|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 18 2014 07:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:
You're equating misinformation with torture. It's a gross hyperbole. It's not like religious parents are electrocuting the testicles of their sons until they accept young earth creationism, or whatever else. What actually happens is normally that they tell the kids what they genuinely believe to be the truth because they want eternal blissful afterlife rather than eternal terrible hellfire for their children. I think it's fair to call it some cognitive dissonance, but when you open with a sentence like "Conservatives have a larger proportion of people who are tortured as children" then you're just being ridiculous and impossible to argue with.
I mean I largely agree with you politically but there's just no way you're getting a fruitful discussion or argument out of this kind of hyperbole, to me it comes off more like you're very satisfied with your intellectual superiority over these ignorant morons and that you have no interest in achieving any type of mutual understanding. That's the exact point. You can't read past the intellectual superiority and the harping on brainwashed torture victims to see the argument. Do you still beat your wife? Are you still debating alongside mentally impacted victims of abuse? Okay, let's debate. The hyperbole itself leads to such confusion as
On April 18 2014 07:46 mcc wrote:
EDIT: no matter he actually meant that, meh
This is all in the name of helping you get your beliefs and reasoning out there. All this other stuff clouds the real causes for disagreement.
On April 18 2014 06:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
I am arguing an idea. You guys just can't seem to see it.
I certainly hope that the multitude of posters posting here are enough to show you that we can't all be blind. It isn't a case of misunderstanding. You had too many posts and too much rationalization in that vein.
|
On April 18 2014 07:45 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 07:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 02:23 Gorsameth wrote:On April 18 2014 02:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.
Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.
“The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs,” reads the report, available in full here.
“It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.”
Americans for Tax Fairness then took the mid-point of that range ($4,415) and multiplied it by Walmart’s approximately 1.4 million workers to come up with an estimate of the overall taxpayers’ bill for the Bentonville, Ark.-based big box giant’s staffers.
The report provides a state-by-state breakdown of these figures, as well as some context on the other side of the coin: Walmart’s huge share of the nationwide SNAP, or food stamp, market.
“Walmart told analysts last year that the company has captured 18 percent of the SNAP market,” it reads. “Using that figure, we estimate that the company accounted for $13.5 billion out of $76 billion in food stamp sales in 2013.” Source Its an amazing system. Pay your low grade workers so little that they need to rely on food stamps and then sell them food for said stamps. Collecting workers food budget without having to pay them for it. Capitalism is so wonderful. It's actually a really good system. The reality is that you can't force the employer to pay different wages based on the employees needs. So any attempt by the government to set the wage will result in a wage that is too high for some (teenager) or too low (single mother of many kids) for others. The way around that is to offer a wage that is rarely too high and then supplement based upon need, which is what we have now. Reality is a business that needs the help of the state to artificially keep wages low is not sustainable and should not exist. Not to mention it create way too much inequalities for it to be considered good for the society.
How do you figure they're artificially keeping wages low?
The system reduces inequality. Inequality in the US before taxes and transfers (market gini) is similar to many European countries. But we don't tax and transfer as much and so our inequality is higher.
|
On April 18 2014 08:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 07:45 WhiteDog wrote:On April 18 2014 07:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 02:23 Gorsameth wrote:On April 18 2014 02:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.
Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.
“The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs,” reads the report, available in full here.
“It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.”
Americans for Tax Fairness then took the mid-point of that range ($4,415) and multiplied it by Walmart’s approximately 1.4 million workers to come up with an estimate of the overall taxpayers’ bill for the Bentonville, Ark.-based big box giant’s staffers.
The report provides a state-by-state breakdown of these figures, as well as some context on the other side of the coin: Walmart’s huge share of the nationwide SNAP, or food stamp, market.
“Walmart told analysts last year that the company has captured 18 percent of the SNAP market,” it reads. “Using that figure, we estimate that the company accounted for $13.5 billion out of $76 billion in food stamp sales in 2013.” Source Its an amazing system. Pay your low grade workers so little that they need to rely on food stamps and then sell them food for said stamps. Collecting workers food budget without having to pay them for it. Capitalism is so wonderful. It's actually a really good system. The reality is that you can't force the employer to pay different wages based on the employees needs. So any attempt by the government to set the wage will result in a wage that is too high for some (teenager) or too low (single mother of many kids) for others. The way around that is to offer a wage that is rarely too high and then supplement based upon need, which is what we have now. Reality is a business that needs the help of the state to artificially keep wages low is not sustainable and should not exist. Not to mention it create way too much inequalities for it to be considered good for the society. How do you figure they're artificially keeping wages low? The system reduces inequality. Inequality in the US before taxes and transfers (market gini) is similar to many European countries. But we don't tax and transfer as much and so our inequality is higher.
