• 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

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?

The idea you have in your head about what the middle class is and where it is going are two different things. The middle class is moving towards poverty. They're going from mortgage's to renting. From having a little extra left over each month to having to choose between paying all the bills or buying enough food or going to the doctor.
 
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.

Seriously, are you using that as justification to NOT DEVELOP ANY SKILLS? How dumb & useless do you want our nation to become?

I don't think you understand... this is actually getting kind of bizarre. I'm not sure I can explain something this basic to you, maybe someone else can. Not everyone can be chiefs, mostly we need braves to do the menial jobs...
 
I don't think you understand... this is actually getting kind of bizarre. I'm not sure I can explain something this basic to you, maybe someone else can. Not everyone can be chiefs, mostly we need braves to do the menial jobs...

Chiefs? What, there is nothing between unskilled labor and service jobs and jobs that require skills and training? Seriously?

There is a HUGE scale of jobs, trades, careers, and business opportunities. Good Lord, how limited is your thinking?
 
The idea you have in your head about what the middle class is and where it is going are two different things. The middle class is moving towards poverty. They're going from mortgage's to renting. From having a little extra left over each month to having to choose between paying all the bills or buying enough food or going to the doctor.

I've spent parts of my life exactly like that...so? Who owes me anything else? It's my choices, always has been.

It's called, for example, having enough to spend competing in a sport I love, but not yet even owning a vehicle built in this century. CHOICES.

Exactly what ARE people entitled to in our society? A home? Does renting suck? A new car ever couple of years? Gee that would be nice. I wouldnt know. The $$ to support a few kids....do people ACTUALLY have ANY IDEA what it costs to raise kids?
 
The problem is people do not have enough money to properly care for themselves and their family. Your "answer" to this is that it is THEIR problem so they can go **** themself.

Thanks for the input big guy, you're quite the help.

No, but you make it sound as if there is nothing they can do about it. It's not my fault they chose the path in life they are on.

Hell, early on in life when I wasn't happy with the money I was making, I went out and did something about it. I didn't walk around thinking "gee, the guy that owns this place I work for owes me some of his money. That's immature thinking.
 
I've spent parts of my life exactly like that...so? Who owes me anything else? It's my choices, always has been.

It's called, for example, having enough to spend competing in a sport I love, but not yet even owning a vehicle built in this century. CHOICES.

Exactly what ARE people entitled to in our society? A home? Does renting suck? A new car ever couple of years? Gee that would be nice. I wouldnt know. The $$ to support a few kids....do people ACTUALLY have ANY IDEA what it costs to raise kids?

Exactly...and no, they don't have a clue what kids cost, because we pay for them.
 
Progressives obviously have a war on private sector companies doing anything nice - your hatred blinds you.
If the private sector wants to do something nice why do they not get people off of public assistance and give them a livable wage? And if they can't do that than go pay their full taxes and quit itemizing to get out of it
 
If the private sector wants to do something nice why do they not get people off of public assistance and give them a livable wage? And if they can't do that than go pay their full taxes and quit itemizing to get out of it

lol, for some reason I doubt you do your taxes in this manner
 
You guys all talk big and pad your egos but I bet when in a pinch you change your tune. I've seen your type before. You think you're some kind of witty powerhouses until things don't go your way then its Obama's fault, its the gubmints fault, its those damn welfare recipients fault.
 
No, but you make it sound as if there is nothing they can do about it. It's not my fault they chose the path in life they are on.

Hell, early on in life when I wasn't happy with the money I was making, I went out and did something about it. I didn't walk around thinking "gee, the guy that owns this place I work for owes me some of his money. That's immature thinking.

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.
 
Not like they get to do. ;)


I agree that there are way too many tax loopholes that are exploitable by major corporations, but the failure there seems to be with our legislatures. You, on the other hand, seemingly blame the entity simply taking advantage of such things, as you yourself admittedly do.
 
Re "do employers have a moral obligation to pay employees a living wage?"

I would say no in general (with minor exceptions if they run around talking about what a great christian company they are and how they take care of others... not saying WalMart does that, just saying any company that preaches that has a moral obligation to do what they preach - but that's an outlier; Goodwill Industries jumps to mind as an example of a company not walking the talk based on some comments I've read, but admit I haven't researched it yet)

So- no moral obligation.

However - as a taxpayer in this country, I think workers working over 32 hours a week should be paid enough that they don't qualify for food stamps, medicaid, or other safety net programs; and that they should be able to buy health care for themselves if the company doesn't provide it. (NOTE: I'm assuming a single worker, not supporting a family.) This may mean increasing the minimum wage.

I also as a citizen of this country believe our country is better off with a strong middle-class. Factory workers used to earn enough to buy a house and support a family with just one working spouse and be considered, at the least, lower middle class. Those days will probably never come back. But raising the minimum wage will help with that.

While yes, we need education to get people into jobs that pay more than minimum wage, we can't force them to take the classes. But absolutely we need school systems that are good for everyone - not just those in wealthy districts. And we need options like vo-tech options (as Lursa said earlier, counselors in high schools are a pretty mixed bag - and in many states, the number of counselors has gone way down anyway). And we need continuing education options, and let's face it- people working two jobs don't have time for school. Their primary job has to pay enough that they can take the time for classes.

Oh - and then we need to have the jobs available for them when they get the training!

But as a society we can decide that minimum wage should be sufficient that a single person earning it doesn't need govt subsidies.

You all remember the stupid McDonald's budget right? that assumed a worker was working two jobs? Our workers shouldn't need two jobs for the basics - food, housing, transportation, medical insurance.

Employers do have a legal obligation to pay minimum wage. That's where we can apply pressure.
 
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.


Very well said, Diavo!! I too don't shop at WalMart. I don't like what they've done to small towns, to their workers, to their suppliers. They aren't the only culprit; but they are a large part of the issue.
 
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?

I think the issue is looking at these as subsidies payed to walmart as opposed to individuals working at Walmart. It's a rather dishonest way to characterize them, to say the least
 
However - as a taxpayer in this country, I think workers working over 32 hours a week should be paid enough that they don't qualify for food stamps, medicaid, or other safety net programs; and that they should be able to buy health care for themselves if the company doesn't provide it. (NOTE: I'm assuming a single worker, not supporting a family.) This may mean increasing the minimum wage.

Short of the health insurance issue, do individual workers without dependents actually qualify for such things at walmart?
 
I think the issue is looking at these as subsidies payed to walmart as opposed to individuals working at Walmart. It's a rather dishonest way to characterize them, to say the least

I'm sorry you feel that way, because I am serious about the words I used (meant every word and believe it with all my heart). If you feel the need to characterize my words as "Dishonest", then I have nothing else to say, because our discussion has already ended.
 
I'm sorry you feel that way, because I am serious about the words I used (meant every word and believe it with all my heart). If you feel the need to characterize my words as "Dishonest", then I have nothing else to say, because our discussion has already ended.

If you want to take that personally, as opposed to reflecting on what I am saying, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe lighten up?
 
If you want to take that personally, as opposed to reflecting on what I am saying, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe lighten up?

Not sure I can take it any other way. As to the "Lighten up" reference, did you read any words of mine in my reply that were as confrontational as what you described as a "dishonest characterization"? Maybe it isn't I who should lighten up. I am in a fine mood thank you . . . it is football Sunday.

But I am sure you are right, because I am usually wrong. Perhaps (I have no way of knowing) where you come from, it is normal to start a conversation with someone by calling them intellectually dishonest.
 
Not sure I can take it any other way.

Sure, you can take it as a criticism of the idea and not you.

As to the "Lighten up" reference, did you read any words of mine in my reply that were as confrontational as what you described as a "dishonest characterization"? Maybe it isn't I who should lighten up. I am in a fine mood thank you . . . it is football Sunday.

But I am sure you are right, because I am usually wrong. Perhaps (I have no way of knowing) where you come from, it is normal to start a conversation with someone by calling them intellectually dishonest.

see, I didn't call you intellectually dishonest, I said your idea was characterized in a dishonest manner. An idea you might have not considered in such terms or open to such criticism. Hence, *you* would not be dishonest in repeating it
 
Sure, you can take it as a criticism of the idea and not you.



see, I didn't call you intellectually dishonest, I said your idea was characterized in a dishonest manner. An idea you might have not considered in such terms or open to such criticism. Hence, *you* would not be dishonest in repeating it

See, I told you I was wrong. Semantics aside.
 
I agree that there are way too many tax loopholes that are exploitable by major corporations, but the failure there seems to be with our legislatures. You, on the other hand, seemingly blame the entity simply taking advantage of such things, as you yourself admittedly do.
Those same entities make sure they stay in place. Money talks. ;)
 
If the private sector wants to do something nice why do they not get people off of public assistance and give them a livable wage? And if they can't do that than go pay their full taxes and quit itemizing to get out of it

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.
 
You guys all talk big and pad your egos but I bet when in a pinch you change your tune. I've seen your type before. You think you're some kind of witty powerhouses until things don't go your way then its Obama's fault, its the gubmints fault, its those damn welfare recipients fault.

Na huh....you dont know what my life or work history has been like. You have no idea. I've made mistakes and made good decisions. Lived on rice and beans and bagels. Went back to school and got a 2nd degree (at nite, was poor all over again) when the first one wasnt ever going to buy me a home.

And I am no exception to anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom