Wal-Mart Asks Customers To Donate Food To Its Needy Employees

1

185248

Guest
Yup...:) One needs to ask why people need to shop at joints like this in the first place. Where most of the instore products are imported.

Money goes overseas = less locally produced = less well paid skilled jobs (that actually produce something) = more unskilled low paid work = less money to spend = more people need to shop at Wally's and the like for cheaper products = less and less locally produced = even less jobs = less and less money = 3rd world.

It's happening here also, and in most Western countries, but we all know that anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

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
first of all its not customers being asked to donate but other staff members. secondly, businesses should be forced by law to pay a living wage

Why?

Couldn't the Walton's simply shut down all their stores and simply pocket the profits then? Or would they be forced to stay in business as well?
 

B_underguy1

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Posts
1,983
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
73
Location
NZ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Why?

Couldn't the Walton's simply shut down all their stores and simply pocket the profits then? Or would they be forced to stay in business as well?

What profits would they extract if they shut down?

The Waltons have probably destroyed more living wage jobs and more small businesses than any corporation in human history.
 

B_underguy1

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Posts
1,983
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
73
Location
NZ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
first of all its not customers being asked to donate but other staff members. secondly, businesses should be forced by law to pay a living wage

It would be better to have a Federal government jobs programme that paid a living wage to anyone that wanted one.

It would effectively become the minimum wage.
 

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
What profits would they extract if they shut down?

The Waltons have probably destroyed more living wage jobs and more small businesses than any corporation in human history.

I'm not advocating they do it, or calling it a viable path forward, but the idea that a private business be mandated to provide an entirely arbitrary amount of cash to employees is silly.

In our world of excess, the idea of a living wage has become a complete joke.
 

B_underguy1

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Posts
1,983
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
73
Location
NZ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm not advocating they do it, or calling it a viable path forward, but the idea that a private business be mandated to provide an entirely arbitrary amount of cash to employees is silly.

In our world of excess, the idea of a living wage has become a complete joke.

People are being paid less than living wages, which is an indictment of the system, so that the rich can accumulate excessively.

This is the inevitable outcome of unbridled capitalism. And demonstrates the absolute stupidity of the capitalist class.

And why is a living wage determination necessarily r even likely to be "completely arbitrary?
 
Last edited:

Hatched69

Cherished Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Posts
840
Media
8
Likes
458
Points
283
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Not to mention all the "Mom and Pop" shops that Wal-Mart put out of business which employed community-minded individuals and paid them well...
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
Sam Walton advocated buying American. It is his children that began the practice of picking an item and telling American companies that they would only pay a certain price. The American companies were then required to find a way or pass on producing the stated item.

Going to third world countries where the American companies could pay a much lower pay scale ended thousands of jobs in the US.

The "living wage" should be reflected in setting the national US minimum wage. In the US a husband and wife could both work a 40 hour work week making the minimum wage. Their combined wages would be considered to be below the national recognized poverty pay scale which is the US minimum wage. There is something clearly wrong with this picture!

Once a consensus can be reached on the amount of money it takes to be above the poverty line, then that hourly wage should go up the same percentage as the rate if inflation.

I don't have a problem with paying teens ages 16 and 17 or 18 year olds who are still in high school a slightly less as part of the teens working is learning how to become an employee.

The mom and pop businesses can be exempted from this legal amount. There is a huge difference between the incomes of the mom and pop owned businesses and corporations like Wal Mart. Each of the Walton children earnings are in the one billion dollars a year range, I don't see a legal problem with the Walton s paying enough income so the employees' children can eat nutritious meals, receive adequate medical care, etc.

The state should have an obligation to see that employers don't pay their employees a salary that puts the employers in the position of being de facto slave owners. Slavery should be illegal and that includes employer/employee relationships that become de facto slave owner/slave relationships.
 

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
People are being paid less than living wages, which is an indictment of the system, so that the rich can accumulate excessively.

This is the inevitable outcome of unbridled capitalism. And demonstrates the absolute stupidity of the capitalist class.

And why is a living wage determination necessarily r even likely to be "completely arbitrary?

Take a walk outside just about any American city, or at least the multiple hundreds that I've been to.

Americans of all economic standing have goods that so far exceed what one could fairly consider a living wage, that to argue that need X to "survive" becomes comical. You can't have a fairly large about of creature comforts and be taken seriously when you preach about the inhumane wages you're receiving.

Take a play outta Jerry Jones' book and get a flip phone!

Note: you're no dummy, but for others here I'll provide the caveat that the you above is not in reference to any individual here.
 

B_underguy1

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Posts
1,983
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
73
Location
NZ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Take a walk outside just about any American city, or at least the multiple hundreds that I've been to.

Americans of all economic standing have goods that so far exceed what one could fairly consider a living wage, that to argue that need X to "survive" becomes comical. You can't have a fairly large about of creature comforts and be taken seriously when you preach about the inhumane wages you're receiving.

Take a play outta Jerry Jones' book and get a flip phone!

Note: you're no dummy, but for others here I'll provide the caveat that the you above is not in reference to any individual here.

All paid for with bank credit. Which then transfers more income to the super wealthy.

Poverty isn't about bling and gizmos, it is about income.
 

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
All paid for with bank credit. Which then transfers more income to the super wealthy.

Poverty isn't about bling and gizmos, it is about income.

So it's the fault and responsibility of the elite when people live beyond their means?

Further, and correct me if I'm reading this incorrectly, it seems as though you are saying that these irresponsible individuals would NOT purchase the same gizmos and bling (2003 hip hop lingo alert!) if they were provided with more income, rather than charging it to credit. Is that correct?

Assuming that is your contention, why would these individuals not simply put more cash/income down on their purchase and continue to use credit, albeit a slightly lesser amount? Would we then advocate for an escalated living wage scale?
 
Last edited:

docdeath

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Posts
563
Media
37
Likes
116
Points
178
Location
Earth
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Walmart isn't the only culprit here.
McDonalds advises its own employees to apply for welfare and/or food stamp benefits, all while raking in obscene profits and paying excessive CEO salary and bonuses.
 

Who_Dun_It

Just Browsing
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Posts
218
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
51
At least enough they can afford to get ready for (including eating prior to work), buying clothes for, and then drive to work without having to rely on wellfare and/or credit card debt to do so.
 

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
At least enough they can afford to get ready for (including eating prior to work), buying clothes for, and then drive to work without having to rely on wellfare and/or credit card debt to do so.

Thank you for not addressing any potential concerns that might arise from giving irresponsible people more money with which to waste.

Can we set guidelines that allow them to only purchase certain items?

Being a spendthrift is not a tenet of the poor; it's in many cases a lifestyle choice of the YOLO crowd (read: absolute fucking morons). There's little reason to believe that extra money coming in would equate to anything more than extra money being flushed down the crapper on useless goods.
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,672
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
As far as I'm concerned, Walmart stores have no redeeming qualities. It's an interesting place to go people watching and not much else. I'm glad we don't have any in this country.

But I think they operate on a pretty small margin don't they? Like 3%? If they raised wages, by just 145 dollars a week for each of their 2.2 million employees, they'd wipe out this year's 15.2 billion profit. But they can't give up all their profits, so let's cut it by half. They could then give 72 dollars a week to each employee. Although it could make difference in some people lives, $75/week isn't much. It's lunch money. A drop in the bucket of what is a "living wage".

Any further improvements to would have to come out of the pockets of Walmart's extremely price conscious customers, who could easily take their business to lower cost online outlets.

The thirst for more and more stuff for less and less money, has created a kind of economic death spiral.
 
Last edited: