• 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

What's happening J? While I agree with you for the most part (everyone cannot be me or you), what always seems to be avoided in the discussion is the government money allocated to the workers of Walmart in the form of food stamps, health care, etc. Let's just say the Forbes article stating Walmart stores average about a $1-Million a year in government subsides to it's workers is true (We know Walmart workers collect). You and I . . . the American taxpayer are paying for those subsidies. Now, let's just say there are only 1000 Walmart Superstores in America (There are well more than that) . . . that is $1-Billion a year WE pay so Walmart doesn't have too, and for many, it is still the people's fault. When they don't spend that $1-Billion paying their workers, that money just stays in the profit column. So, who is really getting the welfare?

It use to be department store jobs were a weigh station to bigger and better things for most folks . . . but we do not manufacture things anymore, and have developed into a service related economy that doesn't provide avenues to greater success like economies of the past. Not only that, the economic game plan of moving factories to places like China, Bangladesh, and Pakistan has played against the American worker, and developed products that can only be described as cheap (or inexpensive, you pick), poorly made, and have short life spans. I remember when a Washer & Dryer lasted 20-years. Hell, my Mom has a working Norge refrigerator in her basement from the Mid-1950s. We are lucky to get 10-years out of an appliance now-a-days.

It doesn't bother me that Walmart makes a profit . . . but at what cost to others? We are blaming workers for being on welfare while the employer walks away with corporate welfare and no one bats an eye. Sure, some people could get 2-jobs . . . hell, even three. But many cannot. I don't want to subsidize their health care when Walmart can still make huge profits AND pay their employees.

I don't shop at Walmart. Hate the place. It is a far cry from the first Walmart I ever went into when I was stationed in Memphis. Back in the day when the stores had banners all over every wall declaring all the merchandise was made in America . . . back when Sam Walton was still alive and the worker was considered along with profit. Walmart doesn't give two-shirts about the average American, and it always amazes me how the villain turns out to be their lazy workers.

Are those people aware that taxpayers subsidize the wages of underpaid Walmarts employees by providing them with foodstamps?

That is no justification. Two wrongs dont make a right.

People shouldnt try to LIVE off of a Walmart job if they cant LIVE off a Walmart job. It's not the taxpayer's fault that they developed no skills, didnt move up or move on, didnt move somewhere where there were better jobs or had more obligations than they can pay for.

Why, is this a lifestyle we want to encourage? Staying in a low-paying, unskilled job your whole life? Then trying to squeeze some kids or new cars or vacations into that?

The private sector pays lots of people decent, livable wages....but why should they pay people in *entry-level* and/or unskilled service/labor jobs MORE than they are entitled to? SO they'll REMAIN in those jobs? Enabling them to do so is HELPING them?

Besides, they need to leave those jobs behind for the next generation to learn in or the elderly to supplement an income i, etc.


The italics make it seem a bit more emphatic than the intent. I felt your well-thought out post deserved a decent answer. (altho not likely one you'll like :) )
 
What's happening J? While I agree with you for the most part (everyone cannot be me or you), what always seems to be avoided in the discussion is the government money allocated to the workers of Walmart in the form of food stamps, health care, etc. Let's just say the Forbes article stating Walmart stores average about a $1-Million a year in government subsides to it's workers is true (We know Walmart workers collect). You and I . . . the American taxpayer are paying for those subsidies. Now, let's just say there are only 1000 Walmart Superstores in America (There are well more than that) . . . that is $1-Billion a year WE pay so Walmart doesn't have too, and for many, it is still the people's fault. When they don't spend that $1-Billion paying their workers, that money just stays in the profit column. So, who is really getting the welfare?

It use to be department store jobs were a weigh station to bigger and better things for most folks . . . but we do not manufacture things anymore, and have developed into a service related economy that doesn't provide avenues to greater success like economies of the past. Not only that, the economic game plan of moving factories to places like China, Bangladesh, and Pakistan has played against the American worker, and developed products that can only be described as cheap (or inexpensive, you pick), poorly made, and have short life spans. I remember when a Washer & Dryer lasted 20-years. Hell, my Mom has a working Norge refrigerator in her basement from the Mid-1950s. We are lucky to get 10-years out of an appliance now-a-days.

It doesn't bother me that Walmart makes a profit . . . but at what cost to others? We are blaming workers for being on welfare while the employer walks away with corporate welfare and no one bats an eye. Sure, some people could get 2-jobs . . . hell, even three. But many cannot. I don't want to subsidize their health care when Walmart can still make huge profits AND pay their employees.

I don't shop at Walmart. Hate the place. It is a far cry from the first Walmart I ever went into when I was stationed in Memphis. Back in the day when the stores had banners all over every wall declaring all the merchandise was made in America . . . back when Sam Walton was still alive and the worker was considered along with profit. Walmart doesn't give two-shirts about the average American, and it always amazes me how the villain turns out to be their lazy workers.

Hi there Dave. Listen, I have no doubt that things in this country were indeed better when we were a manufacturing powerhouse. And, I am not opposed to subsidizing the part timers of Walmart, as long as they are not in that position as a lifelong career. At least they're working.

There are a multitude of shortages in skilled trades like plumbing, welding, electrical, and even truck driving. All of these professions offer a solid middle class wage, with relatively short term training. What's wrong with that?

No, instead we have a sector of people that would rather force a business out of business, over some ulterior motive of union, or jealousy than use the job as intended and move on to something better.
 
Why, is this a lifestyle we want to encourage? Staying in a low-paying, unskilled job your whole life? Then trying to squeeze some kids or new cars or vacations into that?

The private sector pays lots of people decent, livable wages....but why should they pay people in *entry-level* and/or unskilled service/labor jobs MORE than they are entitled to? SO they'll REMAIN in those jobs? Enabling them to do so is HELPING them?

Besides, they need to leave those jobs behind for the next generation to learn in or the elderly to supplement an income i, etc.
Costco has no problems with it. :shrug:
 
Those same entities make sure they stay in place. Money talks. ;)

of course they fight to maintain them, why wouldn't they? But, again, the burden falls on the legislature
 
Hi there Dave. Listen, I have no doubt that things in this country were indeed better when we were a manufacturing powerhouse. And, I am not opposed to subsidizing the part timers of Walmart, as long as they are not in that position as a lifelong career. At least they're working.

There are a multitude of shortages in skilled trades like plumbing, welding, electrical, and even truck driving. All of these professions offer a solid middle class wage, with relatively short term training. What's wrong with that?

No, instead we have a sector of people that would rather force a business out of business, over some ulterior motive of union, or jealousy than use the job as intended and move on to something better.

When it comes down to it, as always, we are this close to having the same ideals (picture about a quarter inch between the thumb and forefinger). We all want the same thing. Security, a wage that feeds us and pays the bills, an assurance that when we get sick, we can afford the medicine to make us well. AND hopefully, a better life for our kids. We all want that. Now, you are not opposed to subsidizing Walmart workers . . . even though it affords $Billions in profits for Walmart to legally devise a hourly wage that forces you and me to pay for their employee's food and healthcare. Sometimes, their childcare is even included in the equation. I'm sorry, are we admiring corporations because they can afford lawyers and accountants that legally find ways for them to ditch their responsibility to their employees so it falls on our shoulders? Despite the $Billions in profits they make just because they let our tax dollars subsidize their employees?

I seriously do not get that mindset. Never will. I know welders that are out of work. I seriously know a bunch of electrical workers that wish a new subdivision would sprout up. There are 10:1 for electricians where I live. Again . . . it is not equal for everyone and you act like everyone is smart as you.
 
When it comes down to it, as always, we are this close to having the same ideals (picture about a quarter inch between the thumb and forefinger). We all want the same thing. Security, a wage that feeds us and pays the bills, an assurance that when we get sick, we can afford the medicine to make us well. AND hopefully, a better life for our kids. We all want that. Now, you are not opposed to subsidizing Walmart workers . . . even though it affords $Billions in profits for Walmart to legally devise a hourly wage that forces you and me to pay for their employee's food and healthcare. Sometimes, their childcare is even included in the equation. I'm sorry, are we admiring corporations because they can afford lawyers and accountants that legally find ways for them to ditch their responsibility to their employees so it falls on our shoulders? Despite the $Billions in profits they make just because they let our tax dollars subsidize their employees?

again, does a single person, without dependents, qualify for such assistance?
 
I have a question for you.

'Job [job] Show IPA noun, verb, jobbed, job·bing, adjective
noun
1.
a piece of work, especially a specific task done as part of the routine of one's occupation or for an agreed price: She gave him the job of mowing the lawn.'

Job | Define Job at Dictionary.com



It says nothing about sufficient money for food/shelter/clothing,etc.


Where in ANY well respected literature does it say that an employer is morally obligated to pay it's full time employee's enough to pay their rent/food/clothing/etc.?

Anywhere?

The UN?

Anywhere?