Because unsustainable wage is unsustainable. If the wages given are not enough to live , then it s better not to work.
I was talkin about Walmart like business, they create way more inequalities than small grocery stores.
|
On April 18 2014 08:35 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 08:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 07:45 WhiteDog wrote:On April 18 2014 07:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 02:23 Gorsameth wrote:On April 18 2014 02:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.
Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.
“The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs,” reads the report, available in full here.
“It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.”
Americans for Tax Fairness then took the mid-point of that range ($4,415) and multiplied it by Walmart’s approximately 1.4 million workers to come up with an estimate of the overall taxpayers’ bill for the Bentonville, Ark.-based big box giant’s staffers.
The report provides a state-by-state breakdown of these figures, as well as some context on the other side of the coin: Walmart’s huge share of the nationwide SNAP, or food stamp, market.
“Walmart told analysts last year that the company has captured 18 percent of the SNAP market,” it reads. “Using that figure, we estimate that the company accounted for $13.5 billion out of $76 billion in food stamp sales in 2013.” Source Its an amazing system. Pay your low grade workers so little that they need to rely on food stamps and then sell them food for said stamps. Collecting workers food budget without having to pay them for it. Capitalism is so wonderful. It's actually a really good system. The reality is that you can't force the employer to pay different wages based on the employees needs. So any attempt by the government to set the wage will result in a wage that is too high for some (teenager) or too low (single mother of many kids) for others. The way around that is to offer a wage that is rarely too high and then supplement based upon need, which is what we have now. Reality is a business that needs the help of the state to artificially keep wages low is not sustainable and should not exist. Not to mention it create way too much inequalities for it to be considered good for the society. How do you figure they're artificially keeping wages low? The system reduces inequality. Inequality in the US before taxes and transfers (market gini) is similar to many European countries. But we don't tax and transfer as much and so our inequality is higher. Because unsustainable wage is unsustainable. If the wages given are not enough to live , then it s better not to work. I was talkin about Walmart like business, they create way more inequalities than small grocery stores.
It's not an unsustainable wage. It's a sustainable wage boosted by social transfers to comply with social aesthetics.
An unsustainable wage would be something like $1 per day subsistence living.
Walmart does more to help the material well-being of the poor than the small grocery store.
|
On April 18 2014 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 08:35 WhiteDog wrote:On April 18 2014 08:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 07:45 WhiteDog wrote:On April 18 2014 07:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 02:23 Gorsameth wrote:On April 18 2014 02:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.
Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.
“The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs,” reads the report, available in full here.
“It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.”
Americans for Tax Fairness then took the mid-point of that range ($4,415) and multiplied it by Walmart’s approximately 1.4 million workers to come up with an estimate of the overall taxpayers’ bill for the Bentonville, Ark.-based big box giant’s staffers.
The report provides a state-by-state breakdown of these figures, as well as some context on the other side of the coin: Walmart’s huge share of the nationwide SNAP, or food stamp, market.
“Walmart told analysts last year that the company has captured 18 percent of the SNAP market,” it reads. “Using that figure, we estimate that the company accounted for $13.5 billion out of $76 billion in food stamp sales in 2013.” Source Its an amazing system. Pay your low grade workers so little that they need to rely on food stamps and then sell them food for said stamps. Collecting workers food budget without having to pay them for it. Capitalism is so wonderful. It's actually a really good system. The reality is that you can't force the employer to pay different wages based on the employees needs. So any attempt by the government to set the wage will result in a wage that is too high for some (teenager) or too low (single mother of many kids) for others. The way around that is to offer a wage that is rarely too high and then supplement based upon need, which is what we have now. Reality is a business that needs the help of the state to artificially keep wages low is not sustainable and should not exist. Not to mention it create way too much inequalities for it to be considered good for the society. How do you figure they're artificially keeping wages low? The system reduces inequality. Inequality in the US before taxes and transfers (market gini) is similar to many European countries. But we don't tax and transfer as much and so our inequality is higher. Because unsustainable wage is unsustainable. If the wages given are not enough to live , then it s better not to work. I was talkin about Walmart like business, they create way more inequalities than small grocery stores. It's not an unsustainable wage. It's a sustainable wage boosted by social transfers to comply with social aesthetics. An unsustainable wage would be something like $1 per day subsistence living. Walmart does more to help the material well-being of the poor than the small grocery store.
You can live with a walmart wage and no help from the government ? You can marry and have a familly ?
Walmart does less, you just watch short term interest : "yes i can buy that grape juice for a dollars !".
|
On April 18 2014 08:48 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 08:35 WhiteDog wrote:On April 18 2014 08:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 07:45 WhiteDog wrote:On April 18 2014 07:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 02:23 Gorsameth wrote:On April 18 2014 02:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.
Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.
“The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs,” reads the report, available in full here.
“It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.”
Americans for Tax Fairness then took the mid-point of that range ($4,415) and multiplied it by Walmart’s approximately 1.4 million workers to come up with an estimate of the overall taxpayers’ bill for the Bentonville, Ark.-based big box giant’s staffers.
The report provides a state-by-state breakdown of these figures, as well as some context on the other side of the coin: Walmart’s huge share of the nationwide SNAP, or food stamp, market.
“Walmart told analysts last year that the company has captured 18 percent of the SNAP market,” it reads. “Using that figure, we estimate that the company accounted for $13.5 billion out of $76 billion in food stamp sales in 2013.” Source Its an amazing system. Pay your low grade workers so little that they need to rely on food stamps and then sell them food for said stamps. Collecting workers food budget without having to pay them for it. Capitalism is so wonderful. It's actually a really good system. The reality is that you can't force the employer to pay different wages based on the employees needs. So any attempt by the government to set the wage will result in a wage that is too high for some (teenager) or too low (single mother of many kids) for others. The way around that is to offer a wage that is rarely too high and then supplement based upon need, which is what we have now. Reality is a business that needs the help of the state to artificially keep wages low is not sustainable and should not exist. Not to mention it create way too much inequalities for it to be considered good for the society. How do you figure they're artificially keeping wages low? The system reduces inequality. Inequality in the US before taxes and transfers (market gini) is similar to many European countries. But we don't tax and transfer as much and so our inequality is higher. Because unsustainable wage is unsustainable. If the wages given are not enough to live , then it s better not to work. I was talkin about Walmart like business, they create way more inequalities than small grocery stores. It's not an unsustainable wage. It's a sustainable wage boosted by social transfers to comply with social aesthetics. An unsustainable wage would be something like $1 per day subsistence living. Walmart does more to help the material well-being of the poor than the small grocery store. You can live with a walmart wage and no help from the government ? You can marry and have a familly ? Walmart does less, you just watch short term interest : "yes i can buy that grape juice for a dollars !".
You can absolutely live with a walmart wage with no help. You'll be below societal norms though.
Not sure where you're going with your quip about buying grape juice. We're talking about material well-being here. If your real purchasing power increases due to nominal wage growth or a falling price level, it's the same thing.
|
You can't live on $1200 a month if you have a wife and kids. One parent must stay home because daycare is outrageously expensive without government assistance.
Please provide a $1200 monthly budget where a family of four can have the following:
- Shelter
- Food
- Basic health care including allowances for things such as prescription eyewear.
- Transportation
- Heat, water, sewer, and electricity
- Household items such as cleaning supplies and light bulbs
- Clothing
- Home maintenance
- Property Taxes.
Please note that the above family does not even have a telephone.
To give you an idea of how ridiculous your claim is, my heating bill is almost $300 a month in winter and I keep my thermostat at 60F.
|
On April 18 2014 09:23 SnipedSoul wrote:
You can't live on $1200 a month if you have a wife and kids. One parent must stay home because daycare is outrageously expensive without government assistance.
Please provide a $1200 monthly budget where a family of four can have the following:
- Shelter
- Food
- Basic health care including allowances for things such as prescription eyewear.
- Transportation
- Heat, water, sewer, and electricity
- Household items such as cleaning supplies and light bulbs
- Clothing
- Home maintenance
- Property Taxes.
You're getting into the part where I mentioned society's standards. You need electricity to meet society's standards, but it is not a requirement to live. People can (and do) live on $1 per day. It's a crummy existence, but you're still alive.
WhiteDog said: If the wages given are not enough to live , then it s better not to work.
I assumed by "live" he meant it literally, in which case I don't argue with his assessment. If people earn so little they'll die, they won't bother to work. No argument from me there. If he meant "live by first world standards" than I take issue with his argument and he'll actually have to provide evidence that his theory is correct.
|
Are you seriously advocating that people who work at walmart should be expected to live without electricity? The family I mentioned doesn't even have a telephone and now you want them to go without electricity too?
Are you one of those people who is outraged to learn that over 80% of homes receiving welfare have a refrigerator or microwave?
|
On April 18 2014 09:23 SnipedSoul wrote:
You can't live on $1200 a month if you have a wife and kids. One parent must stay home because daycare is outrageously expensive without government assistance.
Please provide a $1200 monthly budget where a family of four can have the following:
- Shelter
- Food
- Basic health care including allowances for things such as prescription eyewear.
- Transportation
- Heat, water, sewer, and electricity
- Household items such as cleaning supplies and light bulbs
- Clothing
- Home maintenance
- Property Taxes.
Please note that the above family does not even have a telephone.
To give you an idea of how ridiculous your claim is, my heating bill is almost $300 a month in winter and I keep my thermostat at 60F.
McDonalds provided a "sample budget" for people living on minimum wage. It required a second job, and practically no money for emergencies.
|
On April 18 2014 09:35 SnipedSoul wrote:
Are you seriously advocating that people who work at walmart should be expected to live without electricity?
Are you one of those people who is outraged to learn that over 80% of homes receiving welfare have a refrigerator or microwave?
No I'm not advocating that people who work at Walmart should be expected to live without electricity.
I'm defending SNAP, EITC and similar programs.
Edit: At issue is if those programs lower wages and result in no benefit to workers or not. I'm in the camp that they effectively increase incomes.
|
You're okay with those programs effectively subsidizing walmart by allowing them to pay wages which would otherwise be inadequate?
|
I'm curious, is food at Walmart stores that you guys have been to cheaper than other places? I only go to Walmart/Target a few times a year but the food seemed the same price as the big chain supermarkets and neither are cheaper than Costco or local supermarkets.
|
On April 18 2014 09:42 SnipedSoul wrote:
You're okay with those programs subsidizing walmart by allowing them to pay wages which would be inadequate without said programs?
The programs don't allow walmart to pay low wage. They'd pay the same wage with the systems. The subsidies go to the workers, not the employer.
afaik that's the middle of the road consensus on these programs and they've been studied extensively.
|
If those programs didn't exist, walmart wouldn't have any employees because no one is going to work a job that doesn't even cover their basic needs of shelter and food.
|
On April 18 2014 09:48 SnipedSoul wrote:
If those programs didn't exist, walmart wouldn't have any employees because no one is going to work a job that doesn't even cover their basic needs of shelter and food.
They'd still have employees. Not everyone who works at Walmart is a single mom with 8 kids 
Not sure how the single mom is going to pay for her kids with no job and no benefits either.
|
Walmart themselves have admitted that their business model relies on their employees receiving government assistance. That sounds to me like their business model would be unsustainable without taxpayer dollars. Sounds like a subsidy.
|
On April 18 2014 10:03 SnipedSoul wrote:
Walmart themselves have admitted that their business model relies on their employees getting government assistance
Source?
Edit: and make sure your source says what you just claimed.
Edit 2: For the record I find it morally reprehensible that people on this thread are putting their hatred of corporations ahead of the well-being of the poor.
|
Our business operations are subject to numerous risks, factors and uncertainties, domestically and internationally, which are outside our control . . . These factors include . . . changes in the amount of payments made under the Supplement[al] Nutrition Assistance Plan and other public assistance plans, changes in the eligibility requirements of public assistance plans, . . .
Walmart fiscal year report, 2013
http://stock.walmart.com/financial-reporting/sec-filings/
Go to annual filings, form 10-K filed on March 21, 2014. The above quote is found in their cautionary statement on page 3.
It isn't just their employees, but their entire business since a large portion of their customer base is on government assistance. They need SNAP and other public assistance to support their operations (profit). Remember that Walmart profits fell close to 20% in the quarter after SNAP was cut last year.
|
That just means that Walmart relies on their customers getting government assistance.
And that's totally okay, right Jonny?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
