employees are probably living rent free in their parents' home. Like you, no doubt.

That Walmart pays so poorly that their employees require government aid is BECAUSE of Walmart. That Walmart actively encourages its employees to rely upon government aid is ENTIRELY within their sphere of responsibility.

I guess WalMart dragoons their employees out of dive bars. They awake to discover they are suddenly greeters drawing a paycheck. Right?
Again, you are an idiot of planetary proportions. WalMart pays its employees agreed upon wages. Anyone is free to seek better employment elsewhere. If you have a problem with government aid programs, lobby your congressman.

 

[Andylusion]

Dunce!
If WalMart didnt hire them the taxpayer would be on the hook for their entire subsistence. WalMart subsidizes the state, not the other way around.

That is without a doubt the dumbest thing I've heard all week. And that's even after listening to the AGW cultists in the Enviro section. You fancy yourself a conservative, but you're committing the quintessential sins of liberal thinking.

1) We are not here to serve the almighty state.
2) Walmart needs to take responsibility for their own fucking payroll.

Walmart does. That's not the problem. The problem is how much people can collect from the state. Cut that, and the problem is gone.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Things you probably have already seen or will see about this topic is people saying WalMart will have to raise prices if they pay their workers better. Like the McDonalds debate, this is ignorance of the topic. One person, Christie Walton is worth $36.7 BILLION. I would like someone to do the math to see how much workers would have got if she was just worth 1 billion, I guarantee she didn't work for all of that money alone, it took a team.

But then Christie would have to learn how to live with $1Billion and the WalMart Managers won't be obligated to hand out Welfare information to the people that ask for a raise.

A little research goes a long way people. Stay smart. Stop letting Corporations own your thinking. The Commerce Claus in the Constitution and the laws against Monopolies were there for a reason. Stop justifying everything America is against because Fox News says we should. YOU SHOULD BE SMARTER THAN THAT.

But the entire premise you gave is flawed.

Christie Walton, is not getting $36.7 Billion in DOLLARS from Walmart. You can't collect $36.7 Billion in dollars from Christie Walton, and give it to the workers, because she does not have $36.7 Billion in dollars.

Christie Walton has $36.7 Billion in ASSETS. And a kicker... not even all those are assets are Walmart stock.

Christie Walton also had majority ownership of Arvest Bank. Christie also owns a large chunk of First Solar.

Now how do you propose we deal with that? Do you just forcibly confiscate Christie's stock? And then what? Sell the stock? Who do you think is going to buy the stock, so that you can give the money to the workers, when a stock holder just had their stock confiscated? Would you want to buy the stock after that?

Even if you did... let's magically say you did force Christie Walton to sell the stock, confiscated her money, and give it to the employees, which would be let's even say the full $36.7 Billion, that would be a ONE TIME SUM of $16,600 for each employee. Knock off taxes, and the fact this would bump most of the employees up a tax bracket, and then chop out all the benefits Walmart has.

We're talking $10,000 for each employee, for one year. Or one lump sum at the end of the year.

Now catch this..... what happens the following year? Everyone goes back to their original pay.

You have solved absolutely nothing. Everyone is right back where they were before your plan.

But here is what has changed. Now everyone knows that stocks are not safe investments, because you just stole Christie's assets.

So now, Walmart stock dropped in value like a rock. Because it drops in value, Walmart can't sell stocks to get the money they need to open new stores, or renovate existing stores. So no new jobs are created, and old stores start losing customers and closing, losing jobs.

So you have not only solved nothing, but you have created a bunch of problems, harming society.

Are you saying you can gain assets for free.........lol........It takes money to make these investments you call "assets"..........

No, it doesn't. It doesn't take any money at all. That exactly why companies pay CEOs with stock.

Have you not ever wondered why CEOs are paid with company stock, instead of cash? Wouldn't the CEO rather have actual money, instead of a bit of paper that says he owns shares in a company?

Of course. Wouldn't you rather be paid in cash than stock?

The whole reason there are 'stock options', is because it doesn't cost the company anything to give the CEO stock. The company itself, owns it's own stock. A company can sell millions of shares in itself on the public market, and get capital.

But, for a CEO, he doesn't pay the company for the stock. The company just gives him the stock, as part of his compensation, and that costs the company nothing.

Now outside of that, is the owners. If you start a company, and sell stock, then I would have to buy into the company, by purchasing stock. That's true. That would require me to have dollars, to buy the shares.

But *YOU* don't have to buy stock. You created the company. You own it. By definition, you own 100% of the shares in the company.

Christie Walton owns stock, because her father owned the stock, because her father created the company. She didn't have to spend a penny. Nor did Sam Walton spend a penny. They OWNED the company. Originally 100% of the shares were theirs.

So yes, you can gain assets for free.... if you own the company. As the company grew, the stocks went up in value, then split.... when went up in value again, and split again. During that same time, the company has paid the Walton executives, with stock options. Those added to the rest, also grew in value, and split, and grew, and split.

As that happens for decades, a few thousands shares in a small store, ends up hundreds of millions of shares, worth Billions.... and you haven't collected a penny in real dollars.

And by the way... I don't know why that's surprising to you. If you buy land, it can grow in value very fast, increasing your asset values many times in a few decades.... and you haven't added a penny in real dollars to your assets.

-->No, it doesn't. It doesn't take any money at all. That exactly why companies pay CEOs with stock.<-- Oxymoron alert

Stock is free, yay!

Yes, it is. If you own the company to begin with, yes, it is free. Am I wrong?

Let's paint a smaller picture for you then..............

I am a small town grocery store. I'm going to pay you in paper towls. Did those paper towls cost money?

So.... that sheet of paper that the stock shares are printed on, did in fact cost an entire 0.6¢.

I stand corrected. It did cost the company a good $50, to give Christie Walton 8,333 shares in the company.

That assumes they transferred physically, rather than electronically.

I don't think that was your point, but if it is, then it's a fairly bad point to make.

Yea, checks aren't worth very much either lol. Just paper.

I'm guessing you are one of those one topic voters, possibly Abortion due to your pic. Politics is way beyond one topic and basic business seems to be beyond you.

If you are truly a Christian then start loving your fellow man. "give everything you have to the poor and follow me" someone once said. Guess who!

The fact that you are bringing up multiple unrelated strawman arguments, suggests that you know you lost this argument.

Back to the checks..... checks actually transfer money, from the account of the check owners, to the person given the check.

That's not how a stock works. I don't take a stock to a bank, and have them take money, from the company the share belongs to, and give it to me.

The only way the company gives you money for the stock, is only if the company does a stock buy back.

But outside of that, the whole purpose of selling stock is to gain the company money to expand the business. It doesn't cost the company anything to sell or give out stock. If it did, that would defeat the whole purpose of stock. And there is no 'stock production'. You don't hire a 'stock maker' in the back to pump out new stock. You simply 'issue' new stock. Doesn't cost you anything.

Somewhere in this thread there was actually a poster who believed that the company made money every time someone sold their stock to someone else.

Some people........................

 

[Andylusion]

You aer a moron of the highest caliber. Who do you think is taking care of Walmart's payroll? Yeah, WalMart. That some of their employees qualify for government aid is irrelevant to Walmart. Any more than some of their employees are probably living rent free in their parents' home. Like you, no doubt.

That Walmart pays so poorly that their employees require government aid is BECAUSE of Walmart. That Walmart actively encourages its employees to rely upon government aid is ENTIRELY within their sphere of responsibility.

No, you are wrong. Walmart pays better than most other stores in the same business.

The left, loves to compare apples and oranges, in order to say Walmart is terrible. Let's compare Walmart to Costco, which is a completely different business model.

But if you compare Walmart to any other similar store, it's never 'worse', and sometimes it's better.

Glassdoor ndash Get Hired. Love Your Job.

I punched in, Krogers, Giant Eagle, Walmart, Target and Meijers. For all 5 stores, I looked at "Cashier".

Krogers: Ave Wage $7.99
Target: Ave wage $8.23
Meijer: Ave Wage $8.30
Giant Eagle: Ave Wage $8.57
Walmart: Ave Wage $8.59

By the way, employee satisfaction survey, shows 4 out of 5 stars, average response.

Now there are all the stores in my area. There are no others. Walmart has the highest pay of all of them.

You want to knock down the best paying job in my area. Are you helping the people here, or harming them?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Dunce!
If WalMart didnt hire them the taxpayer would be on the hook for their entire subsistence. WalMart subsidizes the state, not the other way around.

That is without a doubt the dumbest thing I've heard all week. And that's even after listening to the AGW cultists in the Enviro section. You fancy yourself a conservative, but you're committing the quintessential sins of liberal thinking.

1) We are not here to serve the almighty state.
2) Walmart needs to take responsibility for their own fucking payroll.

Walmart does. That's not the problem. The problem is how much people can collect from the state. Cut that, and the problem is gone.

We're not just going to cut welfare.

That is unrealistic.

The point they are making, and the point I agree with is , people who work those types of jobs DO NOT CARE who pays their bills. In other words they will work the shitty jobs for the shitty wages if they can go get on welfare to and companies know this, so they offer the shitty wages.

Given that we aren't getting rid of welfare, and we're not going to, the only other realistic solution is force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare. THEN we can cut back on welfare some and tell people who either won't make themselves worth the new minimum wage or who think they should have 8 kids while making minimum wage to fuck off.

But until we correct the situation to where one person can FULLY support themselves (in this context meaning not be eligible for welfare) then it isn't right, fair, or proper to just say "well no welfare for you"

If you tell a person the minimum wage is now $10 an hour, and there is no welfare for those who just WON'T make themselves worth $10 an hour, most of them will figure out how to make themselves worth $10 an hour real quick.

 

[Andylusion]

The fact that you are bringing up multiple unrelated strawman arguments, suggests that you know you lost this argument.

Back to the checks..... checks actually transfer money, from the account of the check owners, to the person given the check.

That's not how a stock works. I don't take a stock to a bank, and have them take money, from the company the share belongs to, and give it to me.

The only way the company gives you money for the stock, is only if the company does a stock buy back.

But outside of that, the whole purpose of selling stock is to gain the company money to expand the business. It doesn't cost the company anything to sell or give out stock. If it did, that would defeat the whole purpose of stock. And there is no 'stock production'. You don't hire a 'stock maker' in the back to pump out new stock. You simply 'issue' new stock. Doesn't cost you anything.

Somewhere in this thread there was actually a poster who believed that the company made money every time someone sold their stock to someone else.

Some people........................

What? What was their logic? Did they have an explanation for why they thought that?