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 ...
We live in a world with a odd sense of worth when the CEO of HP trashed the values that built a business from garage to multinational corporation, laid off thousands of workers, devalued the worth of the company, and got a lovely 21 million dollar parting gift.
There is no objective measure of "worth". When did CEOs become worth millions, even the bad ones, while the janitor, even a good one isn't worth the pay to keep himself and family fed clothed, decently housed in a safe neighborhood, healthy, and maybe even plan a vacation?
When that business is not able to compete in the marketplace any longer, then nobody has any income from that business any more! It literally is that serious. Businesses of all sizes go under every day because their management are not able to keep costs under control. When that happens, every employee loses all the pay they were getting.
Yes, the race to the bottom. Walmart builds a super store, pays poor wages, sells for less and pretty soon competing businesses are forced to cut benefits and pay less too. Unfortunately, the employee's rent, car, gas for his car, utility bills, medical care continue to rise. He may be able to buy cheap clothes, shoes, TVs, and VCRs, but his expenses related to keeping a roof over his head, transportation to work, and staying well are becoming increasingly out of his reach.
Yeah, I know. Sometimes I wonder why I stick around. There are so many interesting topics that come up, and there are some posters who are intelligent, well-read, and have very interesting perspectives on current events and issues.
I think this thread is about done. Probably a good thing.
I remember 1955 and am here to testify to the fact that today's poor are not better off than we were back then.
We may have color TVs instead of the clunky old black and white but we never feared that we would be killed in a drive-by shooting. It was safe for children to walk to school in those average neighborhoods and when the kids got sick, the doctor came to the house. No waiting for hours in a crowded hospital emergency room after the illness has become serious.
Moms were home (and could afford to be) supervising as kids ran safely from house to house playing. No pushers, no muggings.
We average types planned yearly vacations. We were respected members of respectable communities.
Believe me, I would rather be average in 1955 than poor in 2005.
Well, you probably wouldn't have wanted to be black in 1955 or have a kid with polio in an iron lung machine. Then there was the Cold War and the chance that World War III would break out at any moment.
In any event, the prosperity of the 1950s through the early 1970s were an economic anomaly that won't be repeated any time soon.
By your reasoning Comminst rule in Poland in 1970's was better free Poland in 1920's. In 1970's they had antibiotics, peasants were treated as equals and had shoes on their feet, everybody had TV in their houme.
Yes, you have proven that Communism is better.
"It's up to the employer to treat their employees fairly, starting with paying them enough money to live on or they are nothing more than exploiters, the kind of people who caused the revolution in Russia. I don't want to see that happen here. It won't because the government is too powerful."
I wasn't planning on posting on this thread, just wanted to read it. However, this single statement is so shocking that I can't believe you haven't hit "abuse" on yourself. Do you realize that you just advocated a powerful government in order to keep the evil corporation in check? Do you realize that this statement is the antithesis to all that FR represents. I've seen a lot of convenient conservatives on FR, but you are now head of that list.
Of course we didn't have AIDs back in the old days either.
Now we have the War on Terror, though I'm not sure what that has to do with the poor being better off today than the average in the 50s.
By your reasoning Comminst rule in Poland in 1970's was better free Poland in 1920's.
And Cuba, a workers paradise.
"I was the one who said wages are tied to the cost of living."
So you admit that increasing wages will increase the cost of living. Now, how does that help the poor? What would prevent the "living wage" from reaching $100 per hour?
First you say: "Capitalist to the bones. It's in my blood. I defend it to my dem acquaintances and relatives."
Then you say: "Capitalism has run amok in this country,"
Which is it?
I think I would disagree with that. Our country is founded on the basis of people pulling up roots and moving to where there was more opportunity. I don't think you have to be rich to make that kind of move, either. Furthermore, what contributes to a breakdown in family is staying in a decaying neighborhood, going on public assistance, and the parents no longer being the foundation of the family because of their inability to feed and clothe their family
"So you admit that increasing wages will increase the cost of living. Now, how does that help the poor?"
She has no idea. To her and Democrats... it's all magic.
If you find what I say so shocking, hit the abuse button on me. I don't want to talk to people who jump in at the end of a thread like an attack dog.
Whole families used to move together for the most part. That is no longer true and it wasn't true across the board then, but it was the general trend.
Now people go where their careers take them and their close relatives are scattered here, there, and everywhere, even overseas.
It's hard to keep up, but for those who can afford it, they can fly around for regular visits. A lot of people can't do that. Some people don't do it because the are alienated from their families anyway and want to get away from them.
And I don't mind your disagreeing with me as long as you have something sensible to contribute and don't go into attack mode. I don't see the world all neat and tidy black and white.
Some guy who hates Bush (and cops) crossed the threshold of my door along with a girl I've known for years who brought him along. He started in about something and she tried to shush him up because she knows I tend to side with the Republicans in *most* things. I told her it was a free country, and he had a right to express his opinion.
But there were other things I don't know if I want him around too much . . .
I worked just as hard as you did, and I never earned close to what you earned. But if it makes you feel better, pat yourself on the head on the way to the bank.
You forked over child support, score 1 for you if you are telling the truth, but you didn't have to find babysitters, cook, clean, stay home from work when your kids were sick, you had a definite advantage in the labor market.
I don't look down my nose at you, but I resented people like you for years. I had to pay your kind $20 an hour to fix my car so I could get to work and earn my $8+ per hour.
I'm not impressed with your accomplishments. You didn't have one hand tied behind your back and probably didn't have to take anti-depressant/anti-anxiety medication to keep going so you wouldn't lose your kids
"They don't sound like socialists over there to me, but they do sound like Democrats. They care about America and American jobs. My first question will be if there are any Republicans or independents working with them."
Hence, Republicans don't care about America or American jobs. Why are you a member of FR?
I signed on during the Clinton mess and have always voted Republican. I've changed since I have seen how they trash anybody and everything they don't like, just like the Democrats.
Now do me a favor and get lost.
I went and checked the posting rules and couldn't find anything about time limits to threads. Please direct me to that rule.
Are you admitting your support for a big government to keep corporate america in check?
First this: "It didn't matter because it didn't affect me. Now what happens in the broader spectrum in our society affects me because I don't have to keep up such a frantic pace to survive and have more time to reflect."
Then this: "All you people who are so maliciously criticizing me are only doing so because you seem to care only for your own welfare.."
So, it is acceptable that you are self motivated but we aren't supposed to be self motivated. How does it feel to be so hypocritical?
"Is is twisted to watch your employees suffer, if they suffer, while they mind the shop for you to have your vacation?"
Where were these "suffering" employees when the now employer was starting the business and couldn't take vacations, worked 7 days a week for 16 or more hours a day?
"Winners deserve all the perks that come with the good life. Losers are, well losers, and are good for nothing except for what they can do for you on the cheap and are fortunate if you don't abuse them in the process."
The only area of our economy that has winners and loosers is sports and lottery. The rest of the economy is based on doers and whiners, producers and moochers. You are hoping to reward the moochers with the fruit produced by the doers.
"get better deals on the internet if you know how to work it. "
Why do you find effort/work to be noble when it is to find deals that do not reward Walmart, but you find work that leads to higher wages to be unnecessary?
I like the way you twist logic. Pretty cool. Really.
My point was somewhat less dramatic. No particular age or era is perfect.
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.