kalm wrote:
That being said a few things to consider:
1) Walmart is the worlds largest private employer who counts many above the age of 24 in its workforce trying to scrape out an existence, many of which have children (part of the problem is these people shouldn't be having children but that's another can of worms)
2) They qualify for welfare. They probably aren't qualified or smart enough to work elsewhere, but at least they're working.
3) The Walton heirs have a net worth equal to if not greater than the bottom 40% of America.
4) Payroll is their number one expense, and they benefit from welfare programs supporting their own employees.
5) Take away the minimum wage or welfare, and their employee's standard of living drops, not to mention they can no longer afford the flat screen tv's and iPhones that they couldn't really afford to begin with. Retail sales drop.
6) I don't like the minimum wage either but I like Walmart's parasitic behavior even less. Walmart's success is not a good sign of where we're at.
1) Not sure what you're getting at with this point. Is it WalMart's responsibility to try to NOT be a large employer? Is it WalMart's responsibility to only hire people under 24? And what about the older people they hire...are they to pay them less money because they are adding to their retirement income...or not hire them at all in order to give younger people more opportunities at a starting job? Or are they supposed to not hire people who have families?
2) Again...is WalMart supposed to pay people more because they can also qualify for Welfare? Are they supposed to ask how many kids/dependents they have and what their other incomes are before they hire people? Or, are they supposed to petition their legislators to raise the welfare qualifying threshold so that people don't have a sound bite to use when talking about their employees?
3) So what? You probably have an income level higher than a majority of other people...should you be forced to provide a higher salary for your employees? Should we force any successful company to hire all of their employees, at all levels, at higher wages (Managers at company X MUST be paid $250,000, while managers at company Y MUST be paid $215,000)?
4) Payroll is the highest expense at many companies...and yet society as a whole supposedly benefits from safety net programs. That's what taxes are for, correct?
5) Take away any social program and people can't afford crap they don't need. Take away middle incomes and people can't afford cars or houses...should we force car dealers to pay more money...and should we force developers, home builders, and union folks to pay their employees more money?
6) Huh? Parasitic? Walmart is simply a company with a successful (for the time) business model. How does that make them a parasite? They are no more parasitic than the Seattle based, tax avoiding, high-paying tech companies that charge way to much to every one of their customers in order to provide for opulent lifestyles for the granola eating tech heads, while costing millions of Americans many extra dollars for the latest expensive programs/games/social network...dollars that could be used to pay for food, college, or anything outdoor and health related.
Or, go after the guy who sold Pet Rocks (he probably took some tax deductions, so he is a parasite), or any other clown that makes the latest disposable toy that everyone MUST have for the next gift giving occasion (hell, go after Hallmark for forcing Americans shell out money for an occasion almost every freaking day of the year), or go after the prison programs that pay prisoners pennies to make license plates, or the Senators and Presidents who suck our paychecks dry in order to pander to their own success. Walmart is a parasite?
No more than any other company or person on the planet.
Good for them
It's arrogant, militaristic and paternalistic. My guess is that, if you asked the Swedes about the US allegedly "footing the bill" for their defense, a majority would say, "Fuck it, then. Wrap it up and take it home, you Yank cocksuckers."
