Walmart boss earns 1,200 times as much as the company’s median worker

[cawacko]

WalMart has 1.2 million employees who average wage is about $12/hr. $12/hr wage qualifies you for several income assistance programs like SNAP.

In no world should someone who is employed not be paid a living wage.

Walmart suckles at the teat of the taxpayers because we make up for the gap in pay they give their workers.

If Walmart paid its employees enough that they didn't qualify for government assistance, like Costco does, they'd have made $8B instead of $14B. Since Walmart isn't a public company, then there's no reason to continue subsidizing their profits.

If your goal is to have less young people and less "at risk" folks working then a living wage for every job is an excellent idea

 

[The Derp]

If your goal is to have less young people and less "at risk" folks working then a living wage for every job is an excellent idea

Well that's just the stupidest thing anyone could ever say or think.

Paying people more money reduces their dependency on government programs, and results in them spending more money in the consumer economy, where it creates jobs.

It's why the states that raised their minimum wages in 2014 saw stronger job growth than the states that didn't.

 

[cawacko]

Well that's just the stupidest thing anyone could ever say or think.

Paying people more money reduces their dependency on government programs, and results in them spending more money in the consumer economy, where it creates jobs.

It's why the states that raised their minimum wages in 2014 saw stronger job growth than the states that didn't.

Really? It's stupid? Because 17 year old kids of well to do family's working part time at a yogurt shop in the summer need a living wage? Because every one in their first job is worthy of making $15/hr plus benefits?

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

Republican policies are calibrated to maximize income inequality. Focus!

So why do you support obama getting a $65 M book deal last year?

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

In no world should someone who is employed not be paid a living wage.

If you're sensible, you can live like a king in america on $15,000 a year. And that is without welfare or medicaid or any of the freebies.

 

[CFM]

WalMart has 1.2 million employees who average wage is about $12/hr. $12/hr wage qualifies you for several income assistance programs like SNAP.

In no world should someone who is employed not be paid a living wage.

Walmart suckles at the teat of the taxpayers because we make up for the gap in pay they give their workers.

If Walmart paid its employees enough that they didn't qualify for government assistance, like Costco does, they'd have made $8B instead of $14B. Since Walmart isn't a public company, then there's no reason to continue subsidizing their profits.

If Walmart workers offered skills to be paid that much, they'd get paid that much.

To you lefties, a living wage involves paying someone more than they offer in skills. In no world should that happen.

 

[The Derp]

Really? It's stupid? Because 17 year old kids of well to do family's working part time at a yogurt shop in the summer need a living wage? Because every one in their first job is worthy of making $15/hr plus benefits?

Yes, everyone who works needs a living wage. Period. I don't care if you're 17 or 77, you work, you deserve a living wage.

If a business cannot exist without paying its workers a living wage, then the business should not exist.

Otherwise, you're admitting that capitalism is simply unable to provide an adequate standard of living for the workers. Is that what you want to admit? Think carefully.

 

[The Derp]

If you're sensible, you can live like a king in america on $15,000 a year. And that is without welfare or medicaid or any of the freebies.

LMAO

 

[The Derp]

If Walmart workers offered skills to be paid that much, they'd get paid that much.

Costco workers get paid that much. So the value is there. The Waltons are just welfare queens who rely on government to subsidize nearly half their profits. If Walmart paid its workers a living wage, US taxpayers would spend $6.2B less in welfare.

But keep justifying welfare for corporations...it's really helping your free market case. LOL!

To you lefties, a living wage involves paying someone more than they offer in skills. In no world should that happen.

Costco pays its workers a living wage. So why can't Walmart do that? They certainly have room to; they made $14B in profit last year, despite their workers getting $6B in public assistance.

 

[cawacko]

Yes, everyone who works needs a living wage. Period. I don't care if you're 17 or 77, you work, you deserve a living wage.

If a business cannot exist without paying its workers a living wage, then the business should not exist.

Otherwise, you're admitting that capitalism is simply unable to provide an adequate standard of living for the workers. Is that what you want to admit? Think carefully.

I don't know if you fully understand how markets work. And I've never heard anyone say capitalism should necessarily provide a living wage to teenagers.

 

[The Derp]

I don't know if you fully understand how markets work. And I've never heard anyone say capitalism should necessarily provide a living wage to teenagers.

Let's all come together and realize that you're full of shit, and you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Which is why you post vague, ambiguous bullshit about me not understanding "the markets", when it's really you who doesn't understand them.

Capitalism will never provide an adequate standard of living for workers because capitalism is structurally unable to do so. That's why we need socialism; because that's what fills the gap that comes from the entitlement and privilege business owners think they have to government subsidizing their shitty business by picking up the slack on wages for that business' workers.

That's bullshit. My tax dollars shouldn't subsidize your failing business.

 

[cawacko]

Let's all come together and realize that you're full of shit, and you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Which is why you post vague, ambiguous bullshit about me not understanding "the markets", when it's really you who doesn't understand them.

Capitalism will never provide an adequate standard of living for workers because capitalism is structurally unable to do so. That's why we need socialism; because that's what fills the gap that comes from the entitlement and privilege business owners think they have to government subsidizing their shitty business by picking up the slack on wages for that business' workers.

That's bullshit. My tax dollars shouldn't subsidize your failing business.

Is there a particular countries socialism you would like to see us model ourselves after?

 

[archives]

American workers are certainly exploited. The wage inequality gap is for real. I remember 5 or so years ago when democrats tried to make an issue of this and everybody laughed - the public knows democrats are just as bad at raking in money for doing nothing as repubs. Hillary was charging $225,000 per speech and last year barry got a book deal advance of $65 million.

Bad analogies, Hillary charged that much because she got that much, when was the last time any Trump did anything for free. And Obama got the book advance because he is a past President, a rare commodity, with experiences Americans want to read, good move by the publishing company

None of that has absolutely nothing to do with Walmart

 

[The Derp]

Is there a particular countries socialism you would like to see us model ourselves after?

Canada, UK, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, South Korea, Japan, Israel, Australia, Norway, Finland, Holland, France, etc.

Each of those countries have socialist aspects that make compete sense for us to have here, like a universal and single payer health care system (Canada, France, UK), mass transit (Japan, S. Korea), mandatory civil service (Israel, Switzerland), strong social safety net (Scandinavia, Germany), universal basic income (Finland), legal marijuana taxed and regulated (Canada, Holland).

We don't need to model after one specific country; we can take aspects from each as makes sense to us.

 

[cawacko]

Canada, UK, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, South Korea, Japan, Israel, Australia, Norway, Finland, Holland, France, etc.

Each of those countries have socialist aspects that make compete sense for us to have here, like a universal and single payer health care system (Canada, France, UK), mass transit (Japan, S. Korea), mandatory civil service (Israel, Switzerland), strong social safety net (Scandinavia, Germany), universal basic income (Finland), legal marijuana taxed and regulated (Canada, Holland).

We don't need to model after one specific country; we can take aspects from each as makes sense to us.

While I don't disagree you can take good ideas from other countries you are essentially saying you want to recreate the world's economic superpower. And not one of those countries you listed offer teenagers "living wages".

 

[The Derp]

While I don't disagree you can take good ideas from other countries you are essentially saying you want to recreate the world's economic superpower.

Not what I'm saying, and I notice how you fall back on the same straw man bullshit you freaks always do. When you cannot find something to argue against, all you do is build straw men.

A single payer health care system is not recreating anything; it's taking a system that is irredeemably flawed, and improving its efficiency and cost by having one single entity do the action of thousands of different insurers; administration. A single payer health care system is a reform to the administration of reimbursements to a provider. That's all it does. Understanding it requires an understanding of how health insurance works. And I believe in my heart that most people don't understand what health insurance is, what health insurance companies do, and how any of it relates to your actual health care.

Now I want to know why you have this compulsion to construct straw men arguments? Is it because you simply cannot carry yourself in an argument, or is it because you're so insecure that you cannot give credit to the merits of someone else's idea because you didn't come to it first? What is your deal? I want to know what level sociopath I'm dealing with here.

And not one of those countries you listed offer teenagers "living wages".

1. Teenagers don't work in those countries, largely, because they're in school.
2. For those that do work, they get the same wages as everyone else. Wages don't decline or increase depending on your age.
3. In addition to a living wage, all those countries provide adequate social services

 

[signalmankenneth]

 

[TTQ64]

Yes, everyone who works needs a living wage. Period. I don't care if you're 17 or 77, you work, you deserve a living wage.

If a business cannot exist without paying its workers a living wage, then the business should not exist.

Otherwise, you're admitting that capitalism is simply unable to provide an adequate standard of living for the workers. Is that what you want to admit? Think carefully.

Standing Ovation!

cawacky thinks raising the minimum wage hurts Blacks most.

 

[TTQ64]

Let's all come together and realize that you're full of shit, and you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Which is why you post vague, ambiguous bullshit about me not understanding "the markets", when it's really you who doesn't understand them.

Capitalism will never provide an adequate standard of living for workers because capitalism is structurally unable to do so. That's why we need socialism; because that's what fills the gap that comes from the entitlement and privilege business owners think they have to government subsidizing their shitty business by picking up the slack on wages for that business' workers.

That's bullshit. My tax dollars shouldn't subsidize your failing business.

No offense to my fiancé........but I think I'm falling in love.

This poster gets it. It shouldn't be subsidizing your thriving business either.

You win the internet today.

 

[TTQ64]

Not what I'm saying, and I notice how you fall back on the same straw man bullshit you freaks always do. When you cannot find something to argue against, all you do is build straw men.

A single payer health care system is not recreating anything; it's taking a system that is irredeemably flawed, and improving its efficiency and cost by having one single entity do the action of thousands of different insurers; administration. A single payer health care system is a reform to the administration of reimbursements to a provider. That's all it does. Understanding it requires an understanding of how health insurance works. And I believe in my heart that most people don't understand what health insurance is, what health insurance companies do, and how any of it relates to your actual health care.

Now I want to know why you have this compulsion to construct straw men arguments? Is it because you simply cannot carry yourself in an argument, or is it because you're so insecure that you cannot give credit to the merits of someone else's idea because you didn't come to it first? What is your deal? I want to know what level sociopath I'm dealing with here.





1. Teenagers don't work in those countries, largely, because they're in school.
2. For those that do work, they get the same wages as everyone else. Wages don't decline or increase depending on your age.
3. In addition to a living wage, all those countries provide adequate social services

The racist, greedy white man doesn't want Blacks to have any of the bolded.

It's why they fight so hard against it. The hate campaign...... they use for it profit.