sad! despicable!

Wirmboi

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Posts
283
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
53
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
What is really sad, is Walmart's business tactics. We went from having a good selection of stores to meet our needs. Now there is Walmart and a few brick n mortars... then there is the mall :eek:(

If you really know what your looking for, the Internet is the only way to get it, since there is not a enough stores to go around, everyone hoards like crazy so they can sell on ebay. :eek:(
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
why is the second link sad/despicable?

That conservatives can even ask such a question is itself kind of sad and despicable.

Notice also that it would make no difference what numbers were involved. Whether it's six people owning more than 42% of Americans combined, or three people owning more than 75%, or one person owning more than 99%, the conservative response would remain the same:

"So what? It's their money. They earned it."

Ultimately, such obtuseness stems from an abandonment of the belief that capitalism must serve society, in favor of the belief that society must serve capitalism.

We see the results.
 

slurper_la

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Posts
5,860
Media
9
Likes
3,687
Points
333
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
That conservatives can even ask such a question is itself kind of sad and despicable.

Notice also that it would make no difference what numbers were involved. Whether it's six people owning more than 42% of Americans combined, or three people owning more than 75%, or one person owning more than 99%, the conservative response would remain the same:

"So what? It's their money. They earned it."

Ultimately, such obtuseness stems from an abandonment of the belief that capitalism must serve society, in favor of the belief that society must serve capitalism.

We see the results.

thanks for "getting it"

the Walton heirs derive a significant portion of their wealth as dividends which means they are taxed at a very favorable rate.

What's particularly sad and despicable is that they benefit from such immense largess at the expense of taxpayers. Walmart has a history of advising new hires of their rights and options from government, such as how to apply for food stamps, since their pay scales are so low.

That defines a "moocher" to me!

.
 

Eric_8

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Posts
3,559
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
That conservatives can even ask such a question is itself kind of sad and despicable.

Notice also that it would make no difference what numbers were involved. Whether it's six people owning more than 42% of Americans combined, or three people owning more than 75%, or one person owning more than 99%, the conservative response would remain the same:

"So what? It's their money. They earned it."

Ultimately, such obtuseness stems from an abandonment of the belief that capitalism must serve society, in favor of the belief that society must serve capitalism.

We see the results.

Again, I ask, what is either sad or despicable about X amount of people (1 or 6 or 4,000,000) owning more than X amount of the population? I'm not seeing what these heirs did that is wrong, unless of course you're speaking from a moral perspective. However, the heirs didn't earn anything, they merely hit the genetic lottery. That said, I don't see why that somehow makes them undeserving of that money. Please break it down for me, and more importantly, please appeal to something beyond morality.

For another example, is it sad/despicable that Bill Gates has a net worth of $66 billion, which is undoubtedly more than a large combined portion of our country?
 

slurper_la

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Posts
5,860
Media
9
Likes
3,687
Points
333
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
thanks for "getting it"

the Walton heirs derive a significant portion of their wealth as dividends which means they are taxed at a very favorable rate.

What's particularly sad and despicable is that they benefit from such immense largess at the expense of taxpayers. Walmart has a history of advising new hires of their rights and options from government, such as how to apply for food stamps, since their pay scales are so low.

And don't get me started on the tax relief and demands they put on local government agencies, such as permit waivers, construction loans, road access, traffic abatement all for the distinct pleasure of having one of their big box stores in the community. shhhhhhheeeeeeeeesh.

That defines a "moocher" to me!

oh, and can we talk about the thousands of small businesses Walmart has sunk in neighborhoods across the USA?

.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Again, I ask, what is either sad or despicable about X amount of people (1 or 6 or 4,000,000) owning more than X amount of the population? I'm not seeing what these heirs did that is wrong, unless of course you're speaking from a moral perspective. However, the heirs didn't earn anything, they merely hit the genetic lottery. That said, I don't see why that somehow makes them undeserving of that money. Please break it down for me, and more importantly, please appeal to something beyond morality.

For another example, is it sad/despicable that Bill Gates has a net worth of $66 billion, which is undoubtedly more than a large combined portion of our country?

Setting morality aside (though how one can is beyond me), let's talk practicality.

Extreme wealth inequality doesn't work, even for those at the top. Businessmen need customers to buy what they sell. More and more wealth accumulated in fewer and fewer hands strains that principle to the breaking point, and beyond. Again, we're seeing the results in action now.

Even good old Henry Ford understood that his workers needed enough money to buy his cars.
 

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,789
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Again, I ask, what is either sad or despicable about X amount of people (1 or 6 or 4,000,000) owning more than X amount of the population? I'm not seeing what these heirs did that is wrong, unless of course you're speaking from a moral perspective. However, the heirs didn't earn anything, they merely hit the genetic lottery. That said, I don't see why that somehow makes them undeserving of that money. Please break it down for me, and more importantly, please appeal to something beyond morality.

For another example, is it sad/despicable that Bill Gates has a net worth of $66 billion, which is undoubtedly more than a large combined portion of our country?

Really?

You don't get that this store specifically thrived by offshoring US jobs thru cheap products made in 3rd world countries... then, competitively underpriced their goods for the express purpose of driving Other stores, and US manufacturers out of business...
And THEN adopted an expansion and employment strategy that targets neighborhoods with high poverty rates, offering jobs structured to INCREASE poverty rates, and limiting hours to prevent workers from getting access to benefits like pension plans and healthcare....

And THEN... knowing full well that they are not paying workers a living wage, they offer their workers information on how to get Food Stamps?

It doesn't bother you that, so the top execs can rake in ridiculously large sums of money, they are effectively having YOU the taxpayer SUBSIDIZE their workforce thru Government assistance that YOU have to pay for?

That they are knowingly structuring their business so that their employees will be force to go to emergency rooms for healthcare, for treatment they can not afford, and that YOUY will get stuck with the bill for their healthcare?

Just so a dozen people can have more money than they could ever even make use of?


Are you That stupid?

I developed a product for walmart. the Landed cost in the US was $12.

Walmart sold it for $120. It doesn't strike you that, at a TEN TIMES markup, they could easily afford to pay a decent wage... AND STILL make themselves obscenely wealthy?
Not to mention the political lobbying they have done to LOWER the tax rates they pay ( below the rate you and I pay ) an advantage you and I do not have because we can't afford to spend millions buying politicians.

Income inequality is the worst it has been since the 1910's thanks to the GOP agenda of shifting the tax burden of the wealthy onto the shoulders of the poor and middle class.
They are getting richer even faster... but they didn't "earn" that money- they didn't "create" that additional wealth. That is all money that government policies SHIFTED Out of the pockets of the middle class and into the pockets of people who already HAVE more than they need.

There is only SO Much money on any economy. History shows that the economy does best when tax rates on the wealthy are HIGH, and Government policy re-distributes taxes in ways that fuel growth in lower incomes.

It is the FLOW of money that does work. When poor people have more, the BUY goods and services and the Profit flows up to the wealthy.


BTW the income inequality of the early 1900's lead to several major changes. The Russian Revolution, and in the US - a great depression when the house of cards the wealthy were cheating at collapsed, not to mention labor strikes and a strong push for our own communist revolution... Capitalism in the US only survived because Unions were legalized.

And today- companies like Walmart and Kock industries spend hundreds of million trying to strip union rights and prevent labor from organizing.


Your response reveals a woeful lack of intelligence, or a woeful lack of education as to How societies thrive or falter, and why individual Avarice must be checked.

Frankly... the only reason ANY people suffer the existence of corporations is insofar as they provide meaningful livelihood the members of that society.

If Walmart can't bring itself to provide a living wage... then I say shut them down and kick them the hell out.


And sorry... winning a genetic lottery doesn't make you "deserving" of the money.
 

sillystring

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Posts
694
Media
0
Likes
66
Points
248
Gender
Male
So a college educated woman who is pregnant can't survive on a Part-time Wal-Mart job.

College educated....

Part-Time...

Wal-Mart...


Huff-Po..
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,850
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
One argument I've heard regarding Walmart is that if an employee doesn't like the pay they are free to go elsewhere. Sounds good until you consider that usually when Walmart moves into an area they drive the smaller stores out of business by underselling them. This leaves many people without other options.

As for Sillystring's comment regarding college education I have worked with 2 individuals who both have college degrees and who both worked for less than prime wages. In the current job market a person takes what they can get until something better comes along.
 

sillystring

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Posts
694
Media
0
Likes
66
Points
248
Gender
Male
As for Sillystring's comment regarding college education I have worked with 2 individuals who both have college degrees and who both worked for less than prime wages. In the current job market a person takes what they can get until something better comes along.

It's a part time job, that's what I take away from the article. No offense to anyone struggling to make ends-meet, but a part-time job is not meant to sustain you let alone pay back the debt from your college education.

Added on top of that the responsibilities and costs associated with raising a child, am I the only one seeing a disparity between life choices and fair compensation from an employer in this situation?

Retail employers are always going to select prior-experience over education to fill full-time positions. If they're going to invest in you they need to know you're there to stay.
 

sillystring

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Posts
694
Media
0
Likes
66
Points
248
Gender
Male
What sort of skilled labor is there to be done at Wal-Mart? Sounds like they need to get a better skill set.

There are positions in Wal-Mart that have nothing to do with retail sales. Everything from inventory management to security. The key point in this article is "part-time."

When I worked at Wal-Mart I made it perfectly clear that I was only there to earn a paycheck the summer before joining the Army. I was placed in a high turnover position and my hours were re-worked weekly, but always set to when I could actually work (vice school-hours/early mornings).

To me, it was a company that gave me a job on a schedule tailored to my availability. They paid me the bare minimum and I can't say to this day I was owed more even though I hated working there and disliked the atmosphere (the part about sweeping/cleaning off the clock is completely true).
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,850
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It's a part time job, that's what I take away from the article. No offense to anyone struggling to make ends-meet, but a part-time job is not meant to sustain you let alone pay back the debt from your college education.

Added on top of that the responsibilities and costs associated with raising a child, am I the only one seeing a disparity between life choices and fair compensation from an employer in this situation?

Retail employers are always going to select prior-experience over education to fill full-time positions. If they're going to invest in you they need to know you're there to stay.
Not always so, unfortunately. In many instances it comes down to needing a body to fill an opening.
Just about every retail store pays minimum to all non managerial staff regardless of full or part time status. Just imagine how difficult it is for anyone to make it today on a minimum wage paycheck. In most places it takes three weeks pay just to afford rent on a modest one bedroom apartment.