• 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!

Bernie Sanders rolls out ‘Stop WALMART Act’ that would block stock buybacks until retailer raises pa

JMR said:
This business does not pay their employees a living wage, so employees turn to your tax dollars for assistance. Meanwhile shareholders are raking in profits, and executives are making millions. But do defend them, it is clearly their right to act in this way.:roll:
Click to expand...

Say that everyone agrees to this. That people aren't making a living wage, and these corporate people are making millions. When do you think the cutoff point is? Should everyone be paid enough to own a $1000 dollar cell phone? Should they have 3 TVs. One car per spouse. What constitutes a living wage? Also on the other end. What levels do you suggest capping people's salaries? Can they make one million a year, two, three, etc? Does cost of living factor into any of this? The touted 15 dollars an hour in many areas of the country would be devastating to a lot of smaller companies and only large companies such as Walmart would be able to afford this.

I don't necessarily disagree that companies should pay their employees more. But at the same time, after having worked for many years before and during college there are plenty of working class people that spend frivolously on things that I didn't even have growing up more much wealthy than them that I would say are not requirements. We might have a problem with people not getting paid enough. But we also have a problem with people thinking that there are a vast amount of things that they need to have when they don't.
 
Renae said:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/b...buybacks-until-retailer-raises-pay-2018-11-15

**** Bernie and his bots.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good piece of legislation. I think Most CEOs should be able to eek out a living at 150 times the pay of the average employee. Plus now they get a raise everytime the average pay rises in their company.
Employees making a little more money allow them to become consumers of more products, creating more jobs in other areas. More jobs means more demand for employees = higher wages for these employees. Sounds like a win/win/win.
 
ajn678 said:
Say that everyone agrees to this. That people aren't making a living wage, and these corporate people are making millions. When do you think the cutoff point is? Should everyone be paid enough to own a $1000 dollar cell phone? Should they have 3 TVs. One car per spouse. What constitutes a living wage? Also on the other end. What levels do you suggest capping people's salaries? Can they make one million a year, two, three, etc? Does cost of living factor into any of this? The touted 15 dollars an hour in many areas of the country would be devastating to a lot of smaller companies and only large companies such as Walmart would be able to afford this.

I don't necessarily disagree that companies should pay their employees more. But at the same time, after having worked for many years before and during college there are plenty of working class people that spend frivolously on things that I didn't even have growing up more much wealthy than them that I would say are not requirements. We might have a problem with people not getting paid enough. But we also have a problem with people thinking that there are a vast amount of things that they need to have when they don't.
Click to expand...

That's the problem with economic engineering: you have to take over everything for it to "work". No economic freedom, everyone gets issued the same thing.
 
rjay said:
Sounds like a good piece of legislation. I think Most CEOs should be able to eek out a living at 150 times the pay of the average employee. Plus now they get a raise everytime the average pay rises in their company.
Employees making a little more money allow them to become consumers of more products, creating more jobs in other areas. More jobs means more demand for employees = higher wages for these employees. Sounds like a win/win/win.
Click to expand...

If you make more than 30,000/year, you are making too much. I'll just take that from you and provide one additional cent to everyone's annual salary.
 
Samhain said:
If you make more than 30,000/year, you are making too much. I'll just take that from you and provide one additional cent to everyone's annual salary.
Click to expand...

I am afraid I don't understand your reply. It does not seem to fit in with anything I said.
 
rjay said:
I am afraid I don't understand your reply. It does not seem to fit in with anything I said.
Click to expand...

if you think CEO's make too much money, then why not everyone that makes more than 30k a year?

Middle management makes too much money too, better take part of their salary too.

You want everyone equal right?
 
Samhain said:
if you think CEO's make too much money, then why not everyone that makes more than 30k a year?

Middle management makes too much money too, better take part of their salary too.

You want everyone equal right?
Click to expand...

Now I understand, you were building a strawman. Go ahead, knock it down. That is some good debating.
 
poweRob said:
the Dems did some really dirty crap to Nader in the election I worked. Busted my but collecting signatures to get him on the ballot in AZ. Got well over the needed amount then the dems contested signature sheets. Each sheet held I think 20 signatures. If they questioned just one of those signatures the whole sheet was discarded. They just kept doing that until Nader no longer had enough signatures then walked. It was blatantly apparent that the Dems and the Repubs had a wink and a nod agreement, "this fight will always be between us!" thing going on.
Click to expand...

