• 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!

Corporations Aren't People

buck said:
Other then competition and being able to offer lower prices then the other stores.
Click to expand...

You're not getting the point. They DO NOT and I will repeat again....DO NOT offer lower prices or competition. Those both come with a hitch.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
It seems to me you don't practice what you preach. I see some whining about unions which happens to give back some type of power to the workers. They wouldn't have to whine about low wages and/or collect subsidies if they got better pay. There is no reason why a store like Walmart can't provide that to their workers. Plenty of other stores have proven it. With that said, I do understand why workers get intimidated. It really only takes one strong leader to cure that in any work place. I would like to see more take a stand rather than less.
Click to expand...

Please back up that bold assertion with links. If you are going to use Costco, then don't bother; Costco uses 1/2 the labor per square foot of retail space, sells relatively few items, requires high annual membership fees, sells in bulk and leaves stuff on pallets.

The reason that retail stores (among other businesses) pay their workers low wages is that is exactly what is required to get and keep qualified unskilled labor. Walmart does not compete with high end retail outlets, or Costco, it offers a wide array of (generally) low end products at discount prices. If required to significantly raise wages, it would still have its current advantage of volume sales/buying, but simply raise its prices to cover that added cost. The down side to higher minimum wages, would be felt by the smaller businesses, since labor is a higher percentage of their total cost of sales.
 
What if...? said:
I'm not so sure.

We lost our manufacturing base to people working for survival level wages to avoid dying.

When they have you by the balls...
Click to expand...

The beauty of retail is they can't just ship it overseas because they are specifically targeting US consumers. Now factory jobs paid good solid wages in most cases. That is when the US economy was at its best for all workers. We didn't see so much this attitude that certain workers deserved poverty level wages. The working poor was few not plentiful. We can change it if enough people continue the good fight for better treatment/wages.
 
Last edited:
rabbitcaebannog said:
You're not getting the point. They DO NOT and I will repeat again....DO NOT offer lower prices or competition. Those both come with a hitch.
Click to expand...

The prices at the store are lower.

The cost to society is a different story. If you don't like the cost to society, modify the welfare system. But don't create a welfare system that is more generous then required then complain that people are taking advantage of it.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Please back up that bold assertion with links. If you are going to use Costco, then don't bother; Costco uses 1/2 the labor per square foot of retail space, sells relatively few items, requires high annual membership fees, sells in bulk and leaves stuff on pallets.

The reason that retail stores (among other businesses) pay their workers low wages is that is exactly what is required to get and keep qualified unskilled labor. Walmart does not compete with high end retail outlets, or Costco, it offers a wide array of (generally) low end products at discount prices. If required to significantly raise wages, it would still have its current advantage of volume sales/buying, but simply raise its prices to cover that added cost. The down side to higher minimum wages, would be felt by the smaller businesses, since labor is a higher percentage of their total cost of sales.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Costcos, WalMarts, Sams, etc. should pay higher wages. They developed markets with good marketing plans and policies. I watched WalMart try to get USA bidders on many products and labor costs forced the purchases overseas, but they tried America first. It's just business. Quit bitching about minimum wage and start encouraging the gov't to initiate some policies that start small businesses instead of Corporate initiated legislation that always discourages small businesses. I don't think labor cost is the whole problem.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Please back up that bold assertion with links. If you are going to use Costco, then don't bother; Costco uses 1/2 the labor per square foot of retail space, sells relatively few items, requires high annual membership fees, sells in bulk and leaves stuff on pallets.

The reason that retail stores (among other businesses) pay their workers low wages is that is exactly what is required to get and keep qualified unskilled labor. Walmart does not compete with high end retail outlets, or Costco, it offers a wide array of (generally) low end products at discount prices. If required to significantly raise wages, it would still have its current advantage of volume sales/buying, but simply raise its prices to cover that added cost. The down side to higher minimum wages, would be felt by the smaller businesses, since labor is a higher percentage of their total cost of sales.
Click to expand...

I did. In my area we have 5 chains competing against each other. One is union. That chains keep up wages for all other stores in order to keep the union out of them. It's a win win for everyone. We get real competition so consumers benefit. The community benefits because they don't have to pay out subsidies to its many workers and the workers benefit with decent wages.
 
Last edited:
Since artificial Persons may be created through legal forms of fiction for the ease and convenience of our system of law, why not consider them "public" persons if they must obtain recognition from the public sector in much the same manner, records are made public for full faith and credit purposes in our republic.
 
buck said:
The prices at the store are lower.

The cost to society is a different story. If you don't like the cost to society, modify the welfare system. But don't create a welfare system that is more generous then required then complain that people are taking advantage of it.
Click to expand...

First, I never stated people are taking advantage of anything. Sh*t, if you got to eat, you got to eat. Just taking the welfare system away won't fix that problem.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I did. In my area we have 5 chains competing against each other. One is union. That chains keep up wages for all other stores in order to keep the union out of them. It's a win win for everyone. We get real competition so consumers benefit. The community benefits because they don't have to pay out subsidies to its many workers and the workers benefit with decent wages.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. You get higher local prices and the entire nation may get to pay a teeny, tiny bit less in "welfare'' for those 4 store's employees. If the "welfare" costs were local, then you may have had a point, but only if the increased local prices were offset by the decrease in your local taxes. Do you assert that your taxes went down due to the reduction in "welfare" costs? If not then you simply get to pay higher prices thanks to your union driving up local labor costs. ;)
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
First, I never stated people are taking advantage of anything.
Click to expand...

You're blaming the business for paying a fair labor cost, then demanding they pay more because their employees are taking advantage of the welfare system.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nonsense. You get higher local prices and the entire nation may get to pay a teeny, tiny bit less in "welfare'' for those 4 store's employees. If the "welfare" costs were local, then you may have had a point, but only if the increased local prices were offset by the decrease in your local taxes. Do you assert that your taxes went down due to the reduction in "welfare" costs? If not then you simply get to pay higher prices thanks to your union driving up local labor costs. ;)
Click to expand...

First, you have five large stores open that provide tons more jobs than one Super Walmart store which keeps unemployment down. Second, you have real competition, these stores must compete for consumers (that is what keeps prices down btw). Third, taxes may or may not necessarily go up depending on if the towns prefer to cut town resources/infrastructure. You MUST pay for those state subsidies one way or another.
 
buck said:
You're blaming the business for paying a fair labor cost, then demanding they pay more because their employees are taking advantage of the welfare system.
Click to expand...

It's not fair labor cost. People that work full time should be able to afford the basics and have a little left over. They should NOT be making poverty level wages. We didn't do that to factory workers. We don't need to do that to retail workers.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
First, you have five large stores open that provide tons more jobs than one Super Walmart store which keeps unemployment down. Second, you have real competition, these stores must compete for consumers (that is what keeps prices down btw). Third, taxes may or may not necessarily go up depending on if the towns prefer to cut town resources/infrastructure. You MUST pay for those state subsidies one way or another.
Click to expand...

There is some merit to higher wages, but only if that does not simply mean an even higher cost of living resulting from that "wealth". MA is not bad in that regard, ranking 13th among the US states.

Best and Worst States to Make a Living 2013
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
It's not fair labor cost. People that work full time should be able to afford the basics and have a little left over. They should NOT be making poverty level wages. We didn't do that to factory workers. We don't need to do that to retail workers.
Click to expand...

It's unskilled labor, meant mainly for high school and college students. It is not a job you are meant to camp out at and raise a family with. If someone makes the decision that Walmart or other unskilled labor is all they want to do, or their prior decisions makes it all that they can do, it should not be society's requirement to take care of them. For the type of labor involved, $8.00 / hour is more then fair. I don't know where this belief that all full time jobs should pay enough to raise a family and have extra leftover for savings started, but it really is ridiculous.
 
buck said:
It's unskilled labor, meant mainly for high school and college students. It is not a job you are meant to camp out at and raise a family with. If someone makes the decision that Walmart or other unskilled labor is all they want to do, or their prior decisions makes it all that they can do, it should not be society's requirement to take care of them. For the type of labor involved, $8.00 / hour is more then fair. I don't know where this belief that all full time jobs should pay enough to raise a family and have extra leftover for savings started, but it really is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Sorry, wrong. It's not just your average high school/college student working retail. Retail makes up a huge sector of US jobs. It replaced manufacturing jobs. People who did work those factory jobs did not make poverty level wages. They worked and had very working class lives not poverty stricken ones.
 
Bob N said:
You're missing the point. Corporations do not have the right to speak for me collectively and say that it is a person -- a unit of one. If the owner wants to come out and say what he/she believes than fine -- just don't include the business as a whole because there will be dissent somewhere. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Yeah partners in a large firms or doctors in four to five partner firms are different
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Sorry, wrong. It's not just your average high school/college student working retail. Retail makes up a huge sector of US jobs. It replaced manufacturing jobs. People who did work those factory jobs did not make poverty level wages. They worked and had very working class lives not poverty stricken ones.
Click to expand...

Non-skilled labor is meant for HS/college... Not for supporting a family and having enough left over for savings. You are free to disagree, but you are wrong. Just because manufacturing has mostly left the US, does not mean that it is suddenly unfair that non-skilled retail positions do not pay enough to support a family.
 
Rocketman said:
Yeah partners in a large firms or doctors in four to five partner firms are different
Click to expand...
No they don't. Sometimes they disagree on something too every once in a while.

But here are some key words for you: partners; firm. Notice that those words describe more than one -- not one human being.
 
buck said:
Non-skilled labor is meant for HS/college... Not for supporting a family and having enough left over for savings. You are free to disagree, but you are wrong. Just because manufacturing has mostly left the US, does not mean that it is suddenly unfair that non-skilled retail positions do not pay enough to support a family.
Click to expand...

You are wrong that retail jobs are meant only for college/HS students. Look at the ages of retail workers next time you shop. You have quite a mix.

Factory work did allow full time employees decent enough wages to raise a family and they also received good benefits to boot. We had four levels of full time workers in this country: working class, middle, upper, and wealthy. We never had poverty level in the mix. That was reserved for people who did not work full time jobs. The Walmart model introduced the poverty model here and deserves every bit of criticism for it.
 
Bob N said:
No they don't. Sometimes they disagree on something too every once in a while.

But here are some key words for you: partners; firm. Notice that those words describe more than one -- not one human being.
Click to expand...

if corporations can't be considered one, lawyers in large firms shouldn't be either
 
Rocketman said:
if corporations can't be considered one, lawyers in large firms shouldn't be either
Click to expand...

Corporation: a fictitious entity to limit liability. A paperwork façade to keep the legal repercussions from becoming personal. I use the word personal to make note that they have legally chosen not to be a "person," to escape liability/responsibility. That is as clear a reason as I can state that Corporations should not be given "person's" rights.
 
DaveFagan said:
Corporation: a fictitious entity to limit liability. A paperwork façade to keep the legal repercussions from becoming personal. I use the word personal to make note that they have legally chosen not to be a "person," to escape liability/responsibility. That is as clear a reason as I can state that Corporations should not be given "person's" rights.
Click to expand...

I disagree, either everyone's interest are represented or no one's is.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
If you take away corporate personhood, how is it that "not everyone's interest" is represented?
Click to expand...

Why take it away, it is transparent the way it is, it goes under the table and becomes less transparent
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
You are wrong that retail jobs are meant only for college/HS students. Look at the ages of retail workers next time you shop. You have quite a mix.
Click to expand...

Please note, I never said only HS/college kids work there. I said, that is what it is meant for. It is not meant for someone to take a job as a cashier and stay in that position, stagnating, for 30 years and make enough to raise a family and have a savings. Just because some do decide to stagnate in retail, does not change what retail really is.. non-skilled work that is paid as non-skilled work. People making low wages while working full time has been around forever... well before Walmart... Even if that is only as far back as you are aware of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom