• 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!

Walmart workers demand better wages

Great I'm glad to meet a conservative that believes that the rich do not deserve tax cuts. I'm happy. ;)
Count me in the mix. I dont believe ANYONE deserves tax cuts. If you are having tax cuts to stimulate an economy, then you damn sure better have across the board tax cuts. If you are just having tax cuts to buy votes...then they should ALL go away and we should maybe try actually PAYING for our government services for a change.
 
Based on your 7:1 formula, if the lowest walmart employee makes $8 per hour the CEO should make $56 per hour or about $114,000 per year.
We have already ceded the Governments right to set a minimum wage, so I guess a maximum wage is not out of the question.
I do think these types of price controls are a dangerous slippery slope.
The day people actually go out and create their own business is the day they can begin to dictate what a private business pays their CEOs. As a small business owner I can tell you that the day anyone presumes to tell me what i can clear as profit in relation to what I pay my staff is the day 11 employees will become unemployed and I will go back to being a two person office.

Its always those that couldnt run a lemonade stand that think they REALLY understand how business should run.
 
THIS JUST IN...

WalMart managers demand better workers....
 
Interesting article but you truly do not believe that the rich reports all their income do you?

Report: $21 trillion hidden in offshore accounts

Taxes, Offshore Accounts and Corruption

Also one must consider the bigger picture when one looks at state and local taxes combined.

Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent
 
How cold. Detachment and the absence of any sense of civil duty is not valid public policy.

Civil duty? What does that mean? Is there some law, or statute requiring certain things of business beyond what they already comply with that I don't know about?
 
Walmart Is America’s First Welfare Queen Superstore
2012/07/20
By Michael Hayne

.....Walmart receives between 25 and 40 percent of all food stamp spending. Of course Walmart’s slave wages force all of its employees to depend heavily on $2.66 billion in government help every year. The company that brought in $448 billion in sales last year, the super concrete-laden seller of brightly colored crap, gobbles up food stamps faster than land. Walmart’s ridiculously low wages and deliberate underemployment keep their workers just rich enough to not be living in a dumpster co-op, but poor enough to be eligible for food stamps. Seeing as Walmart is the reason why countless Americans go on Food Stamps in the first place, one could say this is a low-cost orgy of irony.

Here’s a closer look at how your favorite seller of lawn bag potato chips is blatantly exploiting tax-payer funded programs:


Walmart’s intentionally low wages force employees to need approximately $420,000 per year, per store, totalling $2.66 BILLION annually in food stamps and other taxpayer assistance…to survive.
Walmart’s intentionally low wages cost the country HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars in payroll tax deductions for Federal, State, and Local taxes.
Walmart’s intentionally low wages cost our communities the ability to hire and retain important public service workers like firefighters, police officers, maintenance workers, and teachers.
Walmart’s intentionally low wages cost our communities with their increased need for those same public services they are underfunding.
Walmart’s intentionally low wages and lack of covered benefits cost taxpayers over $1.02 BILLION a year in healthcare costs.
Walmart’s intentionally low wages cost taxpayers as much as $225 MILLION in free and reduced price lunches for school-age children.
Walmart’s intentionally low wages cost taxpayers over $780 MILLION in tax deductions for low-income families.

Walmart Is America’s First Welfare Queen Superstore | Addicting Info

Seems like it might be more efficient to just pay workers higher wages in the first place, rather than have the rest of us pay higher taxes to make up or it.
 
That's not a question for me to answer, as I don't work for WalMart. What should be done is tiered wages, with a standard minimum wage(set by an agreement between the protesters and WalMart) and a maximum of 7:1.

This is sort of typical of how leftists do things. You see a successful corporation built upon free market principles then you seek to impose your standards upon them. Tell you what, you open a business with that 7:1 ratio and let me know how that works out for you. Because it should be obvious, even to you, that if that standard was imposed upon WalMart from its inception, there would be 1.4 million people out of work today. No business can grow with that sort of ratio imposed upon them, because no business owner would be willing to take the risk involved for such a low return. Perhaps you might go out into the real world, open your own business, impose the same mindless standard upon yourself that you would to others and let us know how that works. There is no doubt in my mind that you would be back here in a few months blaming your failure on someone or something other than your own twisted ideas.
 
There are a few reasons for that. First is that walmart is one of the biggest employers in the US and some people need those things called jobs. Also Walmart would be a company that can employ people from the least skilled up to the skilled people who handle the higher up functions of the company. Just because Walmart pays their retail employees like dung does not mean that they do not employ skilled workers nationwide for a number of purposes at reasonable salaries. Still, many of the people who find retail work in Walmart simply need the job.

This leads to why Walmart is able to be such a crappy employer, and there is little the employees can do about it. Simply most employees in a specific walmart store are unable to walk out and strike. They live from paycheck to paycheck or less, and cannot afford to lose that crappy paycheck. Despite what republicans claim the government does not provide the poor with living for nothing. The other way Walmart prevents problems for themselves is because a large portion of their customers cannot go anywhere else either. Walmart is simply cheap, and many poor people shop there. So even if the customers wanted to back the employees through their own boycotts it just won't work because many of their customers simply cannot just start shopping somewhere else because they cannot afford it.

Retail work at Walmart is an active and hard job. These are not lazy people trying to live off the government dime. Republicans love to claim that they are for the worer who chooses a job over welfare, but the reality is that Walmart doesn't pay their hard working employees enough to put them above the poverty levels for public assistance. walmart is a prime example that the free market simply does not take care of the workers. Because of that we all pick up the slack for Walmart's rich owners and investors. We end up having to give Walmart employees public assistance. These are working people, not some deadbeat hanging out at home on the public dime. These are not the "victims" Romney spoke of. These people took a job to have a job even though it does not pay all their bills. Sure they are probably looking for better, but better is not always out there for you.

Should a person do an important job for a company and still not have enough money to get by on even when sacrificing and buying as cheap as possible? Without the employees walmart would not run. The owner of walmart does not stock shelves, run checkout, or even manage a single walmart. Those jobs are done by other people, and that allows him to do whatever it is he does during the day. They should up the pay for their employees. Not only would it benefit them, but it would help us taxpayers out also. Giving the Walmart employee the ability to consume would drive up the economy everywhere. We would save on taxes because we would not have to help the employed stay above water. On top of that the increased consumption would provide more tax revenue. Instead Walmart Owners get rich while underpaying their employees and we pic up the tab for them. By we i mean those of us who pay taxes.

This is one of those times where collective bargaining is not just important to the walmart employee who wants to survive on their employment, but it is also going to help us out in passing the responsibility for their employees back to the people who hired them. If you want the market to handle these things then we have to start pushing on places like Walmart and forcing an actual living wage for their employees.

They aren't lazy, just unskilled and extremely replaceable. The obvious solution to higher wages for unskilled, replaceable workers, is to reduce the population of them (education), so they are relatively less replaceable. Its not Walmart's fault that they are paying the market rate (the same rate nearly every other similar employer is paying).
 
Civil duty? What does that mean? Is there some law, or statute requiring certain things of business beyond what they already comply with that I don't know about?

Sorry, I meant civic duty. And I wasn't talking about WalMart this time - though I suppose it's still applicable.

Civic duty refers to the basic responsibility we all have to those around us. It refers to the responsibility a CEO has to the folks who earn for him/her. To the responsibility a person has to their countrymen. It refers to the compassion that is the foundation of democratic socialism.
 
Seems like it might be more efficient to just pay workers higher wages in the first place, rather than have the rest of us pay higher taxes to make up or it.

Makes sense to me , and while you're at it a lot more jobs with more employees paying taxes, buying more and spending more in America.:peace
 
How cold. Detachment and the absence of any sense of civil duty is not valid public policy.

My civic duty was to not raise any kids to be in the bottom half of the economy....we paid for their college, for starters. They have degrees and no student loans, so they start out better than the wife and I did.
My wife had 2 years of college on her parents, I had 2 years of technical schools paid for by our rich uncle.
When our kids were teens, and some of their friends seemed to be unsure of their plans for the future, I offered advice, which is about all you can do considering most won't take the advice.
Life on low wages is the almost guaranteed result of poor education....
 
It's not just me brother....Check out what Maurice Isserman, a professor of history at Hamilton College and the author of “The Other American: The Life of Michael Harrington.” had to say in an open essay in the NYTimes on the man, and his views...



The so called "war on Poverty" has been a dismal failure in this country, wasting trillions of dollars on a problem that the so called "champions of the poor" democrats have no real motivation to solve because it threatens their voting base to do so.

Edwards was the last democrat to use this "Two America's" meme in any meaningful way, and was roundly defeated before he even made it to the grand stage. America rejects this division.

I disagree, with both your ad hom and the bridge you try to build between Democrats and myself.

Whiter you choose to agree or not, the idea that government should have it's hand in the economy has been primarily positive.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I meant civic duty. And I wasn't talking about WalMart this time - though I suppose it's still applicable.

Civic duty refers to the basic responsibility we all have to those around us. It refers to the responsibility a CEO has to the folks who earn for him/her. To the responsibility a person has to their countrymen. It refers to the compassion that is the foundation of democratic socialism.

Sounds to me like you are attempting to change the definition of "civic duty" to support your own agenda.

Civic Duty Law & Legal Definition


The concept of civic duty is based on the principle that citizens owe some allegiance to their government and that government in turn protects its citizens. Civic duties refer to the responsibilities of citizens. Often rights enjoyed by citizens also implies corresponding responsibilities.

Citizenship carries with it both rights and responsibilities. Civic duties include duties and responsibilities. Duties are legally enforceable and vary with each state. Citizens must do their duties. Some examples of civic duties are obeying the law, serving on a jury, paying taxes and voting.
Civic Duty Law & Legal Definition
 
I worked for Wal-Mart for about 6 months. I started out at $9.50/hr. Not a bad wage around these parts. In those 6 months that I worked that I got three raises and by the time I left Wal-Mart I was making $11.10. Yeah,, it may not be no $30 bucks an hour but for the cost of living in these parts it was pretty damn good. Wal-Mart is one of the highest paying jobs you can have in this area for the most basic worker around here. Outside of logging or working at a saw mill or working for the government it is among THE highest in this area.

As for working conditions, they're pretty top notch really. So long as you stay out of the politics that is. They demanded that you use the buddy system for anything over 40lbs. Required you to take multiple tests to get certified for working any type of machine. Seperate tests for produce and chemicals on safety and cleanliness.

The only reason that I don't work there anymore is because I got sick a few times and couldn't make it to work along with a few things from nature that also made it to where I couldn't get to work. I exceeded my 10 days allowance per 6 months so they let me go. Understandable to a degree.
 
How cold. Detachment and the absence of any sense of civil duty is not valid public policy.

Walmarts sense of civil duty is satisfied by paying taxes, providing employment for many, and their numerous charitable and education offerings. They offer unskilled citizens not only a job but an opportunity to develop skills and promotion opportunities. They don't owe anyone some mythical living wage. You however are free to start a business and do whatever you deem appropriate.
 
Sorry, I meant civic duty. And I wasn't talking about WalMart this time - though I suppose it's still applicable.

Civic duty refers to the basic responsibility we all have to those around us. It refers to the responsibility a CEO has to the folks who earn for him/her. To the responsibility a person has to their countrymen. It refers to the compassion that is the foundation of democratic socialism.

In case you didn't know this but we are not a democratic socialist country. Though I can see the confusion on your part considering the direction that this country is going.
 
Interesting article but you truly do not believe that the rich reports all their income do you?

Report: $21 trillion hidden in offshore accounts

Taxes, Offshore Accounts and Corruption


Well, both of these articles talking about an opinion from the same place, shows nothing illegal in this. Romney just like nearly every 401K, or divested mutual fund has money invested in foreign entities. Funny how progressives love to use the meme of a 'global economy' until it comes to raiding wealth that others have made.

Also one must consider the bigger picture when one looks at state and local taxes combined.

Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent


In this article they are talking about Romney, in relation to State and local taxation to which Romney, or Obama has any authority to change. You want change in that arena? Vote local issues. But to tie that to anything concerning national policy is disingenuous.
 
In case you didn't know this but we are not a democratic socialist country. Though I can see the confusion on your part considering the direction that this country is going.

Of course we're not. We're all about the idea that if you're successful, you don't owe a thing to the country that allowed you to be. Why else would there be conversations like this and posts like the one to which my comment was directed?
 
My civic duty was to not raise any kids to be in the bottom half of the economy....we paid for their college, for starters. They have degrees and no student loans, so they start out better than the wife and I did.
My wife had 2 years of college on her parents, I had 2 years of technical schools paid for by our rich uncle.
When our kids were teens, and some of their friends seemed to be unsure of their plans for the future, I offered advice, which is about all you can do considering most won't take the advice.
Life on low wages is the almost guaranteed result of poor education....

Exactly. Which is why the US needs to extend the level of guaranteed, free education. Back when we promised a free high school education, that was sufficient. But, now that the world's become so technically advanced, folks need more.
 
Walmarts sense of civil duty is satisfied by paying taxes, providing employment for many, and their numerous charitable and education offerings. They offer unskilled citizens not only a job but an opportunity to develop skills and promotion opportunities. They don't owe anyone some mythical living wage. You however are free to start a business and do whatever you deem appropriate.

I've presented my definition of the poverty line. If WalMart cannot provide their employees with a wage that puts them above it, we have a problem. That's all there is to it.
 
Of course we're not. We're all about the idea that if you're successful, you don't owe a thing to the country that allowed you to be. Why else would there be conversations like this and posts like the one to which my comment was directed?

No one has said that Wal-Mart doesn't owe this country. But who ever said that they don't do anything for their country? They pay taxes don't they? That is all that is required of them to pay back the country that allowed them to prosper. Yet they also give to lots of charities they also have great...well...maybe not GREAT...but close, medical benefits plus give thier employees 10% discount on most items in thier stores. They also promote healthy life styles and even attempted to get me to quit smoking. Funny how you seem to forget all those good things that they do.
 
I've presented my definition of the poverty line. If WalMart cannot provide their employees with a wage that puts them above it, we have a problem. That's all there is to it.

Why should they pay thier employee's above your poverty line?
 
Back
Top Bottom