• 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

DA60 said:
Really? And where is this world recognized, book of morals that says that?
Click to expand...

It is my opinion, one that many people share, which is why we have minmum wage laws. Can you openly and proudly say that you think it is ethical to pay a full-time worker less than they need to pay for their basic needs for food, shelter and clothing?
 
DA60 said:
I...I don't like cold, heartless corporations either.

But at least they can be forced - through economic boycott - to do (more or less) the right thing.....
Click to expand...

That is true only when there is real competition. If the competition is only between two equally cold, heartless corporations with the same policies, then the consumer does not really have a choice if it is a product that they need. Consumers also need to be exposed to the relevant information to make an informed choice.
 
Hard Truth said:
It is my opinion, one that many people share, which is why we have minmum wage laws. Can you openly and proudly say that you think it is ethical to pay a full-time worker less than they need to pay for their basic needs for food, shelter and clothing?
Click to expand...

Yup.

A company pays you to work for them - whether that is enough for you to live on is absolutely NOTHING to do with the company.
 
DA60 said:
Yup.

A company pays you to work for them - whether that is enough for you to live on is absolutely NOTHING to do with the company.
Click to expand...

It is interesting that you used your own spin instead of simply saying:
"I, DA60, think it is ethical to pay a full-time worker less than they need to pay for their basic needs for food, shelter and clothing."
 
Hard Truth said:
It is interesting that you used your own spin instead of simply saying:
"I, DA60, think it is ethical to pay a full-time worker less than they need to pay for their basic needs for food, shelter and clothing."
Click to expand...

Uhhh, okaaaay. I thought 'yup' said it all. But alright...

I, DA60, think it is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY ethical to pay a full-time worker less than they need to pay for their basic needs for food, shelter and clothing.


Clear enough for you?
 
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...

Someone needs to get off their high horse.
 
DA60 said:
Uhhh, okaaaay. I thought 'yup' said it all. But alright...

I, DA60, think it is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY ethical to pay a full-time worker less than they need to pay for their basic needs for food, shelter and clothing.


Clear enough for you?
Click to expand...

Thanks. I appreciate your honesty.

Is anyone else as honest as DA6O?
 
Hard Truth said:
Thanks. I appreciate your honesty.

Is anyone else as honest as DA6O?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
You have hit the nail firmly upon its head. Yes, we need to encourage and assist more people with trade careers like plumbing, electrical and other skills where they can make a good living at.

Sadly, we no longer live in an agricultural economy which has a place for all. And when that turned into to a manufacturing or industrial economy, not only could we transfer everybody but we had to go around to world to supply all the extra land needed. We are fast becoming a nation where a good 25% of the people are no longer necessary in a technological economy.

That is the big problem of the 21st century. What do we do with those people who will not become plumbers?
Click to expand...

Not sure why you say that agricultural communities have a place for everyone....many agricultural counties in places like North Dakota, Wyoming, New Mexico have nothing to offer youn g people looking for a way to make a living (in the opinions of those leaving in droves).
 
paddymcdougall said:
Haymarket, I appreciate the many good points you have made on this thread. Thanks for posting!

Lursa - Hi there too!! Just wanted to say re your posts - it's easy to say people don't have to work minimum wage jobs - but when the recession hit, even people with degrees were taking minimum wage jobs because nothing else was available.

.
Click to expand...


My point has been 'long-term.' Those jobs are not meant, IMO, as careers. They are indeed stop-gap jobs for people who need to make ends meet. That is one purpose. As are the others I mentioned in another post.


And even if one does take a job a WalMart long term...why do they remain at starting leve/min wagel for years when management and other positions are available...there are even programs for such.
 
paddymcdougall said:
Haymarket

However, I do agree that educating our young people (or re-educating older people!) is vital ; while all kids should be encouraged to go to college if possible, not all kids want to do that, and so we need strong vo-tech programs right alongside strong college-bound courses. And kids should probably take courses from both sides of the curriculum. (My step-kids ended up not going to a 4 yr college; but we told them that while in high school, even if they weren't sure about college, they should act as though they were going and take all the right courses; you can always decide later not to go if it's not right for you. Unfortunately, vo-tech has been so reduced in so many schools, they weren't able to really take any classes along those lines, and I do think the older one would have really enjoyed being a carpenter if she had been exposed to classes in it... sadly, can't get her to go into apprenticeship training in a trade now that she's out of school)

.
Click to expand...

This seems so obvious....but where is it? Parents need to be more proactive and schools need to get their guidance couselors more involved, more empowered. Mine in HS was useless. He mostly told me stories about when he picked up Kurt Vonnegut's son hitchhiking and took him home and met Kurt.
 
Hard Truth said:
1. Employers have a moral obligation to pay full-time workers enough to live on. They don't have to pay enough to support six kids, but at least one kid.
Click to expand...

Who says? That is not my morality. To me, it is immoral to have a kid you cant afford, thus requiring other people to pay for it. Or demand that your employer pay you more to support it.

If you want more money, no one is stopping you from acquiring skills...no one stopped you in high school either but you are free to acquire them after as well. Nor from bettering yourself at your current employer.

But since the unskilled labor pool is huge, you really dont have any bargaining power. It is not immoral to pay what unskilled labor is *worth to you.* If someone wants more, then they will take or work towards a wage that is *worth it to them.*
 
DA60 said:
I disagree.

Revenue – Costs = Profit/ Loss

If you raise wages (costs), then you have lower profits AND/OR higher prices.

The former (lowers profits) means you probably have to lay off people, which means more people have no job which defeats the purpose of raising the minimum wage.

The latter (higher prices) means that consumers can afford less products. And considering many shoppers at places like Walmart are on fixed incomes, that can really hurt them.


This idea that raising the minimum wage is the magic pill is simply false...you cannot raise costs (with no greater productivity) without lowering profits...not realistically possible.
Click to expand...

With $15 billion profit no, they could raise wages without layoffs. Stop acting like walmart can't survive or would have to raise prices if wages went up or were not given massive subsidies.
 
Verax said:
Well I'm exaggerating, its more like an 80/20 split. You also may be an illness away from ruin.

The point is the majority of America is getting the shaft by those that take 90% of the pie.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? I'm a regular person with lots of regular friends and who competes/participates with lots of other regular people at sports.

Life doesnt suck for lots of non-rich people.
 
Lursa said:
Are you serious? I'm a regular person with lots of regular friends and who competes/participates with lots of other regular people at sports.

Life doesnt suck for lots of non-rich people.
Click to expand...

Non-rich does not necessarily equal middle class / lower middle class / poverty, upper middle class is still doing ok but not great. Also if you don't have much money you are one illness away from disaster. You might think everything is great until something happens and then you are screwed.
 
chromium said:
With $15 billion profit no, they could raise wages without layoffs. Stop acting like walmart can't survive or would have to raise prices if wages went up or were not given massive subsidies.
Click to expand...

Where are your links to unbiased, factual proof that if Walmart's costs go up that they will neither layoff people or raise their prices?


Walmart is in business to make as much money as they can. They owe it to their owners/shareholders. That is their reason for existing.

So they will naturally want to maintain their present level of profit. If they do not, their stock will undoubtedly shrink. Possibly drastically.

If they pay their employees more money - then they MUST raise prices or lay off people or both.


Just making a small profit is not the point of running a business.

Making as much money as you possibly can in a legal/ethical manner is the purpose of running a business.
 
Hard Truth said:
Are those people aware that taxpayers subsidize the wages of underpaid Walmarts employees by providing them with foodstamps? Are they aware that Walmarts is likely to destroy their local businesses and the decent paying jobs that they support? Are they aware that Walmarts encourages their suppliers to pay even lower than the usual low wages paid to their employees in third world countries? It is not informed consent unless they are aware of these facts.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DA60 said:
Where are your links to unbiased, factual proof that if Walmart's costs go up that they will neither layoff people or raise their prices?


Walmart is in business to make as much money as they can. They owe it to their owners/shareholders. That is their reason for existing.

So they will naturally want to maintain their present level of profit. If they do not, their stock will undoubtedly shrink. Possibly drastically.

If they pay their employees more money - then they MUST raise prices or lay off people or both.


Just making a small profit is not the point of running a business.

Making as much money as you possibly can in a legal/ethical manner is the purpose of running a business.

It's called greed and it is why free market economies are SO efficient and generate so much money for their citizens.
Click to expand...

No, they don't have to. The stockholders can take a hit or CEO pay could go down. Such are choices. It's not an automatic process, however you make it out to be, much less an automatically defensible one.

Also, what citizens? Certainly not those working for walmart!
 
Hard Truth said:
Thanks. I appreciate your honesty.

Is anyone else as honest as DA6O?
Click to expand...

Sure, me. If you dont have the skills or experience or ambition to EARN a higher wage, it's not my fault.
 
Verax said:
Non-rich does not necessarily equal middle class / lower middle class / poverty, upper middle class is still doing ok but not great. Also if you don't have much money you are one illness away from disaster. You might think everything is great until something happens and then you are screwed.
Click to expand...


How 'great' are people entitled to? And I am talking about lower thru upper middle classes.

People make choices on how they spend their money and still have good lives. Maybe expectations are too high? Consumerism creates alot of false expectations. Paying a mortgage, feeding and clothing the kids and some left over for recreation....what's so awful about that?
 
Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...

I facepalm every time I read this stupid argument. Over half of all jobs in the U.S. are unskilled positions. Do you suggest they all get some skills and move up?

Who will do those jobs then? Who will pump the gas, sack the groceries, sweep the floor, clean the toilets, stock the shelves?
 
Verax said:
Also if you don't have much money you are one illness away from disaster. You might think everything is great until something happens and then you are screwed.
Click to expand...

This is totally true and extends all the way up to even upper middle class. Has nothing to do with Walmart wages and I think about it every day (have health insurance but a catastrophic accident or illness and it's all over.)
 
chromium said:
No, they don't have to. The stockholders can take a hit or CEO pay could go down. Such are choices. It's not an automatic process, however you make it out to be, much less an automatically defensible one.

Also, what citizens? Certainly not those working for walmart!
Click to expand...

If they want to maintain their current level of profits - they have to.

And if their profits go down, so does their share price...big time.

If you follow the stock market like I do then you know that if a major corporation misses it's profit projections, the stock usually takes a big hit. Do it continually, and the stock will plummet.
 
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...

Progressives obviously have a war on private sector companies doing anything nice - your hatred blinds you.
 
Verax said:
I facepalm every time I read this stupid argument. Over half of all jobs in the U.S. are unskilled positions. Do you suggest they all get some skills and move up?

Who will do those jobs then? Who will pump the gas, sack the groceries, sweep the floor, clean the toilets, stock the shelves?
Click to expand...

Hell yes I do suggest that.

People can start out in those jobs and then MOVE ON or UP. Or do them as part time to support some other job. Etc etc etc. There are always young people starting out.

Seriously, are you using that as justification to NOT DEVELOP ANY SKILLS? How dumb & useless do you want our nation to become?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom