It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

D.C. Council votes to Force Walmart to pay "living wage"--50% over minimum wage.

page: 27
19
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


Yes "profits". The money remaining after all bills, employees, CEO salary, shareholders, and investors have been paid.

Instead of using that money to open another hundred unnecessary stores, or lobby on Capital Hill, or to give Mike Duke another raise, they should spend it taking care of the employees they already have.




posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by Garkiniss
 


I think you have the wrong "they" and "them" in your above post. It's the politicians who have made all of this happen. Blame the right people.


When politicians stop accepting "gifts" and contributions to leverage legislation, I'll do that.

Until then, I'll keep them right where they are.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss
reply to post by pavil
 


Yes "profits". The money remaining after all bills, employees, CEO salary, shareholders, and investors have been paid.

Instead of using that money to open another hundred unnecessary stores, or lobby on Capital Hill, or to give Mike Duke another raise, they should spend it taking care of the employees they already have.




Yeah.... building those 100 more "unnecessary" stores wouldn't do anything to help the employment situation or the economy in general, right? Forget about the businesses that would have to produce the materials to make those stores, or the construction companies that would actually build them, they don't matter either. And those 40,000 more people that Walmart would have hired to man those stores....they are better off not working than working for evil Walmart. That 40,000 doesn't even include the extra trucks and drivers and warehouses ect... that would be needed for a 100 more stores.

Yeah...... what was I thinking??????



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by Garkiniss
reply to post by pavil
 


Yes "profits". The money remaining after all bills, employees, CEO salary, shareholders, and investors have been paid.

Instead of using that money to open another hundred unnecessary stores, or lobby on Capital Hill, or to give Mike Duke another raise, they should spend it taking care of the employees they already have.




Yeah.... building those 100 more "unnecessary" stores wouldn't do anything to help the employment situation or the economy in general, right? Forget about the businesses that would have to produce the materials to make those stores, or the construction companies that would actually build them, they don't matter either. And those 40,000 more people that Walmart would have hired to man those stores....they are better off not working than working for evil Walmart. That 40,000 doesn't even include the extra trucks and drivers and warehouses ect... that would be needed for a 100 more stores.

Yeah...... what was I thinking??????


Yeah, an army of more under paid workers who lost their jobs when Wal-Mart came to town. More people that will be forced to take government assistance. People that used to make 40k a year, now forced to sell their souls to the company store for less than a livable wage, and that's only if they get hired.
Let's not forget that Wal-Mart kills more jobs than it creates, that in every town where a new Wal-Mart is built, an average of 10 independent owned stores close shop, and out of those 200(+/-) souls out of work, only 3 on average will be hired to work at that shiny new Wal-Mart store.
Let us not forget that Wal-Mart's unemployment machine adds 40 million in taxes to each state, that with every new store, America's trade deficit increases.
Let us not forget that Wal-Mart is one of the largest outsourcers of American jobs.


Yeah.............. what were you thinking??????




edit on 3-8-2013 by Garkiniss because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss
 


Spin it anyway you want. Walmart is overall net for the community they are in. Even by your terms, they are a net 200+ in overall jobs at a minimum. The overall net that Walmart and it's employee's pay in Federal, local and city taxes is more than the credits and assistance some of their employee's get.

Do they push out smaller businesses in their wake, no doubt they do. Truth be told, it's a model that works for Walmart, not so much for smaller businesses. If you don't like their business practices, then don't shop there.
I'm not saying Walmart is an Angel, however to single them out when they are really overall pretty similar to other big retailers really isn't fair. Their wage structure is similar to Target, but no one seems to have campaigns against them.



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by doobydoll
 


Wow, spoken by a Progressive from the Y generation.

How is that book on Marxism coming along?

Yeah, greed huh?
I guess you have no issue with money taken from my paycheck, which should be used to provide for MY family, but instead stolen and given to someone else.
Oh, forgot, seems that MY greed leads me to give 10% of my monthly earnings to charity. Yeah, real greedy.
How much do you, mr progressive, give to charity? I bet like most people of your mindset, close to nothing, as you expect the Govt to take care of that, so long as you get to bitch and complain about all of the plight in the world.

As for my job, funny as your comments sounds like someone that doesn't work, or is jealous of those that are higher up and earn more then you.
So, I guess I will go back to my day job tomorrow, and then off to my company after that, work those two things and continue to EARN MY pay, while people like you continue to leech off of society and the govt.

Oh, and I do have a say, as I vote and the business I own will be able to lobby next year. So.....seems like you are still at the bottom rung, and will stay there.

Enjoy your view from the bottom.



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss
 


No no no no. The reason Costco can pay more, if because the average amount spent per customer, along with membership dues and their business model is higher then that of Walmart.

Please, go run a business for a year before you spout off on this living wage crap.



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


I've run a successful business, and my wife operates the most successful independent store in our town. They Wal-Mart) can afford it. As I said before, it's about priorities.



edit on 4-8-2013 by Garkiniss because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss
 


Oh, by that same thinking, I therefore get to dictate how you should run your business.

I love the progressive mindset, acceptance and coexistence, unless it isn't the same acceptance as you.

I almost forgot, it is always different for Progressives. .



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


And the billions they syphon from the economy on a local, state, and federal level, while adding costs to the tax payer?

Walmart's business model obviously doesn't work. If it did, they could afford to pay each of their employees a living wage. Any business can make tons of money and sell cheap products if it doesn't pay it's employees.

That's not a model of success.



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Garkiniss
 


Oh, by that same thinking, I therefore get to dictate how you should run your business.

I love the progressive mindset, acceptance and coexistence, unless it isn't the same acceptance as you.

I almost forgot, it is always different for Progressives. .



The difference being, I don't need my business regulated because I pay a more than fair wage for a day's labor.
Wal-Mart has to resort to subpar-to-slave wages to keep its business afloat, meanwhile dragging the economy down with it. You can't tell me that's a good business model.

We're just running around in circles here. Agree to disagree?




edit on 4-8-2013 by Garkiniss because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Metallicus
Here's a fact for all of you that think this is a great idea.

If you force businesses to pay a living wage the prices go up to cover those new increased cost and all of a sudden the new living wage is too little again. You can't legislate a country into prosperity.

Economics 101.


also econ 101...prices go up no matter what. the "selling of the reason" for the price increase is what's important.
and you CAN legislate prosperity, it is just a matter of whose prosperity... business lobbyists would have no jobs, if that statement was true. there are plenty of countries that have "legislated" themselves into poverty, by catering to the wealthy elite, and keeping intact slave wages.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by doobydoll
 


Wow, spoken by a Progressive from the Y generation.

How is that book on Marxism coming along?

Yeah, greed huh?
I guess you have no issue with money taken from my paycheck, which should be used to provide for MY family, but instead stolen and given to someone else.

No, it's YOU who doesn't have a problem with that. Your money wouldn't be 'stolen' and given to the working poor if Walmart paid them enough to live on, but you would prefer them to continue to be underpaid. so you have no choice but to suck it up no matter who you vote for.



Oh, forgot, seems that MY greed leads me to give 10% of my monthly earnings to charity. Yeah, real greedy.
How much do you, mr progressive, give to charity? I bet like most people of your mindset, close to nothing, as you expect the Govt to take care of that, so long as you get to bitch and complain about all of the plight in the world.

I don't believe you give anything to anyone. I can't see why someone like you who begrudges working people a basic living, would give any of your money away to anyone for nothing. Doesn't make sense.



As for my job, funny as your comments sounds like someone that doesn't work, or is jealous of those that are higher up and earn more then you.
So, I guess I will go back to my day job tomorrow, and then off to my company after that, work those two things and continue to EARN MY pay, while people like you continue to leech off of society and the govt.

No I don't work, and I don't claim any government assistance either because I have an income.


But if I did need to claim benefits to live, I certainly would. That's what they're there for, and soon more and more working people will be needing to claim them. And seeing as you haven't realised it yet, that means more tax for you. So hurry along and don't be late for work.



Oh, and I do have a say, as I vote and the business I own will be able to lobby next year. So.....seems like you are still at the bottom rung, and will stay there.

Enjoy your view from the bottom.

I will thanks. The view from down here is very revealing.

More and more working people are being screwed out of a proper wage and need to claim taxpayer money to survive. Those on the next rung up are the next in line to be screwed. This will continue until every working person is on the bottom rung, and mega-corporations will own all the upper ones.

When they can't squeeze another red cent from the working poor, do you think they will be satisfied and stop there? They won't. They'll come after your money.

See ya down here soon.
edit on 5-8-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss
 


Not buying it.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss

The difference being, I don't need my business regulated because I pay a more than fair wage for a day's labor.

Oh, how I love it when Progressives state the whole "well, it's different" argument. It is always different for people like you.
So, YOU get to determine what is a fair days wage, right?
Now, is that because you own the business, or is that because you believe you get to decide what is fair because of your Progressive ideals?



Originally posted by Garkiniss

Wal-Mart has to resort to subpar-to-slave wages to keep its business afloat, meanwhile dragging the economy down with it. You can't tell me that's a good business model.

Sub-par??? Yeah, because $9 a hour, or $12 an hour in my area is SO sub-par. Sounds like you live in a real crap hole if Walmart is paying "sub-par" wages.


Originally posted by Garkiniss
We're just running around in circles here. Agree to disagree?

Not really, as you want to run everyone's life, as per your standards.
I want people to be left alone and allowed to fail or succeed on their own merit.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Garkiniss
 


Not buying it.


I don't really give a damn what you buy.
If you can tell me that a successful business model includes not being able to pay
a fair wage, while shipping jobs overseas to take advantage of indentured servants, then you
and I vary quite a bit on what we believe constitutes "success."



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by doobydoll

No, it's YOU who doesn't have a problem with that. Your money wouldn't be 'stolen' and given to the working poor if Walmart paid them enough to live on, but you would prefer them to continue to be underpaid. so you have no choice but to suck it up no matter who you vote for.

So, because Walmart pays the going market rate for low skilled work performed, and people agree to work for that pay, I must be forced into subsidizing the difference? What twisted world is this??
But, don't worry your pretty little head off, as I will be contacting a local CPA that is known to drop the tax rate of clients drastically.
And.......starting next year, will be partnered with several other companies in my same business field, and we will be able to start lobbying for certain things.



Originally posted by doobydoll
I don't believe you give anything to anyone. I can't see why someone like you who begrudges working people a basic living, would give any of your money away to anyone for nothing. Doesn't make sense.

Oh boo hoo. You don't believe me. What ever shall I do.
I know...........Get my tax rate cut, and still give 10%.
Oh, your forgot one thing. You forgot, I am sure just out of mistake, to address my statement about how much you give.
I am sure it is like 50% of your take home, as you must surely walk the walk.



Originally posted by doobydoll
No I don't work, and I don't claim any government assistance either because I have an income.

So, you have no income, yet have access to the internet?? Now that is an interesting situation.



Originally posted by doobydoll
But if I did need to claim benefits to live, I certainly would.

Of course you would, as most people now days have no shame in living off of others. I am not surprised.


Originally posted by doobydoll
That's what they're there for, and soon more and more working people will be needing to claim them.

And I wonder why that is. Hmmmmmmmmmmm....


Originally posted by doobydoll
And seeing as you haven't realised it yet, that means more tax for you. So hurry along and don't be late for work.

Don't worry, as I am not late, because I don't depend on a Govt to steal from others, to provide for me.
I work for what I earn, there is the difference. I don't look to Govt to give me stuff. Or bitch and complain when I don't get my fair share.




Originally posted by doobydoll
I will thanks. The view from down here is very revealing.

I am sure it is.
Every wonder why your on the bottom.
Probably not, as I am sure it is the fault of the Rich, and the Govt will be right along to help you out.


Originally posted by doobydoll
More and more working people are being screwed out of a proper wage and need to claim taxpayer money to survive. Those on the next rung up are the next in line to be screwed. This will continue until every working person is on the bottom rung, and mega-corporations will own all the upper ones.

Geez, I wonder why that is. Maybe, just maybe because Govt has made it so difficult to operate, and expensive that wages have gone down??
Nah, can't be that. Stupid common sense, get out of the way, as the Progressives are stating it is the fault of the Rich. So, it has to be that then.


Originally posted by doobydoll
When they can't squeeze another red cent from the working poor, do you think they will be satisfied and stop there? They won't. They'll come after your money.

Um, maybe you missed the whole conversation, but, Govt is coming after people like me. And I still don't see how the "working poor" are getting squeezed, as anyone below $30k a year isn't paying much in income taxes.
But, you go ahead and march on with that banter, of tax the upper middle class and wealthy, as we will just continue to find the loop holes, not hire people and raise prices.


Originally posted by doobydoll
See ya down here soon.

We shall see.
Remember, close your mouth when looking up, you might catch something in it.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garkiniss


I don't really give a damn what you buy.

Are you sure.


Originally posted by Garkiniss
If you can tell me that a successful business model includes not being able to pay
a fair wage, while shipping jobs overseas to take advantage of indentured servants, then you
and I vary quite a bit on what we believe constitutes "success."

Walmart, the brick and mortar is outsourcing jobs in the buildings here? Do you ever stop to actually read out loud, the talking point driven crap you type.
A fair wage is just that. Fair, as determined by other jobs in the area and/or industry.
Oh, I forgot. You get to decide what is fair.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Garkiniss

The difference being, I don't need my business regulated because I pay a more than fair wage for a day's labor.

Oh, how I love it when Progressives state the whole "well, it's different" argument. It is always different for people like you.
So, YOU get to determine what is a fair days wage, right?
Now, is that because you own the business, or is that because you believe you get to decide what is fair because of your Progressive ideals?



Originally posted by Garkiniss

Wal-Mart has to resort to subpar-to-slave wages to keep its business afloat, meanwhile dragging the economy down with it. You can't tell me that's a good business model.

Sub-par??? Yeah, because $9 a hour, or $12 an hour in my area is SO sub-par. Sounds like you live in a real crap hole if Walmart is paying "sub-par" wages.


Originally posted by Garkiniss
We're just running around in circles here. Agree to disagree?

Not really, as you want to run everyone's life, as per your standards.
I want people to be left alone and allowed to fail or succeed on their own merit.




their own merit? you mean like these people?
www.forbes.com... WORTH 27.9 BILLION
www.forbes.com... WORTH 26.8 BILLION
www.forbes.com... WORTH 26.3 BILLION
www.forbes.com... WORTH 26.1 BILLION
www.forbes.com... WORTH 4.5 BILLION
www.forbes.com... WORTH 3.9 BILLION
TOTAL-------115.5 BILLION DOLLARS

these 6 people ON their own merit (the phrase you would use) have as much net worth as the bottom 40% of ALL AMERICANS COMBINED...



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Ahhhhhh, sad faces.
All links come to an apache error. Try again maybe???



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join