Nader wouldn't have been my pick, but I can't think of anyone more deserving of a chance. He should have been on the ballot. Thank you so much for your effort there!

I actually live in NC. Interestingly, we had more libertarians on the ticket than most other states. They can get voted on here, but so few people have faith that they still top out under 10% vote. All were state level last week. I put in my vote, but it didn't do anything. I mostly focused on issues out here (we have an amendment for ID that doesn't offer free access even after the law itself was killed by our courts). I did a lot of footwork and put a little money on it, but somehow the crap got passed in a state where whites are a minority. Some other time I will go on a rant about what I see working in a business I own where I'm the only white male (not by design).

I'm not sure any third party will get treated seriously until all states are required to allow them on the ticket and maybe we see a real candidate or two that exists in the electoral college. It's very frustrating.

All we can do right now is push for any legislation that opens the options. As the liberal dems and conservative reps take all tv time and are the only ones that actually get into high office, we can't win the big ones yet. We have to look for options that get third parties on the table.

Somewhat unrelated, I think part of our problem is we don't fight each other enough! Have you seen any of the debates between green and libertarians? There's no fight. Everyone wants what's best and they actually discuss the issues. It doesn't make good tv.
 
rjay said:
Sounds like a good piece of legislation. I think Most CEOs should be able to eek out a living at 150 times the pay of the average employee. Plus now they get a raise everytime the average pay rises in their company.
Employees making a little more money allow them to become consumers of more products, creating more jobs in other areas. More jobs means more demand for employees = higher wages for these employees. Sounds like a win/win/win.
Click to expand...

Of course it sounds good to you, you are mired in class warfare and bad economic understanding.
 
distraff said:
How so?
Click to expand...

1. The best measure of the success of the economy is the prosperity of its population, and our goal should be to have an economy that maximizes the success of its workers. -Good
2. The free market is really good at bringing prosperity to workers and government-controlled economies are failures, so a free-market approach is needed. -Good
3. The free market isn't perfect at bringing prosperity to its population and needs common-sense regulation, and every economy has regulations like this. -Mostly correct

4. One problem with the free market is that thanks to automation, outsourcing, and the decline of unions, employers don't have to give new growth to their workers and can pay them far less than their worth. This has resulted in most economic growth since 1975 going to the top 1%.

- WRONG. Employees aren't the reason for the business. Unions are evil and the less Unions the better. Business exists to maximize the ROI to those with a vested economic stake in the endeavour.

5. The solution to this problem is shifting more taxes away from workers onto the rich, and using those taxes to pay for universal healthcare, retirement investment accounts, and filling the skills gap by education aid. We should aim to a lower level of inequality we had in the 1950s and 1960s.

- WRONG Crazy Train. Taxing the rich more and more is not the answer. UHC is such a bad bad idea. While I am all for individual retirement accounts and offering job training that needs to be done right or it becomes a money sink without a good return on investment.

6. This won't hurt the economy because business people won't just stop getting richer if they are getting richer slower. Also, that money in the hands of workers will boost business sales and revenues.

- When you stymie success and make the system geared towards "Vote for me, I'll take MORE money from those evil rich people and give it you" you break the system
 
Renae said:
1. The best measure of the success of the economy is the prosperity of its population, and our goal should be to have an economy that maximizes the success of its workers. -Good
2. The free market is really good at bringing prosperity to workers and government-controlled economies are failures, so a free-market approach is needed. -Good
3. The free market isn't perfect at bringing prosperity to its population and needs common-sense regulation, and every economy has regulations like this. -Mostly correct

4. One problem with the free market is that thanks to automation, outsourcing, and the decline of unions, employers don't have to give new growth to their workers and can pay them far less than their worth. This has resulted in most economic growth since 1975 going to the top 1%.

- WRONG. Employees aren't the reason for the business. Unions are evil and the less Unions the better. Business exists to maximize the ROI to those with a vested economic stake in the endeavour.

5. The solution to this problem is shifting more taxes away from workers onto the rich, and using those taxes to pay for universal healthcare, retirement investment accounts, and filling the skills gap by education aid. We should aim to a lower level of inequality we had in the 1950s and 1960s.

- WRONG Crazy Train. Taxing the rich more and more is not the answer. UHC is such a bad bad idea. While I am all for individual retirement accounts and offering job training that needs to be done right or it becomes a money sink without a good return on investment.

