Posted on 05/26/2005 6:27:37 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Because of Wal-Mart's inadequate wages and benefits, Wal-Mart employees are eligible for $2.5 billion in Federal assistance, which comes from your tax dollars.
(Excerpt) Read more at wakeupwalmart.com ...
Why am I not surprised you didn't answer my question?
Because I knew you wouldn't.
Why won't you take a chance and surprise me?
Here it is again for your edification.
If you're fat and happy with the nation's largest employer having a a huge % of its employees eligible for public assistance, stop calling yourself an American, much less a conservative/
I demand that every American worker be paid $700 dollars an hour, starting tomorrow! That will solve all our economic problems, won't it? </sarcastic rant>
For Pete's sake. Will some of you please take an economics class? It will honestly lower your blood pressure a bunch.
About those losers.
When yoiu lose you just pick up and dust yourself off and start over. Do you know ho many failures in business and losses of elections Lincoln endured before he became president?
Oh, to answer youir other post asking me silly questions? I won't be out of a job because I'm going to perfect my already marketable skill. That's why I'm going to chef school starting this fall. Chefs with Cordon Blue certificates DON'T often lose their jobs and seldom starve.
BTW, I plan on opening my own place someday, too. I plan on paying those who work for me what their skill level deserves. Obviously a good kitchen staff and wait staff are worth spending money on. But they're gonna get a lot more than the busboys and dishwashers will. There's no way in hell, (with the slim profit margins in the restaurant biz), they get even CLOSE to a "living wage".
You need a course in economics and business administration. You're blinded by stupidity and appealing to emotion.......just like a LIBERAL.
Its not up to you to get them out of it.
Its up to THEM to do it for themselves.
Or do you have a problem with PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
The late Freddie Prinze was right. "Sa'not my joob, man."
Much more so than Wal-mart executives are forced to be loop-hole seeking (if ain't illegal and we can squeeze out another penny) Dickensian Mammonists.
What would you rather? Should Wal-Mart pay more for the labor of its employees than it is worth? Do you pay more for things you buy than they are worth? When you buy a car, do you tell the dealer, "Hey, I don't want your salesman to be poor, so I'm gonna give you $5,000 more for the car than you asked." I didn't think so.
The labor market is no different than any other market. In this case, the seller is the employee, offering his labor, experience, talent, etc. for sale. The employer is the customer buying that labor. Like any other sale, both parties are free to negotiate and accept or reject the deal. If the employer doesn't want to pay a particular price for a certain kind of labor, he doesn't have to. If the employee doesn't want to work for a particular wage, he doesn't have to.
If employees want to be paid more, they need to make themselves more valuable! Just like there are cars that are more valuable than others, for various reasons, there are also employees that are more valuable. Those who have more education, experience and/or skill than others will be paid more. Those who did not graduate high school, never attended college, and have skills that equal those of nearly everybody else, should expect to be paid less for their work. Why? Because there is a large supply of them.
It still comes down to supply and demand. There is a nearly endless supply of Wal-Mart-level people out there. That skill level is nearly like water. It's everywhere, so why should anybody be expected to pay a premium for it? On the other hand, if you are, as an example, an experienced, certified, educated and talented IBM AS/400 computer system expert, you will probably be paid handsomely for your work. Why? Because there aren't very many of those people around!
Really? Find me the news story where a Wal-Mart employee was threatened with death if they worked any where but Wal-Mart.
Having the choice between an undesirable option and a more undesireable option is not equivalent to having no choice. Want more options? Get more education.
Where's the part in the Bible about a "living wage?"
My mother was not a Communist.
And I am not a boy.
Another one smokin' the KILL here, folks.
You really need to get that nose of yours out of the Bible occasionaly and into some Friedman and Mises.
You might learn just how insane your post was.
That's the way its always been, pal.
Or haven't you read Locke, Smith, Hayek, Mises, AYN RAND, etc.
What's wrong with that? Its the law of the jungle. Don't let this THIN VENEER of "civilization fool you.
We're not too different from the cavemen.
Unfettered, unregulated, laissez-faire Capitalism rules.
And that's just the way it is. Deal with it.
You do if your name is Chelsea Clinton. Remember she started out at $250,000 per year a few years ago
Anyone who tries to reduce the effective value of the wages that I have worked so hard to improve throughout my life, is an enemy of mine. And I will fight them in any way that I can.
Let me spell that out for you. If you, and other socialists like you, are successful in getting minimum wages increased, you will at the same time increase the cost of manufacturing almost everything. The prices of almost everything will increase accordingly. This means that my wages will not be able to purchase as many goods and services. This will be a disincentive to anyone who wanted to follow in my footsteps of improving my skills, knowledge, and training.
I don't want to live in that communist hellhole, and I don't believe that you do either--if you only were intellectually honest with yourself.
"He gets free med coverage? That's nice. "
I stand corrected. It's not free, but the deduction is small.
Does anyone know how Wal-Mart employment practices compare to K-Mart, Target, Costco, and other similar retail operations?
S2R you should go back and have a look at Post 67.
That's what I was responding to in the first place.
Godwin's Law states that first person who mentions Hitler/Nazis in a debate where it's not even relevant loses the debate.
In response, I get this "Moonbeam dropped you on your head" and a picture of a baby crying -- you'd think I was the one who used the Nazi terminology.
It's sad, really. Someone who posts here should try actually debating.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.