Its my opinion, one that is based on 'the do unto others..." principal. If I was an unskilled worker I would want a decent wage, not the lowest wage that the employer can get away with. As I said before, it is not an unusual opinion since the minimum wage is an (often inadequate] attempt to limit the exploitation of workers by employers.

When I was completely unskilled I got paid minimum wage, but at that time (in the mid-197Os] that was enough to afford rent, food, basic clothes, and transportation to work. In many parts of the country that is no longer the case because the minmum wage has not kept up with increases in the cost of living.

Why does the word exploit exist in the sense of "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage?" At one point, if any, does a conservative or libertarian consider an employment practice to be exploitation?
 
again, does a single person, without dependents, qualify for such assistance?

I think that depends on which state they are in. My understanding is that the feds fund food stamps, but the states administer the program.
 
Its my opinion, one that is based on 'the do unto others..." principal. If I was an unskilled worker I would want a decent wage, not the lowest wage that the employer can get away with. As I said before, it is not an unusual opinion since the minimum wage is an (often inadequate] attempt to limit the exploitation of workers by employers.

When I was completely unskilled I got paid minimum wage, but at that time (in the mid-197Os] that was enough to afford rent, food, basic clothes, and transportation to work. In many parts of the country that is no longer the case because the minmum wage has not kept up with increases in the cost of living.

Why does the word exploit exist in the sense of "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage?" At one point, if any, does a conservative or libertarian consider an employment practice to be exploitation?

If you were an unskilled worker, why would you expect any more than your market worth?
 
If you were an unskilled worker, why would you expect any more than your market worth?

Yes, the market allows employers to pay unskileld workers a low wage. Employers can even go to the poorest countries to find desperate people who will work for pennies a week.

The lack of enough police in many places allows robbers to steal from more people. Why would you expect to not get robbed?

If your house was on fire your neighbor can charge you a thousand dollars to borrow her fire extinguisher. Why would you expect to pay less?

Due to circumstances, an employer can pay a low wage, a robber can steal from you and your neighbor can charge you a thousand dollars to use the fire extinguisher. That doesn't mean that these acts are ethical. In all these cases they are exploiting a person's vulnerability and/or desperation.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the market allows employers to pay unskileld workers a low wage. Employers can even go to the poorest countries to find desperate people who will work for pennies a week.

The lack of enough police in many places allows robbers to steal from more people. Why would you expect to not get robbed?

If your house was on fire your neighbor can charge you a thousand dollars to borrow her fire extinguisher. Why would you expect to pay less?

Due to circumstances, an employer can pay a low wage, a robber can steal from you and your neighbor can charge you a thousand dollars to use the fire extinguisher. That doesn't mean that these acts are ethical. In all these cases they are exploiting a person's vulnerability and/or desperation.

This is one of the most non responsive posts I've received...
 
This is one of the most non responsive posts I've received...

To summarize my point, I don't necessarilly expect anything. But I want employers to pay a decent wage because it is unethical to pay a full-time worker less than they can live on. They may be able to get away with less than that because people are desperate, but it is still wrong. In other words, the same reason you don't expect to get mugged everytime you go outside, you hope people are better than that.
 
I think that depends on which state they are in. My understanding is that the feds fund food stamps, but the states administer the program.

Well, I think we all agree that any job should be able to pay what is needed to meet basic demands. Where I live, that is easily accomplished while working at walmart. Naturally there is a regional aspect to that, but the idea that such a job needs to be able to support people with dependents (likely the people qualifying for assistance) strikes me as totally unreasonable.

As for the remarks on healthcare, that is more a product of bad govt policy and one many employers would like to see shifted over to the public sector, and can't really fault a retail company for not wanting to foot that bill under current circumstances
 
To summarize my point, I don't necessarilly expect anything. But I want employers to pay a decent wage because it is unethical to pay a full-time worker less than they can live on. They may be able to get away with less than that because people are desperate, but it is still wrong. In other words, the same reason you don't expect to get mugged everytime you go outside, you hope people are better than that.

Why is someone taking a job that doesnt pay enough not the responsibility of the worker? Why are they unskilled? Why are they in an unskilled job for years? Why is their skill level or experience or competency the responsibility of the employer to make up the difference for?
 
Its my opinion, one that is based on 'the do unto others..." principal. If I was an unskilled worker I would want a decent wage, not the lowest wage that the employer can get away with. As I said before, it is not an unusual opinion since the minimum wage is an (often inadequate] attempt to limit the exploitation of workers by employers.

When I was completely unskilled I got paid minimum wage, but at that time (in the mid-197Os] that was enough to afford rent, food, basic clothes, and transportation to work. In many parts of the country that is no longer the case because the minmum wage has not kept up with increases in the cost of living.

Why does the word exploit exist in the sense of "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage?" At one point, if any, does a conservative or libertarian consider an employment practice to be exploitation?

The Golden Rule?

You are asking to suddenly be paid a lot more money for ZERO extra productivity - you are, in essence, asking for a handout.

I have enough pride that unless I was in a life or death situation, that I would never ask for a handout.

And I would NEVER expect an employer to pay me substantially more for ZERO additional productivity.


As for your mid 70's assessment.

The minimum wage in 1975 was $2.10/hour. That is (based on 2000 hours per year) $4200/yr in gross income. The poverty line in 1975 was $2902.

In 2013, the minimum wage is $7.25 or (times 2000 hours) $14,500/yr. in gross income (and taxes are lower now - so you would take home slightly more after taxes). The official poverty line for 2013 is $11,490.

Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poverty Thresholds 1975 - U.S Census Bureau

Here’s the US tax rate on your income for every year since 1913 – Quartz

Though there has been some erosion - both are still far above the poverty line.

And a definition of the 'poverty line' is:

'poverty line
noun
noun: poverty line; plural noun: poverty lines
1.
the estimated minimum level of income needed to secure the necessities of life.
'

https://www.google.ca/search?q=pove...8#es_sm=93&espv=210&q=poverty+line+definition

So the United States minimum wage DOES provide enough money for someone to 'secure the necessities of life' and then some.


Not that it matters since it is none of the employers responsibility...I am just sayin'.
 
Last edited:
The idea that anyone's contribution, that anyone working a full week, is worth less than a comfortable middle class lifestyle, is repugnant, insane, and counterproductive to our society. Everyone works hard and no one should be devalued. If we do not change this basic attitude, increased efficiency and automation will render more and more of us devalued in the future. This mentality of trying to portray others as lesser is only going to hurt us all in the end.
 
The idea that anyone's contribution, that anyone working a full week, is worth less than a comfortable middle class lifestyle, is repugnant, insane, and counterproductive to our society. Everyone works hard and no one should be devalued. If we do not change this basic attitude, increased efficiency and automation will render more and more of us devalued in the future. This mentality of trying to portray others as lesser is only going to hurt us all in the end.

IMO the fact that so many people value themselves so little that they cannot bother to plan for their future that they leave high school and just 'let life happen' to them is sad. To start out at a basic unskilled job is no shame because you can develop skills and experience and move up from there. But to remain that way for years....to never better yourself...that's also even sadder. To expect to be BETTER compensated for that lack of drive, effort and personal responsibility? That is repugnant.
 
So why dont they go work for Costco?
Might not be one in the area right now. But Costco is growing all the time so who knows. ;)
 
When it comes down to it, as always, we are this close to having the same ideals (picture about a quarter inch between the thumb and forefinger). We all want the same thing. Security, a wage that feeds us and pays the bills, an assurance that when we get sick, we can afford the medicine to make us well. AND hopefully, a better life for our kids. We all want that.

Mornin' Dave. Yes, in certain areas we are close in some aspects, but don't confuse my compassion with any anti corporate sentiment. We all do want better, but it is up to us, not any obligation of a company that gives me a job....Do you know how many "jobs" I've had in my life? How many different things I have done since the good ol' days of 17 y.o. when I moved out of my fathers house?

Now, you are not opposed to subsidizing Walmart workers . . . even though it affords $Billions in profits for Walmart to legally devise a hourly wage that forces you and me to pay for their employee's food and healthcare. Sometimes, their childcare is even included in the equation.

No, this is a failure of our government, not the business community. Now, you want to rail that our government allows everything from childcare, to free cell phones, as really enticements for the welfare recipients vote? I am right there with you, but if you want to say that business has some obligation to make sure you can afford anything you want in your life all because you hire on to collect the shopping carts in the parking lot, then sorry, but that's ridiculous.

I'm sorry, are we admiring corporations because they can afford lawyers and accountants that legally find ways for them to ditch their responsibility to their employees so it falls on our shoulders? Despite the $Billions in profits they make just because they let our tax dollars subsidize their employees?

A companies profits are really NONE of the employees business. The only thing that should matter to the prospective employee is 1. Can I do the job? 2. Is the wage fair to me for what I am asked to do? 3. Can I see myself working there? If the answer to these three questions is 'yes' then they take the job, if not then they don't, simple as that. It really has nothing to do with the "macro" issues you are conflating this into. But, I remember when I was growing up, and my dad owned, and ran his Pharmacy downtown Lansing....So, I am interested to hear what you think the "employer responsibility to its employees" are....Here is an interesting excerpt from an article for you to consider....

"Wal-Mart’s profit margin is about twice what Costco’s is. But its ROIC is only marginally higher: 13.77 percent vs. 12.88 percent. The company needs to put a lot more money into warehouses, trucks, whizzy computer systems, and cinderblock stores in order to generate those profits -- not surprising given the complexity of its supply chain, and the number of products it offers. Owners of capital generally ask to be compensated for using it to build stuff, rather than spending it. Wal-Mart is no exception. If it targeted Costco’s ROIC, rather than its own, Wal-Mart could free up a bit of money -- about a billion dollars. If it gave two-thirds of that billion to its 1.4 million U.S. workers, each worker would get about $470, or $9 a week.
Of course, that leaves aside the issue of whether this is the “right” ROIC for Wal-Mart, or Costco, a question that has only metaphysical answers. I’d guess, however, that it’s considerably less than most of the people making these sort of comparisons would be expecting."

Wal-Mart vs. Costco III, Why My Critics Are Wrong - Bloomberg

I seriously do not get that mindset. Never will. I know welders that are out of work. I seriously know a bunch of electrical workers that wish a new subdivision would sprout up. There are 10:1 for electricians where I live.

The key is, "where you live".... You are looking at this through the lens of your own compressed world....If the skills a person has are not in demand where you are, then maybe you have to move....

Again . . . it is not equal for everyone and you act like everyone is smart as you.

Smart as me? heh, heh....Wow....Dave, I am not a college educated man, barely made through High School....Moved out of my dad's house at 17, worked in a grocery store, then worked in retail for a short time, then went in the military....When I got out, I couldn't use anything I learned while inside, because I didn't quite know how to apply that training to the outside world, so I ended up in car sales for a time, then started driving a truck....I have been a truck driver for 24 years now, and have over 3 million safe miles under my belt...Now, I am not rich, and I don't have the newest of everything, ie; the P.U. truck I drive to work is 16 years old, but I have a nice home, beautiful wife, and family, and everybody is fed, and housed, and clothed....There is more to wealth than money.

The thing is Dave, as I have tried to teach my kids, (now 23, and 21 y.o.) is that life is about choices, and how willing one is to take the advice of those that have been there before you. If you are willing to go out and be the change to your life, then you will succeed in no matter what you decide to do, but if you plan to settle, then complain, bitch, and moan like so many I see in this thread, that it is so unfair, that someone else is to blame for their circumstance, rather than them taking responsibility and changing it themselves, then life will continue to run them over....
 
The idea that anyone's contribution, that anyone working a full week, is worth less than a comfortable middle class lifestyle, is repugnant, insane, and counterproductive to our society. Everyone works hard and no one should be devalued. If we do not change this basic attitude, increased efficiency and automation will render more and more of us devalued in the future. This mentality of trying to portray others as lesser is only going to hurt us all in the end.

Rather than blaming businesses that don't pay what 'YOUR' acceptable wage should be, why don't you look at why it is that Americans looking to raise a family on minimum wage starter jobs is becoming the norm....I would say that has more to do with current administration policy than any business model.
 
The idea that anyone's contribution, that anyone working a full week, is worth less than a comfortable middle class lifestyle, is repugnant, insane, and counterproductive to our society. Everyone works hard and no one should be devalued. If we do not change this basic attitude, increased efficiency and automation will render more and more of us devalued in the future. This mentality of trying to portray others as lesser is only going to hurt us all in the end.

If the people taking the job from a company, don't agree to the wage offered, then they don't have to take the job.
 
The idea that anyone's contribution, that anyone working a full week, is worth less than a comfortable middle class lifestyle, is repugnant, insane, and counterproductive to our society. Everyone works hard and no one should be devalued. If we do not change this basic attitude, increased efficiency and automation will render more and more of us devalued in the future. This mentality of trying to portray others as lesser is only going to hurt us all in the end.

Are you sure that the lowest skilled workers are undervalued? IMHO, the idea that a McJob should pay a nearly the same wage as a tradesman (e.g. plumber, carpenter or electrician) makes little sense. Why would someone bother to learn more skills, work out in the elements, travel at their own expense (time and money) to far away job sites, buy their own tools and suffer random unpaid days off due to bad weather only to make slightly more money?
 
Back
Top Bottom