• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wal-Mart Asks Workers To Donate Food To Its Needy Employees

Howdy, new guy here, I found this topic interesting so I'm chiming in. Not everyone can be a Doctor, Lawyer or Indian Chief. Retail and fast food workers are what some will ever be. However there are other companies like COSTCO who realize the value of their lower level employees. They are paid well and treated like assets rather that cattle. All the while Costco still manages to turn a nice profit. You get what you pay for. COSTCO pays their employees a livable wage and gets sales per employee at double what Walmart subsidiary Sams club gets from their employees who work for lousy pay. We the tax-payer are picking up the Tab for Walmart's poor wages.
 
Howdy, new guy here, I found this topic interesting so I'm chiming in. Not everyone can be a Doctor, Lawyer or Indian Chief. Retail and fast food workers are what some will ever be. However there are other companies like COSTCO who realize the value of their lower level employees. They are paid well and treated like assets rather that cattle. All the while Costco still manages to turn a nice profit. You get what you pay for. COSTCO pays their employees a livable wage and gets sales per employee at double what Walmart subsidiary Sams club gets from their employees who work for lousy pay. We the tax-payer are picking up the Tab for Walmart's poor wages.

Welcome aboard! And that's why I shop at Costco rather than the copy that Walmart has created.
 
A tax break is welfare--it's mathematically equivalent to everyone paying one tax rate, and then some of them being forced to pay an additional amount to someone else.

Tes, yes, I got that. But todays thrilling topic is FEDERAL SUBSIDIES since each community makes their own decisions to attract or discourage businesses to their area and these take too many forms to discuss here.

Now, ethanol = subsidy. Exploration = subsidy. These are things the lovely congress traded for to reward their money bundlers.

When WalMart gets free stuff locally, the community recovers far more than they invest. Jobs. Lots of jobs.

I can't believe I'm defending a huge corporation whose stores I don't use but logic is more valuable than partisanship (to me).
 
I would argue that if small groups wanted to live as you state (see bold), there is nothing stopping them from doing so in American society. It is done...in things like communes, religious groups, etc.

That is true, and there were hippies who started up communes in Vermont, Colorado and California back when I was young, but most, if not all of them disintegrated because without some sort of religion or institution to enforce conformity, it is difficult to keep an isolated commune together in the modern world. I used to live fairly close to a number of Mennonite communities, and they are struggling today in ways they never did before as rising populations, land values, farming regulations etc. are making more and more difficult for them to live off the land by traditional ways. Many Mennonites have had to abandon the farms and establish craft industries such as furniture making in their place. But, the changes mean trying to adapt to urban life and having to change their customs and traditions.
 
Good grief.

How about they pay them a freaking living wage? This is just ridiculous. Putting money before humanity is the biggest problem in the world.
 
That is true, and there were hippies who started up communes in Vermont, Colorado and California back when I was young, but most, if not all of them disintegrated because without some sort of religion or institution to enforce conformity, it is difficult to keep an isolated commune together in the modern world. I used to live fairly close to a number of Mennonite communities, and they are struggling today in ways they never did before as rising populations, land values, farming regulations etc. are making more and more difficult for them to live off the land by traditional ways. Many Mennonites have had to abandon the farms and establish craft industries such as furniture making in their place. But, the changes mean trying to adapt to urban life and having to change their customs and traditions.


Then perhaps it is not a viable alternative. Or it is only for some.

But not IMO, something to aspire to change overall society towards.
 
. We the tax-payer are picking up the Tab for Walmart's poor wages.

Two wrongs dont make a right.

I dont disagree with your post in general but there is a huge diversity of employment between doctor and burger-flipper/shelf stocker. There's nothing wrong with starting out in unskilled labor/service positions.

But for anyone except perhaps (only perhaps since I give them a great deal of credit) the physically or mentally challenged, there is NO reason to remain in those positions. Anyone can learn, gain experience, move on or up. And then they leave those unskilled positions open for the next young people, elderly on fixed incomes, people needing part-time jobs to pay for college, medical bills, moms that have to get home when kids get home from school, etc.

And also, one reason the jobs dont pay well is because almost none of them work 40 hours a week. (Many companies, as well as small businesses and city/state/county agencies use this strategy to limit the benefits they have to pay employees...but it certainly is not limited to big biz)
 
Anyone who walks into a Wal-Mart, knowing what they are, is so self centered and greedy I doubt they are even remotely willing to help someone else unless there is a tax break in it for them.

I don't think you are being fair to many who shop at Wal-Mart. They are poor too, so are looking for the best deal they can get.
 
And what's to stop these corporations like Walmart from cutting in to their profit margins to maintain current price levels? It's incredulous that anyone can actually believe that a corporation that has enriched itself in the way Walmart has over the last 30 years cannot afford to pay their employees higher wages!

It would be starting a different topic, but the root of the problem is the capitalist system itself, because nobody working for a private company can be payed back in wages what they contribute to the company through their work. Because, as we hear so frequently around here, the owners of a business...whether large or small, have to earn profits as an incentive to stay in business or to expand their business. The difference between most economic debate from left to right is how much profit is too much profit, and whether there should be brakes applied to the capitalist system. I would go in a whole new direction and advocate replacing corporate ownership with cooperative ownership, which has succeeded in a few cases, but in an overwhelming and hostile capitalist system, establishing coops...even in the cases of failed corporations is extremely difficult.

Nothing but why should they pay more , its low menial task that require no brains . It would be entirely different thread and yes I do agree with what you are saying but unfortunately that is not the way America works . As I said before you cant take a problem like this in the middle. It is difficult its business . I don't think of it wise for me to go any farther don't want to get off direction and off topic of this thread too much .
 
Nothing but why should they pay more , its low menial task that require no brains . It would be entirely different thread and yes I do agree with what you are saying but unfortunately that is not the way America works . As I said before you cant take a problem like this in the middle. It is difficult its business . I don't think of it wise for me to go any farther don't want to get off direction and off topic of this thread too much .

By the way, have you worked at a WalMart? I haven't (a Target once, for a day) but the jobs aren't "brainless".

For example, a cousin works in the photo dept; she has to handle developing pictures and making them look as good as possible for people; she's trained on multiple machines and does some troubleshooting/fixing of them when they break.

I worked in a shoe dept at Target for one day. You have to keep all the shelves organized, restock as needed, answer people's q's, and deal with many kinds of people.

Cashiers have to handle the registers, items that may have their tags taken off, watch for people trying to rip the store off, etc.

I'm not saying this needs a college degree; but no job is "brainless". Some jobs are easier to learn than others, but they all require some skills.

And because WalMart depends on repeat customers, all of its associates have to be at least somewhat able to handle people in all their grumpiness and greed.

I know after working in the shoe dept for the one day I fled gratefully to another job I was offered just after the Target job - paste-up at a newspaper. But my roommate (I was in college) worked at Target her final two years. Not an easy job, actually.
 
Two wrongs dont make a right.

I dont disagree with your post in general but there is a huge diversity of employment between doctor and burger-flipper/shelf stocker. There's nothing wrong with starting out in unskilled labor/service positions.
But for anyone except perhaps (only perhaps since I give them a great deal of credit) the physically or mentally challenged, there is NO reason to remain in those positions. Anyone can learn, gain experience, move on or up. And then they leave those unskilled positions open for the next young people, elderly on fixed incomes, people needing part-time jobs to pay for college, medical bills, moms that have to get home when kids get home from school, etc.

And also, one reason the jobs dont pay well is because almost none of them work 40 hours a week. (Many companies, as well as small businesses and city/state/county agencies use this strategy to limit the benefits they have to pay employees...but it certainly is not limited to big biz)
I would argue that the burger flipper is an asset to their employer. Without them what do you have? Costco is proof that Walmart has it wrong. Costco's recent quarterly earnings prove that you can pay your employees a real living wage, provide affordable health benefits(which 88% of Costco employees have) and still turn a sizable profit. Walmart pays their employees as if they don't need to eat more than a few times a week. Walmart is a crap company that pays crap money, provides poor service and sells crappy products.
 
And also, one reason the jobs dont pay well is because almost none of them work 40 hours a week.
I disagree--at least with the Wal-mart paradigm. If you go back to this post in this thread you will find out that the majority of Wal-mart's associates work full time. (That's 1.3 million, which is a huge chunk of people working full time)

Then Lundberg led me deep into the company’s website to find where Wal-Mart states its average full-time hourly wage: $12.83. How many employees work full-time? Wal-Mart will only say that it’s the majority.
 
I would argue that the burger flipper is an asset to their employer. Without them what do you have? Costco is proof that Walmart has it wrong. Costco's recent quarterly earnings prove that you can pay your employees a real living wage, provide affordable health benefits(which 88% of Costco employees have) and still turn a sizable profit. Walmart pays their employees as if they don't need to eat more than a few times a week. Walmart is a crap company that pays crap money, provides poor service and sells crappy products.

A low skilled worker is an asset if, and only if, they can show up reliably, work as directed with minimal supervision, accept direction/training and become a higher skilled worker. It is at that point that they are given a raise, thus encouraged to stay on; otherwise, what you have is a job opening.

To assert that they are not paid amply denies that the average wage is 50% above the starting wage. These folks are not asked to perform complex/dangerous tasks, supply their own training or tools - in short, they are the easiest of all workers to replace.
 
I disagree--at least with the Wal-mart paradigm. If you go back to this post in this thread you will find out that the majority of Wal-mart's associates work full time. (That's 1.3 million, which is a huge chunk of people working full time)


Is full time 40 hours a week? For some states it's 35 or 32.
 
I would argue that the burger flipper is an asset to their employer. Without them what do you have? Costco is proof that Walmart has it wrong. Costco's recent quarterly earnings prove that you can pay your employees a real living wage, provide affordable health benefits(which 88% of Costco employees have) and still turn a sizable profit. Walmart pays their employees as if they don't need to eat more than a few times a week. Walmart is a crap company that pays crap money, provides poor service and sells crappy products.

I didnt say they werent assets, I referred to them, or at least meant 'unskilled.' Meaning that almost anyone can fill those positions with a minimum of training. Meaning the job pool is huge.

Also, if people prefer that, then they can choose to work at Costco instead of Walmart. No one is forcing anyone to work anywhere.
 
Good grief.

How about they pay them a freaking living wage? This is just ridiculous. Putting money before humanity is the biggest problem in the world.

As I pointed out earlier, walmart does pay someone a 'living wage" that is fresh from highschool and has no dependents. I'm not sure how much compensation you expect for low-skilled work that anyone who isn't disabled (in some instances this isn't even a requirement) can perform
 
Good grief.

How about they pay them a freaking living wage? This is just ridiculous. Putting money before humanity is the biggest problem in the world.

Private enterprise doesn't run on pleas, cries, and requests that run contrary to profit.

That's what Washington is for.
 
I would argue that the burger flipper is an asset to their employer. Without them what do you have? Costco is proof that Walmart has it wrong. Costco's recent quarterly earnings prove that you can pay your employees a real living wage, provide affordable health benefits(which 88% of Costco employees have) and still turn a sizable profit. Walmart pays their employees as if they don't need to eat more than a few times a week. Walmart is a crap company that pays crap money, provides poor service and sells crappy products.

And when demand for unskilled wage-donkeys surpasses supply of unskilled wage-donkeys, you have a point.

Until then, you don't. Have a nice day.
 
Private enterprise doesn't run on pleas, cries, and requests that run contrary to profit.

That's what Washington is for.

Well perhaps they should.

Anyone who puts money before humanity is a douche.
 
Well perhaps they should.

Anyone who puts money before humanity is a douche.

"Should" is not a word in a successful business.

If you want, there are small communes scattered throughout America that live something close to a Little House on the Prairie lifestyle. There, you can live your life totally happy on the concept of "should".
 
"Should" is not a word in a successful business.

If you want, there are small communes scattered throughout America that live something close to a Little House on the Prairie lifestyle. There, you can live your life totally happy on the concept of "should".

Businesses can make a profit without being assholes. They may not be able to make the most profit, but they can have a successful operation. That is what they should strive for; like I said, people before profit, period.

I don't understand how the people can make these types of decisions and be able to sleep at night.
 
Businesses can make a profit without being assholes. They may not be able to make the most profit, but they can have a successful operation. That is what they should strive for; like I said, people before profit, period.

I don't understand how the people can make these types of decisions and be able to sleep at night.

Three guesses what the single largest employer in America is - and the first two don't count.

They pay a federally legal minimum wage (more, actually) to more than two million employees. This is an agreed upon wage. It is not slavery. It is not coercion. It is not indentured servitude.

They do much less harm than good in America. Also, they do pay a "liveable wage". What they don't pay is a "steak-every-weekend-new-car-every-other-year-apple-iphone-every-six-months" wage.

You will never win any economic argument when you take a stance that people owe you a damn thing other than an agreed upon wage and set of circumstances.
 
So Walmart is supposed to pay its workers a market-inefficient wage just so they don't qualify for certain government benefits? I'm sorry, is Wal-mart no longer a private enterprise anymore? Does the government own them?

Your argument is absurd.

Walmart drive down wages in the communities where they are located. Before Walmarts moves in, people generally work for smaller employers and get better pay. Often those businesses go under due to Walmart low prices. If all employers were required to pay a minimum wage that is a livable wage then Walmart would not be able to drive their competition out of business so easily and tax payer subsidies for so many of their employees would not be necessary. Yes, their prices would not be so low, but that savings for individuals is negated by the overall cost to the community. This is why many communities are trying to stop Walmart from moving in.
 
Last edited:
Businesses can make a profit without being assholes. They may not be able to make the most profit, but they can have a successful operation. That is what they should strive for; like I said, people before profit, period.

I don't understand how the people can make these types of decisions and be able to sleep at night.

In the past many business people's behavior was somewhat constrained by the need to remain respected in their community. Now with corporations, billionaire owners jet setting around the world, and thousands of stock holders owning businesses, there is no social pressure to pay a living wage or deal with competition in a fair manner. Business has evolved into a system where the sleaziest people win most of the time.
 
Walmart drive down wages in the communities where they are located. Before Walmarts moves in, people generally work for smaller employers and get better pay. Often those businesses go under due to Walmart low prices. If all employers were required to pay a minimum wage that is a livable wage then Walmart would not be able to drive their competition out of business so easily and tax payer subsidies for so many of their employees would not be necessary. Yes, their prices would not be so low, but that savings for individuals is negated by the overall cost to the community. This is why many communities are trying to stop Walmart from moving in.

"Liveable" wages are a fantasy. Tell me an exact dollar amount of a living wage.
 
Back
Top Bottom