6. This won't hurt the economy because business people won't just stop getting richer if they are getting richer slower. Also, that money in the hands of workers will boost business sales and revenues.

- When you stymie success and make the system geared towards "Vote for me, I'll take MORE money from those evil rich people and give it you" you break the system
Click to expand...

LOL!

A. There is no such thing as a free market. It's never existed outside of chalk boards and PP presentations.
B. Unions "are evil"? Your emotionalism and irrationality clearly demonstrate your inability to address any of this honestly.
 
Keridan said:
Honestly don't think there was winning that election. Hillary gave it up to Trump, tho. Not much selection left after her approach.


On actual topic here:

[Edit for clarification - phrased it very badly]

Targeting large companies. Specifically calling your bill by the name of one large company is bad news. The precedent is awful. Bernie wants to force living wage by going after groups like this instead of passing general laws (because they would never pass).

This feels like a grab for attention, except I don't think Bernie wants any more special attention. He's done running for higher office.
Click to expand...

An example of a post made by someone who only read the headline.
 
ajn678 said:
Say that everyone agrees to this. That people aren't making a living wage, and these corporate people are making millions. When do you think the cutoff point is? Should everyone be paid enough to own a $1000 dollar cell phone? Should they have 3 TVs. One car per spouse. What constitutes a living wage? Also on the other end. What levels do you suggest capping people's salaries? Can they make one million a year, two, three, etc? Does cost of living factor into any of this? The touted 15 dollars an hour in many areas of the country would be devastating to a lot of smaller companies and only large companies such as Walmart would be able to afford this.

I don't necessarily disagree that companies should pay their employees more. But at the same time, after having worked for many years before and during college there are plenty of working class people that spend frivolously on things that I didn't even have growing up more much wealthy than them that I would say are not requirements. We might have a problem with people not getting paid enough. But we also have a problem with people thinking that there are a vast amount of things that they need to have when they don't.
Click to expand...

When Walmart employees apply for assistance, their salary is considered, and whether that is adequate to cover rent, transportation, clothing and food. I would think everyone would agree that those are rather basic needs...no fancy phone plan or nice car in the mix.
 
Samhain said:
Money isn't illegal, nor can you be compelled to spend it in a specific way.
Click to expand...

Well... yes and no. The point is that Walmart dont pay their employees enough and yet has enough money to buy back its own stocks. So the employees, who dont get enough wages.. then are forced to get state handouts to make ends meet.. and the last bit is the critical part. The state is basically subsidising Walmart to buy back its own stock... and that should be illegal... but it is certainly immoral as hell.
 
Keridan said:
Nader wouldn't have been my pick, but I can't think of anyone more deserving of a chance. He should have been on the ballot. Thank you so much for your effort there!

I actually live in NC. Interestingly, we had more libertarians on the ticket than most other states. They can get voted on here, but so few people have faith that they still top out under 10% vote. All were state level last week. I put in my vote, but it didn't do anything. I mostly focused on issues out here (we have an amendment for ID that doesn't offer free access even after the law itself was killed by our courts). I did a lot of footwork and put a little money on it, but somehow the crap got passed in a state where whites are a minority. Some other time I will go on a rant about what I see working in a business I own where I'm the only white male (not by design).

I'm not sure any third party will get treated seriously until all states are required to allow them on the ticket and maybe we see a real candidate or two that exists in the electoral college. It's very frustrating.

All we can do right now is push for any legislation that opens the options. As the liberal dems and conservative reps take all tv time and are the only ones that actually get into high office, we can't win the big ones yet. We have to look for options that get third parties on the table.

Somewhat unrelated, I think part of our problem is we don't fight each other enough! Have you seen any of the debates between green and libertarians? There's no fight. Everyone wants what's best and they actually discuss the issues. It doesn't make good tv.
Click to expand...

Parliament would do it. Shy of that i dont think third parties will make any significant gains.
 
poweRob said:
Parliament would do it. Shy of that i dont think third parties will make any significant gains.
Click to expand...

True enough. But we gotta keep trying. Everyone is so busy fighting, we might be able to sneak in some sanity.
 
JMR said:
When Walmart employees apply for assistance, their salary is considered, and whether that is adequate to cover rent, transportation, clothing and food. I would think everyone would agree that those are rather basic needs...no fancy phone plan or nice car in the mix.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question. What levels are acceptable for a living wage? What levels are too much for CEO's? When I worked at my old jobs, I knew plenty of people that had 800 dollar cell phones, yet couldn't buy diapers. They also happened to be on assistance. The simple fact is, many people on both ends of the spectrum believe that they are entitled to things. If you can't afford to take care of your child, the answer isn't to force the government to take more money from people and give it to you, its for you to not have an 800 dollar phone with a 50-100 dollar plan. On the same side of things, I do not think it is moral for a CEO to be buying seven sports cars while most of their employees can afford not much, bad spending or not. The only problem is, you can argue that the CEO is entitled to the money they earn. The person who spend frivolously on the new gadgets and grubhub every other day? Not so much.
 
ajn678 said:
You didn't answer my question. What levels are acceptable for a living wage? What levels are too much for CEO's? When I worked at my old jobs, I knew plenty of people that had 800 dollar cell phones, yet couldn't buy diapers. They also happened to be on assistance. The simple fact is, many people on both ends of the spectrum believe that they are entitled to things. If you can't afford to take care of your child, the answer isn't to force the government to take more money from people and give it to you, its for you to not have an 800 dollar phone with a 50-100 dollar plan. On the same side of things, I do not think it is moral for a CEO to be buying seven sports cars while most of their employees can afford not much, bad spending or not. The only problem is, you can argue that the CEO is entitled to the money they earn. The person who spend frivolously on the new gadgets and grubhub every other day? Not so much.
Click to expand...

I believe the question of what is a livable wage is answered by many government agencies, and varies from place to place.
The fact that you have anecdotal evidence that someone had an 800 cell phone, and got assistance does not carry forward to proving that all people on assistance waste their money.

My point was that I think it is immoral, and should be illegal for a company the size of Walmart, known to have its full time employees supplemented by government assistance, use profits to buy back stock, raise CEO salaries, and pay shareholders while simultaneously holding the line on wage increases.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
How many open unabashed Communists have been elected to high office (and no, conspiracy theories about Obama "secretly" being a Communist don't count -squints at avatar-)?

Now, how many open, vocal, unsecretive Ultranationalists have been elected to high office?

Take a moment to allow this to sink in...
Click to expand...

Seeing as I doubt anyone would be so stupid as to claim to be a communist and hope to maintain, or achieve public office of any sort in the US. Is a concept that sit far outside of reasonable speculation at this point. Though we do have democratic leaders, social democrats and other liberal leaning groups that not only abide by openly communist groups, but will usually let them run rampant in their cities and allow them to terrorize their own citizens.

As for the other point, I can literally think of no currently seated politician. That would actually be an ultranationalist, despite how flat on the nose such a definition may be. I also so no indication of any member of the sitting political line up, at least in the main avenue of the political parties. Being a part of the so called alt-Reich. So long as Trump sticks to his America first stance, then I'm fine with that. Now if he starts to embellish into socialist agendas, takes our guns, or any other warning flags pop up. Then there can be a consensus, that an issue has arisen.
 
Oborosen said:
Seeing as I doubt anyone would be so stupid as to claim to be a communist and hope to maintain, or achieve public office of any sort in the US. Is a concept that sit far outside of reasonable speculation at this point. Though we do have democratic leaders, social democrats and other liberal leaning groups that not only abide by openly communist groups, but will usually let them run rampant in their cities and allow them to terrorize their own citizens.

As for the other point, I can literally think of no currently seated politician. That would actually be an ultranationalist, despite how flat on the nose such a definition may be. I also so no indication of any member of the sitting political line up, at least in the main avenue of the political parties. Being a part of the so called alt-Reich. So long as Trump sticks to his America first stance, then I'm fine with that. Now if he starts to embellish into socialist agendas, takes our guns, or any other warning flags pop up. Then there can be a consensus, that an issue has arisen.
Click to expand...

" We are in love. He writes me beautiful letters. " -Donald J. Trump speaking to,and of brutal murderous Communist dictator Kim Jung UN, who just in the last 2 days personally watched a new N. Korean super-missile test firing.
 
Logician Man said:
" We are in love. He writes me beautiful letters. " -Donald J. Trump speaking to,and of brutal murderous Communist dictator Kim Jung UN, who just in the last 2 days personally watched a new N. Korean super-missile test firing.
Click to expand...

There is a saying Logician, those who like Trump. Take him seriously, just not literally and those who hate him. Don't take him seriously, but they do take him literally.

If you're going to chase the use his wording like its gospel. Then I have no cure for whatever pox ale's you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom