Walmart workers cost taxpayers 6.2 billion in public assistance

Those without taxable wealth/property or income are targeted for their votes, while those with taxable wealth/property or income are targeted to pay the costs of acquiring the votes.

 

Yep, that's the power of democracy.

 

Indie

Hi so you’re back and still pumping out the same old guff you couldn’t defend from criticism the first time you presented it (some over two years old now).

I mean come on man take this -

Don’t you remember the whole Effort or Luck thread?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=400136

To repeat for what seems like the millionth time -

Effort is ok but the greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of them having success or failure, long before they have the independence to take certain actions themselves, before they can reasonably be expected to set themselves career goals.

In what way? I mean as we have discussed a lot of the time that’s more about luck rather than effort.

 

McDonalds and Walmart: Pay your employees a decent wage

Sign the petition
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/mcdonalds-and-walmart

 

Yeah, "the public", a legal entity. Not Joe Shmoe who feels entitled to graze on it because he thinks he paid for it. He paid for 0.000001% of it, so at most I could see it allowable for him to graze on 0.000001% of the land.

You're old enough to be retired but not old enough to understand that for most people living in poverty or anywhere near it, that is not an option? You have a family, roots, a life somewhere, you don't even have the cash to pack up and go somewhere else in search of a POSSIBLE job. Poverty is shackles. We are not talking about 5 or 6 figured workers "shopping around" for the best job to buff up their resume, we are talking about people barely scraping by on the entry level crap that is beginning to crowd out every other opportunity.

Sure, that would be fine, except you and I both know that corporations would ideally like to stop providing healthcare AND freeze or ideally lower wages.

 

Should the poor, or those who pay no taxes be denied use of all public facilities or property?

That doesn't seem to be a problem for a large number of people entering the country illegally, with nothing more than the clothes on their backs. I agree that large concentrations of population have become a major problem, and employment opportunities cannot keep pace with the population growth, therefore it is becoming more difficult for people to acquire their needs and wants, but the best solution would be for government to work on creating an environment in which the means are made available for the poor and un/underemployed to find employment which would allow them to take responsibility for their own lives.

Employers should be responsible for providing a healthy workplace environment not healthcare. Wages should be paid relative to the work performed, and it's value to the employer, allowing employees and prospective employees the ability to exercise their right of refusal to take or keep the job. Note that as a consumer you can shop where you like, and spend your money where you think employees are paid what you consider to be a fair wage. Don't think Walmart pays enough, don't shop there. If enough people do that, then Walmart would see its' business reduced, or maybe even go out of business, eliminating employment for some or all its' employees who could then find higher paying jobs.

 

Problem here is if that was true wouldn’t the US society be benefiting those on the lower parts of the ladder rather those at the top, which it isn’t?

I mean the real term incomes of the middle and lower classes have mainly stagnated or dropped in the last 30 odd years while the wealth of wealth has vastly increased.

As to public assistance the US has one of the least generous systems in the developed world.

So why put forward such a false claim?

Well because it serves the interests of wealth –

1) It promotes the idea that the taxes of the ‘hard working’ only goes to ‘lazy scroungers’ it’s an old con game put forward by wealth of the deserving and undeserving poor - The deserving being those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. And the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help and so it was plain - the argument goes – that there is no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

2) It promotes the idea that democratic government is corrupt and failing. The poster of this statement has come out publically with the proposal of a system in which wealth would get greater voting powers so that it could block the wishes of the majority. In this he seems more honest than many of those that push the whole anti-democratic/anti-government line, who often deny it’s about advantaging wealth but are unable to defend their ideas from that charge.

The argument that the US is a Republic not a democracy is part of that as is the calls for a return to the founding fathers original plan. Thing is that you can have a republic that is democratic or not, a republic does not have to be democracy in the modern sense and some argue that the US didn’t become a modern democracy until 1965.

At the beginning of the US only about 10% of the people had a vote due to property qualifications on voting and for the same reason even fewer could be elected into office. I often get the feeling that some would like the return of that system (as the poster of the statement has made clear).

Imagine an America where only the wealthiest 10% of the population could vote, I’m sure it would solve the problem the poster of the statement complains about since those with wealth wouldn’t have to care about the views or welfare of the lower 90%.

 

Indie

I agree but how would you go about doing that without public financing?– to me it would involve public investment in education, training and a Keynesian type stimulus programme, all things you have rejected in the past.

I mean your big ideas so far have been to get the unemployed to go out and pick up litter or loose there benefits or just remove benefits so people either get work or starve (if no one is willing to help them voluntarily).

They should and there are many regulations to make sure places are safe, I’m glad to hear you are in favour of such regulations.

But how is relative value to society judged? I mean to me a sewage worker that maintains the sewers and keeps them flowing so we don’t get shit floating down the gutters is worth more to society than a speculating trader on Wall Street. Thing is that there is no ‘free market’ in employment remuneration the market is will always be manipulated workers fought to gain better pay and conditions at the expense of wealth’s profits.

This meant that there was a huge rise in the number of the middle class in the period from the end of WWII to the rise of neoliberal/free market ideas in the 70-80’s when the real term incomes of the middle and lower classes on the main stagnated or fell while the incomes at the top greatly increased.

Also as has been explained to you many times there is an inequality of power between employer and employee that can be exploited by employers, especially in the type of society you want where it would be basically work or starve.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAcaeLmybCY"]If Walmart Paid Its Employees a Living Wage, How Much Would Prices Go Up? - YouTube

 

Placemark. Cant watch video on my phone.

 

People are paid relative to the value of the work they do, not relative to their needs. If the work you perform is not paid adequate to provide your needs you need to seek new or additional employment. Places like Walmart, Burger King, McDonalds, etc. should not be viewed as career jobs in the first place. I once worked at a Hardy's for $0.75 per hour and barely got by, but like my co-workers we eventually found better paying jobs. Personally, I would prefer to see prices go down, not up, but that's not going to happen and government assures us of that.

 

Indie

They are paid the least amount the employer can get away with - while often the employer tries so pay themselves the most they can get away with. And often if they can shift some of the burden onto public and charitable institutions they will pay workers wages that are below a living wage, often then transferring a portion of the savings made to themselves and the shareholders.

In the 1950’s CEO pay was 25-50 times that of an average worker that had risen to 300-500 times by 2007.

Thing is that people had to fight for better pay and conditions and a fair share of the economic pie and in that time the US was doing well economically and there was a huge rise in the number of people moving from the lower into the middle class.

That was in the period from the end of WWII to the rise of neoliberal ideas, but in the thirty odd years of free market/neoliberal ideas there has been a huge increase in the wealth of a few while the real term incomes of those below have either stagnated or fallen.

Thing is that the distribution pie is cut a lot different today that in the 1950, the greater economic equality was a help to you in the 1950’s but works against people today.

OK so as you have said you came from an economically comfortable family which would have helped and this job must have been before 1955 when you were getting double the average pay and had a wife and child - so let’s say 1945-55? - well the federal minimum wage in 1945 was $0.40 so 0.75 would have been good pay, by 1955 the FMW was $0.75 an hour about $105 a month (went up to $1.00 in 1956) not bad but not good, but it would also involve other factors like were you single, were you staying at home or renting, where in the US you were you living etc.

Anyway yes – such work has often been called ‘entry level’ employment, for those coming into the jobs market and then moving on and up. BUT you need the jobs to move onto and ones that improve your situation. If there are not the jobs then people can find themselves stuck.

As I’ve explained before the life and the jobs situation in the US is very different today from 1950, you did very well but you were doing it in an economy that’s economic model was striving for full employment and booming - today the economic model is to have unemployment to keep wages low and the economy is limping.

Indie I think you should stop looking to the past as if were the same situation as today, it’s over you need to look at today’s reality.

 

Most cashiers I know are worth being well compensated. It isn't an IQ contest, but what they do is enormously valuable. Cashiers often stock shelves and perform maintenance (cleaning the place up). A nasty store employee can send a customer elsewhere but a pleasant one can keep customers coming back. They're very important peeps!

And maybe if people were paid better than stressful minimum wage (which is taxing and burdensome), they'd be more motivated to perform their jobs with excellence.

 

I should also warn that a lot of those ‘burger flipping’ entry jobs are going to go – the self service till in supermarkets is already here and the automated custom hamburger maker is not far off.

http://www.gizmag.com/hamburger-machine/25159/

 

Then tip them, if you're satisfied with their service. A nasty store employee would tend to cause me to complain to his/her boss in hopes that he/she be fired.

Note that I haven't responded to Balbus simply because it's a waste of time attempting to correct his erroneous speculation time and again.

 

Indie

If I’m in error please correct me – the things I’ve said about you are based on what you have posted on this forum, I can quote you if you wish.

Otherwise your dismissal just seems like another attempt at evasion.

As to my other points you do not seem able to dispute them so they seem to stand.

 

And once more Indie runs away – this is the problem with many on the right, they don’t like criticisms they are unable or unwilling to address being asked and when they are they try and bluster, misdirect, evade and even lie to get out of answering – and when that doesn’t work they run away.

But you have to wonder at the mentality of people that keep promoting things they know are so flawed (I mean if they were not they could be defended).

 

As I’ve often said this should be about balance, this explanation is rather simplistic but I hope it explains the basic idea

The employers want cheap labour – working people need living wages –

Now employers want cheap labour – so they can make cheaper goods or to keep the good price the same and increase profit to reward themselves.

Working people need living wages to maintain a standard of living - where they are in a position to buy stuff or save, if their wages fall two things can happen - they can try and maintain their standard of living by getting into debt and/or depleting savings or they can stop buying stuff.

The first option was what many did with a steady rise in household debt from the 1980’s onward peaking in 2008 just before the financial crisis. Few took the second method until after the crash.

What is needed is for wages to rise but not only in places like the US for as James K Galbriath has painted out –

 

when I was a child my father supported the whole family on one income and the kids had plenty of toys clothes and food and medical expenses were paid for out of pocket.

Today it takes a 2 people working to have the same quality of life.

People need to get it through their heads that its inflation that is killing you because the government gives bailouts to the most upper class and borrows all the money we use in this country at a premium interest rate rather than printing our own money.

WHat this has done is put several middlemen (banks since they print the mney) between us and the mney raising the price of money exponentially.

The enemy is inflation and interest on money the government borrows and the people who manage that whole system. Despite your 401 getting bigger its reduced in value by 15-20% per year approx. so your 401 has to make at least that much just to break even and they charge you taxes (through the fund managers) for that 15-20% that you have to earn to make up for your losses.

Signed,
RICO

 

Zzap

This has been argued was one of the ways in by which people coped with real term decreases in wages – by one wage earning families becoming two wage earning families some became ‘richer’ and increased their standard of living but then again became victim to the real term decline in wages.

It not as simple as that – free market/neoliberal thinking is based on keeping inflation low rather than on full employment [Keynesian thinking is based on trying for full employment] the idea being that unemployment keeps wages down and so inflation down.

Thing is that there can be inflation or deflation we have not yet got a way of creating a perfect equilibrium between the two. They both have their problems. Yes inflation can erode real term wages but as long as wages are kept close to inflation then real term wages remain the same. But if not real term wages fall.

The free market neoliberal policies seem to be about keeping those wages down also though deregulation, union bashing, outsourcing and the replacement of manufacturing jobs with poorer paid service jobs.

Take outsourcing for example this meant that the price of some goods fell making it seem for those that could afford them that their living standards were remaining the same with their flatscreen TVs or iPads life seemed ‘better’ but for others these things were beyond their budget and worse still they may have lost their jobs in the factories that made these goods.

But often the outsourced goods were bought through rising debt which in the end isn’t sustainable but was the way many filled the gap between a fall in real term wages and keeping up a standard of living.

Wealthy institution received public funds because they had been allowed to become ‘too big to fail’ through free market based ideas on regulation (not regulate or deregulate).

Wealth as a whole has been assisted to be wealthier through free market based ideas on taxation (cut taxes to the rich and there will be trickle down).

To me no money should have been given away as bailouts as happened in the US what should have happened was nationalisation - a government buying a stake in the institution (so the taxpayers can get the money back later by selling the stake during a upturn). This happened in the UK, the big problem for the US is that for many the very idea of nationalisation is an anathema, a sign of hated communism, so in many case money seems to have just been given away.