• 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

Gardener said:
I guess I must be getting old,because I always get these various donations mixed up in my head.

This often leads me to a few embarrassing moments when I'm not sure whether the organization in question wants my blood, my sperm or my food.
Click to expand...

:funny: I would be very interested in reading Lutherf's or humbolt's response to your post! Their unique outlook on life, coupled with their way with words, would be entertaining in the extreme, IMO! You guys are worth the price of admission to DP! :lamo:

Good evening, Gardener. :2wave:
 
Bob N said:
I don't know too many families that have 15 kids anyhow. :2razz:
Click to expand...

I was making an underlying point that someone not being aboe to support their family on a WM wage doesn't really speak too much. It's an empty talking point devoid of content and context
 
iliveonramen said:
It's not like it's a new idea that someone should pay a wage for someone to live on. Adam Smith criticized shop owners that didn't pay workers a wage that allowed them to sustain themselves. What's new is this idea that applauds squeezing workers as much as possible in order to increase gains for the owners.
Click to expand...

for a kid fresh out of HS walmart does pay enough to live on. I'm not sure that such work should pay enough for someone to raise a family. It isn't exactly demanding and requires nothing more than a base level of physical fitness (basically, you need to operate at a level above being disabled)
 
CanadaJohn said:
Actually, those financial institutions did break the law - that's why they paid hundreds of $billions in fines to the federal government - or did you just think they donated the money out of charitable good will?

Clearly, you wouldn't want to work for Walmart - with your entitlement mentality, I'm pretty sure their not too distressed.
Click to expand...

No, I specifically mentioned financial instruments. Although, some laws were passed to put better regulations in place in 2010, they don't really protect us enough from risky derivitives trading.

Also, you're glib comment is quite hypocritical. Walmart corporation feels entitled to have taxpayers pick up the tab for their employees. I feel it's Walmart's responsibility.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Stop & Shop competes with Walmart? I've never heard of them. Clearly, you have a very strange understanding of competition - but then, you don't seem to understand competition in the labor market either, so not too surprising.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, it's you that doesn't understand competition. Walmart wipes out the competition.
 
Bob N said:
Making $25,000.00 a year, Ma'am? And with the prices of goods and services? Apparently not if you have kids of your own.
Click to expand...

Well I can only hope they didnt have their kids AFTER they CHOSE to work at WalMart....that is, if they live somewhere where the wage paid by WalMart isnt sufficient to support it.
 
Bob N said:
Well it appears that a Cleveland, Ohio Walmart is holding a food drive so that it's employees can have a nice Holiday meal. The sign in the store, accompanied by several plastic bins, reads: "Please donate food items so associates in need can enjoy Thanksgiving dinner."

Really? Thank goodness those people are employed so those associates don't have to get on food stamps. :roll:

What cracks me up with some people that see nothing wrong with what Walmart is doing would probably go berserk if you wished them "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." :roll:
Click to expand...

another whine about the rich thread.

Move on nothing to see
 
Kreton said:
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.
Click to expand...

wow this thread really brings out the bark at the moon posts
 
Superfly said:
Walmart employs 2 million people. Do you seriously want them to pony up $100 to 2 million people? :lol: :lol: That's laughable.

Walmart was the top charitable contributor for 3 years in a row, donating 300 million dollars a year, every year. Nothing wrong with asking their employees to donate a couple of cans of food.
Click to expand...


"Top" of what? Top charitable contributor on what list? Is that for private businesses? Because it doesnt cover foundations and other organizations.
 
TurtleDude said:
wage slaves don't sing as well picking cotton though
Click to expand...

I've got a boycott list and WalMart is right there near the top. If you live in a small town, your town might have been 'Walmarted'. If not, it might soon be.
 
Grand Mal said:
I've got a boycott list and WalMart is right there near the top. If you live in a small town, your town might have been 'Walmarted'. If not, it might soon be.
Click to expand...

well isn't that special. I shop based on what has what I need when I need it and where I am
 
TurtleDude said:
well isn't that special. I shop based on what has what I need when I need it and where I am
Click to expand...

Well, then God bless ya. My principles have taken a sh*t-kicking with globalisation but there's a few really blatant dirty bastard corporations I can try to not pay and WalMart's one. If you need what WalMart sells then go for it and enjoy. Bring in the neighbours and show them what you bought.
 
Grand Mal said:
Well, then God bless ya. My principles have taken a sh*t-kicking with globalisation but there's a few really blatant dirty bastard corporations I can try to not pay and WalMart's one. If you need what WalMart sells then go for it and enjoy. Bring in the neighbours and show them what you bought.
Click to expand...

toilet paper, shaving cream, and anti acid (their home brand is half as much as walgreens) isn't stuff wort showing off
 
CanadaJohn said:
Good afternoon Lady P.

And that's how it should be, in my view - Walmart's business is to make money from retail sales. To profit, they must find the lowest cost goods to be competitive and they must pay the going rate for employees in the areas they locate. If they'd done otherwise, they wouldn't be the successful business they are today.
Click to expand...

I just want to take on the part of absurd libertarian economic theology that declares corporations have no obligations other than to earn profits for shareholders, because I think this modern corporate ethic....or lack of any ethics, is the main reason why it is impossible to deal with issues from global warming to income inequality to belligerent warmaking foreign policy. Corporations have responsibilities greater than making money, and should be dissolved if they can't meet them.

This is the one founding principle of the United States that they have completely dismantled over the last 150 years, because the American Revolution began as a popular uprising against the British strategy of empire of setting up private, faceless, unaccountable corporations to do the dirty work of extracting revenues from their colonies. This was the whole point behind the Boston Tea Party that today's clueless tea party activists have completely turned upside down!

In the early days of America, here's a list of obligations....besides making money that were expected of corporations:

Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
Click to expand...
Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

After more than a century of using their money to pick the locks of democratic government, the owners of corporate wealth have changed the laws in America to the point where artificial persons (corporations) have all the rights of real people, plus the opportunities we don't have....like being potentially immortal and growing in size through consuming smaller corporations. So now, the U.S. is in the sad state of being the fountainhead of corporate control of global political and economic policymaking. The U.S. has just assumed the role in global affairs that England had during their days of empire!
 
Commie said:
I just want to take on the part of absurd libertarian economic theology that declares corporations have no obligations other than to earn profits for shareholders, because I think this modern corporate ethic....or lack of any ethics, is the main reason why it is impossible to deal with issues from global warming to income inequality to belligerent warmaking foreign policy. Corporations have responsibilities greater than making money, and should be dissolved if they can't meet them.
Click to expand...

You put income equality on the list like it is a real thing.
 
Un biased said:
Far right thinks that way , their is moderate and being in the middle . Quite unfortunately your ideas just do not pan out . Lets say the minnum wage is increased their are a vast amount of possibilities that would not benefit but most likely worsen the situation . How would it help any way if people are making more money ( even if it doesn't fail before that point ) prices would just sky rocket again since if your making 15 dollar's an hour for a job that requires no thought than what should people who do something more meaningful than restocking shelves and checking out food .
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mason66 said:
You put income equality on the list like it is a real thing.
Click to expand...

Unless you are...or have some delusions of being a part of the rich and privileged class, it is a very real thing! Research | The Equality Trust

I would argue that based on books I'm reading of late on anthropological studies of simple hunter/gatherers, that the core reasons why increasing inequality correlates with so many different kinds of damaging effects to a society, as first presented in the works of epidemiologists - Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, is that we spent at least 200,000 years of the history of modern human race living in small family groups that stressed sharing and status-leveling. And then we transitioned less than 10,000 years ago to a new type of life where people could settle permanently, gather personal possession, and set up rigid status hierarchies....and we still haven't adapted to this system that most people have come to regard as natural or inevitable. So, what's wrong with trying to reclaim at least part of the ethos of our ancestors engage in some status leveling today? We have certainly gone farther than we ever should have in the other direction, and survival of future generations will depend on learning new ways of living!
 
TurtleDude said:
wow this thread really brings out the bark at the moon posts
Click to expand...

I didn't see that post by Kreton, but I've noticed it has been jumped on by a number of you right wing drones already, so I want to put in my two cents and say that there is a ring of truth in that statement; because every consumer should be using whatever money they have to shop responsibly! Let's just say I'm not a Walmart shopper...case closed! But, I do recognize that there are many people who have less money to spend than I do, and especially in many places where Walmart has driven small and local retail business out of business and has a virtual monopoly etc....there are many people who shop at Walmart because they feel they have little or no choice about it.
 
Commie said:
Unless you are...or have some delusions of being a part of the rich and privileged class, it is a very real thing! Research | The Equality Trust

I would argue that based on books I'm reading of late on anthropological studies of simple hunter/gatherers, that the core reasons why increasing inequality correlates with so many different kinds of damaging effects to a society, as first presented in the works of epidemiologists - Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, is that we spent at least 200,000 years of the history of modern human race living in small family groups that stressed sharing and status-leveling. And then we transitioned less than 10,000 years ago to a new type of life where people could settle permanently, gather personal possession, and set up rigid status hierarchies....and we still haven't adapted to this system that most people have come to regard as natural or inevitable. So, what's wrong with trying to reclaim at least part of the ethos of our ancestors engage in some status leveling today? We have certainly gone farther than we ever should have in the other direction, and survival of future generations will depend on learning new ways of living!
Click to expand...

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.
 
specklebang said:
I thought we were discussing Federal subsidies. There are indeed local and state subsidies by way of tax breaks and the Medicaid claim is kind of vague since apparently it is an individual choice. My source is the article you referenced.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom