Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why America is Severely Broken - Meet Alice Walton

page: 13
100
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder


#2. Yes...but WHY is it "her money"?? She didn't work for it...that's all daddy's money which came from daddy's company which DADDY built. WHY is society OK with all of these no-talent, loser, deadbeats who inherited their stations in life just like the European monarchy we fought to GET AWAY FROM having unlimited wealth and power transferred to them solely upon the basis of their dumb luck in the uterine lottery?

Why should we not have enough textbooks in our schools...yet permit Paris Hilton to live a life of opulence, excess, and luxury for doing slightly less than nothing? How in the HELL does Donald Trump still have money? He has failed MISERABLY at almost every single endeavor he has ever attempted?? Trump went bankrupt on CASINO'S for the love of christ. CASINO'S!!!

Native Americans nationwide have went from quite literally still using stone tipped arrows and spears to demonstrating an absolute MASTERY of owning and operating Casino's nationwide...but Donald Trump couldn't pull it off despite inheriting his millions and all of daddy's real estate connections and attorneys??

C'mon...the game is rigged and in any HEALTHY CIVILIZATION in the modern world, one must be able to rise and fall based upon their MERIT...not their BIRTHRIGHT.



So you shouldn't be able to build and save and pass that on to your children? Instead of being willed to my brother, my grandfather's farm should have been seized and "redistributed" by the government because my brother "didn't build that?" That's what you are saying. (Grandfather left the farm to his only grandchild with an interest in farming and the rest of us were cool with that if anybody is curious.)




posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by The Old American
 


If you can admit you are wrong,Say so and retract your allegations that I labeled you.


I've already admitted I was wrong twice on this thread about the the two things I was wrong about. What exactly is it you think I am wrong about? Bring it, because I can take it. Like I said, admitting when I'm wrong is not a hang-up for me because I'm a responsible adult.

But you'd better be right about it.

/TOA



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by The Old American
 


If you can admit you are wrong,Say so and retract your allegations that I labeled you.


I've already admitted I was wrong twice on this thread about the the two things I was wrong about. What exactly is it you think I am wrong about? Bring it, because I can take it. Like I said, admitting when I'm wrong is not a hang-up for me because I'm a responsible adult.

But you'd better be right about it.

/TOA


Forget it, you are like trying to nail jello to a wall.
edit on 8-1-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by The Old American
 


If you can admit you are wrong,Say so and retract your allegations that I labeled you.


I've already admitted I was wrong twice on this thread about the the two things I was wrong about. What exactly is it you think I am wrong about? Bring it, because I can take it. Like I said, admitting when I'm wrong is not a hang-up for me because I'm a responsible adult.

But you'd better be right about it.

/TOA


Forget it, you are like trying to nail jello to a wall.
edit on 8-1-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)


Ahh, in other words you just want me to issue a blanket "I was wrong" statement without any actual proof. I'll even try again: bring something to the table if you have something. I'll admit I was wrong if I was. It seems important enough to you to make a post about, so it should be important enough to mention it to me.

/TOA



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   


I'm not playing any prescribed role


There you go.If you can't keep track of your posts and replys.I will hold your hand.
edit on 8-1-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
If you don't like Wal-mart put them out of business. We still have choices people, we still have choices.

If we stop shopping there, they will go out of business, unless the government bails them out. I actually love Walmart, my business icon.

Those low low prices translate into low low wages. What did you expect?

Plus, Walmart makes I think 2% profit. You have to look at their income statement, their profit margins are very thin.

Raising wages would translate into higher prices.

The consumers have already voted with their money.

Wal-mart isn't a career, most people don't expect to be cashiers all their lives.

These jobs tend to have low wages because teenagers and young adults were supposed to work them. They tend to require less money are usually healthy and do not require insurance. These McDonald type jobs were never meant to be permanent employment for people.

Every couple of years a new batch of teenagers were supposed to fill these positions. As manufacturing left and other high paying jobs got outsourced they became stuck at Walmarts.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Just something I have to add...
If walmart got their goods from America, then America would get more wealthy as a country.
If the country gets more wealth, then things would get cheaper.
Buying things from china for a lower price however does NOT accomplish the same goal.
The only benefit is that those specific items bought, are cheaper, but nobody gets wealthier.
Since walmart is huge, it has a big impact on the economy in the united states.

Invest in smaller businesses, and you'll have more stability in your economy.
Gigantic corporations are no good.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 




You seem like a person who just takes a stance with no real idea of the subject.Are you mean and lonely and just want to argue?



Ive seen a few of his posts around different threads and he seems to almost always play the role of the antagonist.
There are a few others like that as well, I dont even bother with them.


Hmm, just saw this. I usually find your posts enlightening and usually agree with you on them. You seem to have a good head on your shoulders and look at things rationally. I guess everyone has their emotional blind spot.

I'm not playing any prescribed role, except someone who believes that only the truth belongs in any thread. I'm not supporting WalMart or Ms. Walton, nor am I supporting the "OMG WALMART TOOK MAH MONEES!" people. But there's a lot of ignorance thrown around in this thread for the sake of flags and stars and I'm just presenting facts and data.

I seem to be one of the few that will.

/TOA


Well, I appreciate that and I meant no offense.
Sometimes I can be a bit less than diplomatic in things I say, especially at night on weekends, after a few to many drinks



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
I understand where you are coming from and it's the way it HAD been for years, but companies are now using the Walmart model for employment. You state so yourself above, "why hire you for 50 when I can get a high schooler for 10".

The same way walmart is supplying us with crap because they CAN, the same way employers are hiring crap because they can.


Maybe the problem is with people...I can tell you that if a job can be done by a non-skilled person after a short period of time then that job is worth close to minimum wage. There is a disconnect somewhere here with what people feel a job is worth....a no-skill job will never, has never, provided a living wage.

Typically...today a non-engineering/doctor/lawyer degree is basically a block filler for companies to weed out those with nothing at all. The degree might get your foot in the door and that is about it. One thing we both can agree on is a typical degree will get you nothing up front, might be a make or break in a future promotion down the road, but if a degree is not truly aligned with a profession it means little.

Can you name a few jobs where once they were 25 to 50 bucks and are now 10 to 15 bucks per hour in pay. I ask this because I can't think of a single one.

One thing with Wal-Mart...95% of their jobs need zero skills or education to do, so what should they be paying? Like I said, the company I work for has about 700 employees and 90% of them make over 100k, so some where that education/skill thing still fits.


edit on 8-1-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 

sorry, but the first image that comes to mind when i read words like these ...

a no-skill job will never, has never, provided a living wage
is of Rush Limbaugh, Terry Jones, the likes of Jimmy Swaggart, Tammy Faye Baker, Martha Stewart and a very long list of others.
i could go on and on but what's the point ??

these are your oh so "skilled" millionaires

after observing said deterioration over the last several decades, i have to thoroughly disagree.

it does take 'skill' to operate a computer/cash drawer.
{why else do you think clerks can't make change on their own ?}
it does take 'skill' to operate a library.
it does take 'special skills' to care for animals.
and it certainly takes 'skill' to raise a family.

while none of the 'skilled' labor mentioned above is ever compensated at their true value to society ... i'm afraid you and i will never see eye to eye on such a point.


Can you name a few jobs where once they were 25 to 50 bucks and are now 10 to 15 bucks per hour in pay. I ask this because I can't think of a single one.
again, this answer depends on the region but in this one ... here's a few ... mechanics, waiter/waitresses, telecommunications, commission only sales, assembly/construction, transportation, lifeguards and commonly, shipping hands.

so here's a question, since WalMart doesn't produce anything, why shouldn't they be required to provide a certain percentage of "profit" directly back to the community that supports it ??
(and not in the form of 'taxes' either)

oh and btw, i'd be careful just how much 'skill' you associate with number crunching cause as most already know, the 'skill' to which you refer involves a whole bunch of 'cooking' too



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


LOL, so instead of the more plausable answer of people wanting cheaper goods and services and companies stepping up to fill that demand, the answer is really a conspiracy with corporations forcing or brainwashing the masses to buy their cheaper products?


Nope. It just means that companies utilize people who understand mathematics. No conspiracy needed.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by milominderbinder


#2. Yes...but WHY is it "her money"?? She didn't work for it...that's all daddy's money which came from daddy's company which DADDY built. WHY is society OK with all of these no-talent, loser, deadbeats who inherited their stations in life just like the European monarchy we fought to GET AWAY FROM having unlimited wealth and power transferred to them solely upon the basis of their dumb luck in the uterine lottery?

Why should we not have enough textbooks in our schools...yet permit Paris Hilton to live a life of opulence, excess, and luxury for doing slightly less than nothing? How in the HELL does Donald Trump still have money? He has failed MISERABLY at almost every single endeavor he has ever attempted?? Trump went bankrupt on CASINO'S for the love of christ. CASINO'S!!!

Native Americans nationwide have went from quite literally still using stone tipped arrows and spears to demonstrating an absolute MASTERY of owning and operating Casino's nationwide...but Donald Trump couldn't pull it off despite inheriting his millions and all of daddy's real estate connections and attorneys??

C'mon...the game is rigged and in any HEALTHY CIVILIZATION in the modern world, one must be able to rise and fall based upon their MERIT...not their BIRTHRIGHT.



So you shouldn't be able to build and save and pass that on to your children? Instead of being willed to my brother, my grandfather's farm should have been seized and "redistributed" by the government because my brother "didn't build that?" That's what you are saying. (Grandfather left the farm to his only grandchild with an interest in farming and the rest of us were cool with that if anybody is curious.)


That's not what I'm saying at all.

But there is a big difference between passing on a working farm and passing on $20 Billion dollars of cash or cash equivalencies.

What if we put certain limits on inherited wealth. Maybe that number should be $1 million...maybe $10 million. Maybe that number should be different for real property as opposed to securities...I don't profess to have researched the specifics.

However...as a general concept what do you think is MORE fair. Nailing both your brother and one of the Walton brats with 30% in taxes....or allowing your father to give your brother the family farm TAX-FREE and simply take 100% of everything ABOVE $10 million bucks from the Waltons??

Personally...your father and brother seem like some hardworking guys. I think they should keep their money. Similarly, I think the last thing planet earth needs is yet ANOTHER generation of selfish, overindulged, spoiled brats running amok w/ daddy's billions.

What do you think?



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder
That's not what I'm saying at all.

But there is a big difference between passing on a working farm and passing on $20 Billion dollars of cash or cash equivalencies.

What if we put certain limits on inherited wealth. Maybe that number should be $1 million...maybe $10 million. Maybe that number should be different for real property as opposed to securities...I don't profess to have researched the specifics.

However...as a general concept what do you think is MORE fair. Nailing both your brother and one of the Walton brats with 30% in taxes....or allowing your father to give your brother the family farm TAX-FREE and simply take 100% of everything ABOVE $10 million bucks from the Waltons??

Personally...your father and brother seem like some hardworking guys. I think they should keep their money. Similarly, I think the last thing planet earth needs is yet ANOTHER generation of selfish, overindulged, spoiled brats running amok w/ daddy's billions.

What do you think?


This is exactly what you are saying. It is exactly the same in principle, the only difference is scale. I think that there are always going to be people who think other people do not derserve their money and that everytime a tax is made to "punish the rich" (remember at first the people were told that the income tax would only affect the very wealthy) that tax always expands to screw everybody. Rather than act out of simple jealousy and give the power and precident to the government to screw with the family farm, I'd rather that no one, at any level, have their family's money or property taken away.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


I agree with half your posts and disagree with half your posts. You are an enigma


I am not sure what you mean when you say it takes skill to raise a family.

Family one - three sons and one daughter. Single mom struggles to attend night school while grandparents watch kids. Mother spends times deveoping a sense or morals and responsibility in her children. She sets an example. The children grow to be contributing members of their society.

Family two - three sons and one daughter. Single mom sits at home, collects state/federal assistance, and bemoans her fate. Mother sees the children as an anchor to her goals and dreams and this reflects in her attitude toward the childrem. Two sons end up in prison, one son dies during a drug deal, and daughter OD's in an alley.

Both of these women "raised a family". So no skill is required. (I painted in broad strokes to make a point. Blanket statements never show truth and usually are an emotional attempt to win an arguement. I would also like to point out that I am not trying to bash moms. I cannot imagine the pressure of being a single mom, but I recognize that it is an immense burden and reward)

Many of the "skills" you mention are simple repetitve tasks. Low training skils, while they are required for society to function (for the most part), they are not overly taxing nor do they require much in the way of personal responsibility. As skill sets are added and promotions are attained, responsibility in increased. If a wal-mart should see it's profit margins decline by 20%, the cashiers will not be blamed but the manager may be looking for a new job.

I am not sure what you mean that a company should pay taxes and still give a portion of it's profits back to the community. Can you please explain that in a little more detail for me.

edit on 9-1-2013 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
if you agreed with all of them, this would be a rather boring experience, wouldn't it ?
seriously, what don't you understand about "skill to raise a family"?

just because a couple gains/produces a child, doesn't automatically make them skilled enough to raise a family. (do you really need examples ?) this is the basis of my point.
what skill is soooooo much more valuable/compensable in your mind ?

i will never agree with this brushstroke ...

Both of these women "raised a family". So no skill is required.
that is one of the greatest fallacies of your commentary.
you are not a parent yet, are ya ?

it is an immense burden with minimal rewards but we aren't talking about that side of the subject. we are discussing 'skill' vs 'compensation' and parenting is seldom compensated for the skill involved in raising any child (especially those with special needs)

this statement can be applied to nearly every 'job' available in any industry ...

Many of the "skills" you mention are simple repetitve tasks
no different than those (specially skilled
) accountants, contractors, politicians, athletes, entertainers and a slew of other 'professionals' performing the same tasks over and over again.

and here's another point on that note.
'professionals' do repetitious work on a daily basis.
parents with more than one child are often more versatile in their methods and results than any professional can afford to be.
again, why does the 'professional' deserve a greater compensation for doing less challenging work ??

"low training skills" ????
are you joking ?
cashiers today cannot even make correct change on their own.
in my day, we did it at age 6 just for fun and playtime.

'special skills' ??? like what ?
tying shoes ... are you aware of how many children can not perform that simple task ??

we'll have to disagree here and that's fine cause long before there were "walmarts" on every corner, we had a plethora of apprenticies, journeyman and master craftsman ... now, we have walmart


and surprisingly, those 'skills' needed to be a master craftsman were taught 'on the job', not at some college or on the computer at home.

30yrs ago, maybe the mgr would be looking ... these days the cashiers are replaced first, stock persons are investigated for stealing first AND threats are made BEFORE any action is taken against mgt.
like it or not, that IS the reality of today.

sure, cause i don't believe they are paying their fair share of taxes anyway (tax shelters/foreign production and all) ... as a non-producer, non-manufacturer, they should instead, be required to return a certain percentage of profit to the community that supports them.

they are not creating a 'job force', rather workerbees.
they are not producing anything, hence, they are akin to blood-suckers looking for fresh meat.
they do not contribute to the quality of region they inhabit.
they don't provide educational options for their employees.
heck, they don't even sponsor a local little league team.

rather come into a community and decimate it, they should be held to a higher standard and be forced to enhance it ... whether through community projects or direct financial support ... of which, they presently do neither.

as for the taxes, that's another discussion for another thread.
personally, i believe that since they produce nothing, they should be barred from any tax incentives, tax loopholes and tax shelters but that's just my opinion.

if they don't like it and leave ... fine, be gone.
like i said, they aren't producing anything anyway.
if the WalMart of today was a reflection of the WalMart that Sam created, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

ETA -- in my region, there are 4 SuperCenters within a 20mile radius ... what is the point of that ?
edit on 9-1-2013 by Honor93 because: ETA



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by 200Plus
 

and, if you dare, let's look at this from the other side of the fence, shall we ??

for all the regions that have a WalMart or multiples of them ... how many of those regions have sufficient school supplies for all of their children ??
why isn't WalMart picking up the slack ?
it's not like they don't have/provide the products in question.

why do schools have to do without textbooks when WalMart is quite capable of helping ?

why do the environments that Walmart intrudes upon suffer greater once Walmart is up and operational ?? shouldn't WalMart be responsible for their damaging influence ??
why should WalMart or any Mart get a free pass ?

oh and btw, i think it is only fair to remind the readers that the majority of "killers" we've endured in this country have originated from the upper levels of society (suburbia) ... not the welfare moms
or dads working at Walmart in exchange for a sub-standard living.
edit on 9-1-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt
edit on 9-1-2013 by Honor93 because: typo



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 




why do schools have to do without textbooks when WalMart is quite capable of helping ?

Public schools don't seem to be improving a lot, so when they have almost completed their death spiral, WalMart will probably open their own schools so that they will have some new employees that are learned enough to operate the cash registers there.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 

lordy geez, i hope not.
meh, public schools really aren't worth what we pay for them and i'm not convinced they ever were.

i would like to see a resurgence of craftsmanship and all the ills that go along with it ... at least the kids would be learning one form of self-sufficiency along the way.

i have to laugh at whomever mentioned 'do you really think it's a form of brain-washing to buy their products' (or something along that line) because the answer is a reverberating YES.

and a very simple example of this is ... fireants.
we have a seasonal explosion of them here, most of the newer generation of folks will go straight for the pesticides (pick one) cause that is what they are taught by "media"/propaganda.
i love sharing a tidbit an 80+yr old shared with me and the reactions are always the same.
(pure shock)

did you know that the fireant problem can be resolved for less than $1 ??
a simple bag of grits will resolve the problem expeditiously and cheaply.
no pesticides needed (no dangers to children, animals or the environment) and no great expense to resolve the problem either ... but, how many of this generation have ever even heard of such a thing ????

no, i don't expect that to be taught in school or to be part of the academic lesson BUT, i do expect such an answer to be forthcoming when asked ... no teacher, counselor or AG person would tell ya simply because that info might dent their investment portfolio
edit on 9-1-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
The most important "skill" one learns while working low wage jobs is to hold your tongue when dealing with your a-hole customers and a-hole boss. Something trickles downward and if you're too vocal about your displeasure you will be sacked.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jasonl1983
 


clearly, a lesson that fell upon deaf ears here


can't say i have a 'sacked' history to prove it but ... you are correct and those, unlike myself, who will comply still have jobs at the likes of WalMart and generally, don't develop the skills needed to move beyond it.





new topics

top topics



 
100
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join