It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Tazkven
It's more than just "greed". Walmart pays those employees that amount because that is what the current market will bear. If the economy was good, people would find jobs elsewhere and Walmart would have to raise wages just to keep people.
Originally posted by Tazkven
reply to post by peter_kandra
I am a Union Maintenance Journeyman for a company that incorporates Six Sigma, you may have heard of them General Electric, we also use a process called Lean to increase our workers productivity. We make more with less people, less waste and less moves to manufacture a completed product. We use no automated robots in the process. All Union blood and sweat creating a quality Union product made in the U.S.A. We have taken products back from Mexico and China to be built right here in Louisville, Ky. Your damn right I am proud of that.
I make a good living and it would be easy for me to keep on keeping on, I feel like I am in a bubble almost, uneffected by the majority of issues most deal with but if I ignore the issues we face as a country because I am unaffected that would make me no better, in my eyes, than those who take advantage of the less fortunate.
I said that to say this ...
The graph I showed was to show stagnated wages over a period of time but the productivity line was just a bonus, it is not because of computers or robots our productivity has increased but because of improved work flow, better training and more intelligently well laid out, ergonomic production lines. We as a country can be competitive and still pay people fairly and provide everyone a better quality of life, regardless of their position on the totem pole.
There are models of successful service jobs paying fair wages. Costco being one, paying employees after five years $19.50 an hour and also giving a bonus of more than $2,000 every six months.
By comparison Wal-Mart pays employees after 5 years $12.50 an hour.
“Instead of minimizing wages, we know it’s a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity, commitment and loyalty,”
Having more knowledgeable employees results in better sales, Costco averages $814 in sales per square foot, while Sam's Club makes just $586 per square foot.
"Look at people as an investment and hire the best you can possibly afford,"
"Stretch to your limit to keep them excited about coming to work ... then watch as they actually perform."
Low paid employees like those at Wal-Mart are the ones using welfare to supplement their income to survive, it has to be degrading and embarrassing not to mention it is costing tax payers money.
The CEO of Wal-Mart makes more per hour than his employees do yearly, Michael Duke's $35 million salary, when converted to an hourly wage, is $16,826.92. Employees paid $8.75 an hour would gross $13,650 a year.
That is greed my friend not "investments", how can you possibly defend this?
If Costco can pay people fairly and keep them off of welfare why can't other companies?
The answer is simple, greed and that greed is what is killing this country.
Originally posted by F4guy
Is this going to be solved by the idiot teahadists introducing 58 bills in Congress having to do with fetuses or vaginas or repealing Obamacare and exactly 0 having to do with jobs? I don't think so.
Originally posted by Tazkven
reply to post by beezzer
Then companies like Costco shouldn't exist, paying cashiers 20 bucks an hour with medical benefits but yet there they are all being the second largest retailer in the United States and stuff.
How can they do this and keep their employees off of welfare? Maybe because the CEO only makes $650,000 a year.
Sure, the walmart CEO makes more at 35 million a year but have his employees are on welfare ...
Who the hell really needs 35 million a year anyways, seriously?
It is greed brother, any way you cut it.
I however agree with you about the medical market but this thread is about welfare and the number of people on it and maybe, just maybe someone wants to know why. I can not explain it any clearer than I have.
The fact is, government controls the regulations, the laws, the rules that companies live by. Government interference into the housing market, the medical market have done more harm for the entire economy than any "greedy" company.
That living wage BUILLCRAP is exactly why there are 100 million people on government food assistance.
Then there is no reason for welfare programs at all.
Originally posted by jimmyx
Originally posted by SpaDe_
Originally posted by cenpuppie
Well, this looked a little sensationalized so i read the document. No where does it say that 101 million people are receiving some kind of food subsidiary from the government. The number of around $114 billion in total cost yes.
A figure that the author pulls out his rear.
Actually the numbers are very accurate as described, just takes a little math on your part to add the individual numbers together of the 15 programs as the author did. It is all there in black and white and accounted for.
SNAP - 46.7 million
National School Lunch Program - 32 million
School Breakfast - 10.6 million
WIC - 8.9 million
Child and Adult Care - 3.3 million
Total = 101.5 million (I even left out programs, these are just the major ones)
c'mon...think just a little bit
don't you think that a child getting a "school breakfast" is also getting on a "national lunch program" and "SNAP" and "child and adult care".....these are not 101.5 million individual people!!!!
Originally posted by cenpuppie
reply to post by SpaDe_
And how many people do you think that is one of those programs are also in the others, particularly SNAP and the school lunch subsidiaries? If a family is getting SNAP then it goes to reason they might be getting some kind of other food aid, so that 100 million number has a cross over factor.
I'm just doubting the number they pulled out of thin air, that's all.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
This should tell people how much President Obama, and his administration have been lying about the "recovery of jobs in the U.S".
The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that a total of 101,000,000 people currently participate in at least one of the 15 food programs offered by the agency, at a cost of $114 billion in fiscal year 2012.
That means the number of Americans receiving food assistance has surpassed the number of full-time private sector workers in the U.S.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), there were 97,180,000 full-time private sector workers in 2012.
The population of the U.S. is 316.2 million people, meaning nearly a third of Americans receive food aid from the government.
Of the 101 million receiving food benefits, a record 47 million Americans participated in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps. The USDA describes SNAP as the “largest program in the domestic hunger safety net.”
The economic recovery, and by "recovery" President Obama and his administration actually meant "crash", is en route and all set and ready...
Just wait until people start realizing that there is no money to pay for their food stamps...
How in the heck did we allow this to happen?
This plus the mess that is the "Obamacare"...
The U.S. administration seems to be working overtime to accelerate, and exacerbate the economic crash of the U.S...
edit on 9-7-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)