2016 Presidential Horse Race

[kmoose]

Sure there will. But the question is how much more, and more importantly, how much less. There are people who work at WalMart and get government assistance. The government is subsidizing the workforce of one of the country's wealthiest companies. What sense does that make? I think if you pay people more, they spend more and that stimulates the economy, creating more jobs. It also may well reduce the need for welfare programs. And nobody wants to pay for welfare programs. Question is, how do we fix the problem? Paying people a living wage is a giant step in the right direction.

This is where I draw the line with many liberals. Every single adult of working age is NOT entitled to make a living wage. Some jobs are traditionally filled by spouses who are not the primary bread winner and are just looking for a little extra. Some jobs are(traditionally) filled by teenagers who are learning workplace skills. What you are seeing is the death of manufacturing in the United States. When we produced actual tangible goods, instead of producing concepts, philosophies, and discontent; there were enough manufacturing jobs that paid living wages for nearly all househoulds to have one person working one of those jobs. Remember when fast food was an adult manager, and nothing but teenagers gaining basic work skills outside of management? Remember when a teenager used to deliver your newspaper? Due to the lack of manufacturing jobs, many adults are now being pushed into jobs that were never intended to support a family, nor should they. The government is not subsidizing WalMart. WalMart jobs pay what they pay. WalMart would not pay a cashier more, if there was no SNAP program. Those jobs would simply be filled by more teenagers living at home and housewives working part time for some extra money, and fewer single mothers. Many of the people who work there AND have to collect public assistance are part timers. They don't get enough hours to get off of public assistance. But the job pays what it is worth, not what it takes to feed, clothe, and house a family of 5.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Paying people more at Walmart will drive costs up.

It's not so simple chief. If people aren't willing to pay more for a product and Walmart can still make a margin on the original price, albeit with a smaller margin, well it's reasonable to assume that Walmart would rather make a smaller margin than lose the sale altogether.

Yes they will spend more, but on less. A living wage will also drive up wages across the board which will create a circular impact to all good and services.

And yet economists generally feel that the increase in spending from the lower class--who spend every dollar they have, and then some--will more than offset damage done from a business' perspective due to the higher wage. Something about the velocity of money and increased demand.

IMO, a free education system which gives all the same opportunity is the answer.

Right up there with lollipops raining down from the sky and the invention of a blowjob machine, in terms of the likelihood of occurring. We have to make policies for the situation we are handling.

 

[GoIrish41]

Paying people more at Walmart will drive costs up. Yes they will spend more, but on less. A living wage will also drive up wages across the board which will create a circular impact to all good and services.

IMO, a free education system which gives all the same opportunity is the answer.

I'm not sure there is a single answer. There are many things that could be done, but the one that seems to get discussed most is cutting programs that narrow the safety net. That does not make poor people any better off and just increases the chances that the bottom will be a more profound impact on a lot of folks. Sadly many of the same people who want to reduce programs for the poor also hack away at education every chance they get -- look what Jindal did as governor of LA, or Kasich in Ohio.

And to ensure there is no way out for those at the bottom, the same folks are against raising the minimum wage, making access to healthcare little more than a pipe dream, and sending all the profits to the wealthiest and most politically connected. It's like the second Guilded Age. No wonder people are pissed off. If every avenue of escape from poverty is blocked we have a permanent underclass. And that underclass is growing while the rich get richer. All of this is contrary to everything this country is supposed to be about. If we cannot anymore live up to our own standards as a nation, what does that say about us? This is the appeal of a guy like Trump. "If it weren't for X we could be great again." It's all bullshit. Our greatest moments of new prosperity in this country happened when we helped people, not when we ignored them or sentenced them to lives of poverty.

 

[Irish YJ]

It's not so simple chief. If people aren't willing to pay more for a product and Walmart can still make a margin on the original price, albeit with a smaller margin, well it's reasonable to assume that Walmart would rather make a smaller margin than lose the sale altogether.

Walmart is one of my customers. I know what margins they are working off of. I also hate they pay me like crap and I make an extremely low margin on them. But that's the reality. So Buster let me ask you this... there are tons of very rich liberals and socialists out there. Why don't they start a business and compete with the likes of Walmart? And why don't all the people go shop there, and all the people making low wages go work there. All of this is driven by people's choices. Why don't Bernie or Hilary go start a business and wage war that way? Simple answer.

And yet economists generally feel that the increase in spending from the lower class--who spend every dollar they have, and then some--will more than offset damage done from a business' perspective due to the higher wage. Something about the velocity of money and increased demand.

You did not address my comment about circular impact and driving up other wages. And I'd add that economist have a wide variety of opinions on this topic. Assuming you picked the one you liked.

Right up there with lollipops raining down from the sky and the invention of a blowjob machine, in terms of the likelihood of occurring. We have to make policies for the situation we are handling.

No you want to create short term adjustments (situation) that treat the symptom not the disease. If a president can push Obamacare, why not Berneducation.[/B]

 

[Legacy]

I found these statistics informative. How many could survive another financial crisis? How many would need assistance from sources private and federal whether SNAP or affordable health care or many other assistance programs?

Job creation/stability is the primary demand of most Americans.

Most Americans have less than $1,000 in savings

Approximately 62% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their savings accounts and 21% don’t even have a savings account...

The Average Savings Rates By Income (Wealth Class)

We all know that Americans as a whole don’t save a lot of money. The latest savings statistics for 2015 shows that the average American only saves ~4% of their income a year. 4%! In other words, it takes the average American 25 years to save just one year’s worth of living expenses. That is a disaster.

1 in 3 Americans Has Saved $0 for Retirement
The Gender Gap

Overall, GoBankingRates’ survey findings show that women are significantly less likely to be sufficiently saving for retirement:

- Women are 27% more likely than men to say they have no retirement savings.
- Two-thirds of women (63%) say they have no savings or less than $10,000 in retirement savings, compared with just over half (52%) of men.

 

[kmoose]

It's not so simple chief. If people aren't willing to pay more for a product and Walmart can still make a margin on the original price, albeit with a smaller margin, well it's reasonable to assume that Walmart would rather make a smaller margin than lose the sale altogether.

Speaking of simplistic..........

You don't think WalMart, or any other corporation, wouldn't look at laying some people off, to keep the margin the same if they had to lower prices?

 

[Irish YJ]

Speaking of simplistic..........

You don't think WalMart, or any other corporation, wouldn't look at laying some people off, to keep the margin the same if they had to lower prices?

Exactly, or push more work overseas.
I love how people complain about Walmart while shopping there every week. At the same time their workers spend there money there while not electing to shop at places like Target or others. They employ 2.2million people and pay a shit ton of taxes. Lets pick on them..

 

[pkt77242]

Exactly, or push more work overseas.
I love how people complain about Walmart while shopping there every week. At the same time their workers spend there money there while not electing to shop at places like Target or others. They employ 2.2million people and pay a shit ton of taxes. Lets pick on them..

I almost never shop at Walmart (probably been there twice in the past 5 years) and I think you are missing a key point.

Forbes Welcome

While I think that there methodology is somewhat flawed, I also think that there is no doubt that we expend significant amounts of money providing assistance for their employees because they pay them like shit.

For example Walmart paid about $7 billion in taxes in 2010, even if we had to pay 3.5 Billion for their employees (instead of the estimated 6.2 in the article because as I mentioned I think they are off), well that makes it seem a little less great and that is before we get into their use of Tax Havens since 2009.....Wal-Mart Has $76 Billion in Undisclosed Overseas Tax Havens - Bloomberg

 

[EddytoNow]

I'm not sure there is a single answer. There are many things that could be done, but the one that seems to get discussed most is cutting programs that narrow the safety net. That does not make poor people any better off and just increases the chances that the bottom will be a more profound impact on a lot of folks. Sadly many of the same people who want to reduce programs for the poor also hack away at education every chance they get -- look what Jindal did as governor of LA, or Kasich in Ohio.

And to ensure there is no way out for those at the bottom, the same folks are against raising the minimum wage, making access to healthcare little more than a pipe dream, and sending all the profits to the wealthiest and most politically connected. It's like the second Guilded Age. No wonder people are pissed off. If every avenue of escape from poverty is blocked we have a permanent underclass. And that underclass is growing while the rich get richer. All of this is contrary to everything this country is supposed to be about. If we cannot anymore live up to our own standards as a nation, what does that say about us? This is the appeal of a guy like Trump. "If it weren't for X we could be great again." It's all bullshit. Our greatest moments of new prosperity in this country happened when we helped people, not when we ignored them or sentenced them to lives of poverty.

This explains the current support for both Trump and Bernie.

Trump is capitalizing on the anger, and his threats echo the sentiment of the angriest. All he has to do is say the word and his angry followers will be out in the streets. His approach involves having the poor and the working class fighting amongst themselves. In other words, find someone less fortunate to blame. However, when one examines Trump's history it is more a history of being one of the takers than one of the givers. He enjoys taking from his competitors just as much as he enjoys taking advantage of the less fortunate. Listen to what he says. He admits to using the system to his own advantage. It's all about what's best for Trump.

Bernie is focused more on what needs to be done to make sure there is an equal playing field for all. His approach appeals to the have nots and threatens the haves. He is the candidate of hope. He doesn't want to tear down the system, because he sees the system as being capable of providing a quality standard of living for everyone. He wants to bring some balance to the distribution of the wealth generated by being the richest nation in the world. It's not about taking money from one person and giving it to another. It's about making sure the money is distributed more equally up front. He has great appeal to the idealism of youth, who want an opportunity to establish a family, own a home, send their children to school, etc.

 

[Irish YJ]

I almost never shop at Walmart (probably been there twice in the past 5 years) and I think you are missing a key point.

Forbes Welcome

While I think that there methodology is somewhat flawed, I also think that there is no doubt that we expend significant amounts of money providing assistance for their employees because they pay them like shit.

For example Walmart paid about $7 billion in taxes in 2010, even if we had to pay 3.5 Billion for their employees (instead of the estimated 6.2 in the article because as I mentioned I think they are off), well that makes it seem a little less great and that is before we get into their use of Tax Havens since 2009.....Wal-Mart Has $76 Billion in Undisclosed Overseas Tax Havens - Bloomberg

My point is that Walmart is not costing us anything. Their workers are. And the people that shop there are supporting the model. Tell all the Bern and HRC voters to put their money where their mouths are. You could also say a flawed welfare system is contributing. What happens when Walmart closes it's doors in a town. Everyone blames Walmart. Ask people in Bentonville what they think about Walmart.

Also, where do most illegals shop? I'll leave it at that.

Tax havens.... Walmart operates worldwide. 6000+ stores and almost a million employees. If I'm Walmart, why the hell do I want to bring my money back into the US with all the talk about redistribution of wealth.

It's a global economy like it or not. Companies can choose to operate where they want. I'd love to close the loopholes that a lot of companies hide in. Guess who wants to do that. But at the same time, screw with business too much and they will take their ball and go somewhere else.

 

[woolybug25]

My point is that Walmart is not costing us anything. Their workers are. And the people that shop there are supporting the model. .

Just as we all thought.... This is clearly Michigan's fault...

 

[GoIrish41]

My point is that Walmart is not costing us anything. Their workers are. And the people that shop there are supporting the model. Tell all the Bern and HRC voters to put their money where their mouths are. You could also say a flawed welfare system is contributing. What happens when Walmart closes it's doors in a town. Everyone blames Walmart. Ask people in Bentonville what they think about Walmart.

Also, where do most illegals shop? I'll leave it at that.

Tax havens.... Walmart operates worldwide. 6000+ stores and almost a million employees. If I'm Walmart, why the hell do I want to bring my money back into the US with all the talk about redistribution of wealth.

It's a global economy like it or not. Companies can choose to operate where they want. I'd love to close the loopholes that a lot of companies hide in. Guess who wants to do that. But at the same time, screw with business too much and they will take their ball and go somewhere else.

Walmart is not going to pull out of the US market that made the Waltons gazillionaires. Especially if Americans suddenly have more money to spend. But even if they did, someone else would rise up to fill the void -- maybe even lots of smaller retailers that they put out of business with their bigness and ability to buy in incredible bulk. Prices may go up, but the country overall will be better off if we put more money in people's pockets. At least that's what the GOP has been telling us for decades. Right now we are subsidizing a workforce that makes mega wealthy people even wealthier. If I'm wrong correct me, but what you say above that we should let wealthy companies do as they please at the expense of their employees and taxpayers so we don't upset the rich. Fuck that!

 

[EddytoNow]

This is where I draw the line with many liberals. Every single adult of working age is NOT entitled to make a living wage. Some jobs are traditionally filled by spouses who are not the primary bread winner and are just looking for a little extra. Some jobs are(traditionally) filled by teenagers who are learning workplace skills. What you are seeing is the death of manufacturing in the United States. When we produced actual tangible goods, instead of producing concepts, philosophies, and discontent; there were enough manufacturing jobs that paid living wages for nearly all househoulds to have one person working one of those jobs. Remember when fast food was an adult manager, and nothing but teenagers gaining basic work skills outside of management? Remember when a teenager used to deliver your newspaper? Due to the lack of manufacturing jobs, many adults are now being pushed into jobs that were never intended to support a family, nor should they. The government is not subsidizing WalMart. WalMart jobs pay what they pay. WalMart would not pay a cashier more, if there was no SNAP program. Those jobs would simply be filled by more teenagers living at home and housewives working part time for some extra money, and fewer single mothers. Many of the people who work there AND have to collect public assistance are part timers. They don't get enough hours to get off of public assistance. But the job pays what it is worth, not what it takes to feed, clothe, and house a family of 5.

Please identify for the rest of us those adults of working age who are not entitled to make a working wage. Are you suggesting that there be a two-tiered wage scale? One wage for those who meet your definition of being entitled to earn a living wage, and another wage for those who do not meet your requirements for earning a living wage.

I'm assuming that you are okay with paying married women less money if their husband is the primary bread winner or vice versa. So let's assume you have hired three women to work for your company. The first is married to a husband who earns a good living, but the extra money she earns may help them invest and save for a comfortable retirement. The second is a single mother struggling to make ends meet. The third is a student trying to pay for her own college education. They all perform the same job. Who gets paid what? One of the three is not self-supporting. The other two need a living wage to get by. Without it they become dependent upon the social support programs you seem to detest. Your post seems to suggest they all get paid the allowable minimum wage. When that is not enough to live on, they should do what?

The married woman will be fine. Her family will cut back, and they will survive on her husband's livable wages.

The single mother will become dependent upon one or more of the government support programs.

The college student will either drop out of school or move back into her parents home while accumulating student loan debt.

You seem comfortable with all three outcomes and don't seem to see that doors have been closed for at least two of the three.

 

[Irish YJ]

Walmart is not going to pull out of the US market that made the Waltons gazillionaires. Especially if Americans suddenly have more money to spend. But even if they did, someone else would rise up to fill the void -- maybe even lots of smaller retailers that they put out of business with their bigness and ability to buy in incredible bulk. Prices may go up, but the country overall will be better off if we put more money in people's pockets. At least that's what the GOP has been telling us for decades. Right now we are subsidizing a workforce that makes mega wealthy people even wealthier. If I'm wrong correct me, but what you say above that we should let wealthy companies do as they please at the expense of their employees and taxpayers so we don't upset the rich. Fuck that!

I said above we should close the loopholes. And I didn't say that they were going to pull out of the US. What I said is they can push more work outside of the US. They could push 1000s of jobs that currently reside in Bentonville.

So question. How did Walmart get big. People shopped there. They chose to go there. Their buying power (buy which I feel as they are a client of mine) is a product of those people's choice.

So when do you start holding people accountable for their choices. Where to shop, how many kids they should have, having children outside of marriage, if they prefer not to apply themselves in HS or work themselves through college, when they buy the new flatscreen TV instead of putting money in the bank or saving for their children's college, when they go out and buy the new shiny car while they are living in subsidized housing and shopping at Walmart? If you think people will al of sudden start making better choices by raising the min wage, or forcing companies to pay higher taxes, you are thinking about busters lollipops and rainbows.

 

[kmoose]

Please identify for the rest of us those adults of working age who are not entitled to make a working wage. Are you suggesting that there be a two-tiered wage scale? One wage for those who meet your definition of being entitled to earn a living wage, and another wage for those who do not meet your requirements for earning a living wage.

Everyone is entitled to make the wages that their skills command. If you have a GED and have never worked a job other than homemaker(not housewife, because I know at least two male acquaintances of mine who are stay at homes that live off of their wives' salaries), you're entitled to minimum wage. Unless you have a knack for something like sales, where they can quantify your exact contribution to the company and compensate you accordingly. You seem to think that I am saying that certain groups of people should not be allowed to earn a living wage, and that's not what I am saying at all. But working the drive thru at McDonalds in a high cost of living area does not entitle you to $25/hour. Perhaps my point of view would be more clearly expressed as "not every adult is OWED a living wage." You are owed what your skill set is worth.

 

[Irish YJ]

Everyone is entitled to make the wages that their skills command. If you have a GED and have never worked a job other than homemaker(not housewife, because I know at least two male acquaintances of mine who are stay at homes that live off of their wives' salaries), you're entitled to minimum wage. Unless you have a knack for something like sales, where they can quantify your exact contribution to the company and compensate you accordingly. You seem to think that I am saying that certain groups of people should not be allowed to earn a living wage, and that's not what I am saying at all. But working the drive thru at McDonalds in a high cost of living area does not entitle you to $25/hour. Perhaps my point of view would be more clearly expressed as "not every adult is OWED a living wage." You are owed what your skill set is worth.

He likes the word "entitled"

 

[Irish YJ]

In other news, Walmart is bringing back greeters creating 9000 more jobs. Are they entitled to $25/hour for saying "hello! would you like a cart!" But hey, let's all come together to chastise Walmart for bringing back those positions.

 

[GoIrish41]

Everyone is entitled to make the wages that their skills command. If you have a GED and have never worked a job other than homemaker(not housewife, because I know at least two male acquaintances of mine who are stay at homes that live off of their wives' salaries), you're entitled to minimum wage. Unless you have a knack for something like sales, where they can quantify your exact contribution to the company and compensate you accordingly. You seem to think that I am saying that certain groups of people should not be allowed to earn a living wage, and that's not what I am saying at all. But working the drive thru at McDonalds in a high cost of living area does not entitle you to $25/hour. Perhaps my point of view would be more clearly expressed as "not every adult is OWED a living wage." You are owed what your skill set is worth.

Who decides what the bottom is for wages? Ultimately it is the companies. They bribe politicians to say no to a raising the minimum wage and the real cost of goods outpaces employee compensation, so every year of work at Walmart employees get paid less. Even those who get raises are simply keeping pace. Walmart gets a subsidized workforce and the heads of the company bank millions, some of which is taxpayer dollars that they didn't pay their employees. It's I humane to the employees, inefficient for their government, and a wildly profitable business model for the Waltons AND the politicians who get campaign donations. What a fucked up system!

 

[Irish YJ]

Who decides what the bottom is for wages? Ultimately it is the companies. They bribe politicians to say no to a raising the minimum wage and the real cost of goods outpaces employee compensation, so every year of work at Walmart employees get paid less. Even those who get raises are simply keeping pace. Walmart gets a subsidized workforce and the heads of the company bank millions, some of which is taxpayer dollars that they didn't pay their employees. It's I humane to the employees, inefficient for their government, and a wildly profitable business model for the Waltons AND the politicians who get campaign donations. What a fucked up system!

Again, you are blaming a company for creating a model that most people, regardless of their party affiliation, choose to support.

And a little side not. HRC sat on the board at Walmart for several years. She was also financially backed by the unions. And people want to chastise Trump for his business dealings??

 

[Irish YJ]

Wal-Mart is top corporate charity - US news - Giving | NBC News

 

[pkt77242]

My point is that Walmart is not costing us anything. Their workers are. And the people that shop there are supporting the model. Tell all the Bern and HRC voters to put their money where their mouths are. You could also say a flawed welfare system is contributing. What happens when Walmart closes it's doors in a town. Everyone blames Walmart. Ask people in Bentonville what they think about Walmart.

Also, where do most illegals shop? I'll leave it at that.

Tax havens.... Walmart operates worldwide. 6000+ stores and almost a million employees. If I'm Walmart, why the hell do I want to bring my money back into the US with all the talk about redistribution of wealth.

It's a global economy like it or not. Companies can choose to operate where they want. I'd love to close the loopholes that a lot of companies hide in. Guess who wants to do that. But at the same time, screw with business too much and they will take their ball and go somewhere else.

Taken from the article:

Units in Luxembourg -- where the company has no stores -- reported $1.3 billion in profits between 2010 and 2013 and paid tax at a rate of less than 1 percent, according to the report.

All of Wal-Mart’s roughly 3,500 stores in China, Central America, the U.K., Brazil, Japan, South Africa and Chile appear to be owned through units in tax havens such as the British Virgin Islands, Curacao and Luxembourg, according to the report from the advocacy group.

Luxembourg is a great example, they don't do business there, they just "own" things there to pay lower taxes. I could understand if they "owned" their foreign subsidiaries in a country that they have a large presence in and has lower taxes but "owning" businesses in a country that you do nothing else in? While legal it leaves a sour note in peoples mouth especially when paired with how they pay/treat many of their employees (some of their employees are treated/payed well especially the people out of their corporate office).

Here is a similar article with a little extra information.
Report: Walmart holds $76 billion in tax havens

The total could be higher, because Walmart entities in other low-tax havens, including Hong Kong, the Cayman Islands, Switzerland and Curacao, don't disclose financial information, the report said.

The subsidiaries have no Walmart stores, yet own at least 25 out of 27 of the company's foreign operations in the United Kingdom, Brazil, Japan, China and other nations where the world's largest retailer has locations with thousands of employees, the report said.

Walmart has transferred ownership of more than $45 billion in foreign assets to a network of 22 Luxembourg shell companies since 2011, the report said. The company reported paying less than 1% in taxes to Luxembourg on $1.3 billion in profits from 2010-2013, the report said.

The shell firms are little known because Walmart has not reported their existence in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing where subsidiaries are normally disclosed, the report said.

Walmart's use of tax-haven subsidiaries minimizes the firm's foreign taxes in nations where it has retail operations and allows the company to avoid paying U.S. taxes on the earnings until the funds are shifted to the U.S., the report said.

However, Walmart took $2.4 billion in low-interest, short-term loans from its tax haven subsidiaries in 2014, giving domestic affiliates access to foreign earnings without paying U.S. taxes, the report said.

 

[kmoose]

Who decides what the bottom is for wages? Ultimately it is the companies. They bribe politicians to say no to a raising the minimum wage and the real cost of goods outpaces employee compensation, so every year of work at Walmart employees get paid less. Even those who get raises are simply keeping pace. Walmart gets a subsidized workforce and the heads of the company bank millions, some of which is taxpayer dollars that they didn't pay their employees. It's I humane to the employees, inefficient for their government, and a wildly profitable business model for the Waltons AND the politicians who get campaign donations. What a fucked up system!

The market decides what the bottom is for wages. And Unions bribe politicians to increase wage laws, require companies to spend money on useless employee perks, and then law associations bribe politicians to increase maximum payouts for people who forego all common sense in their use of the products that they bought there, and then injure themselves. The workforce is not subsidized, and you continuing to insinuate it is is not going to change that. A part time cashier at WalMart is going to make the same money, regardless of whether or not they are eligible for public assistance. The difference is; without public assistance, those jobs would be filled by people who don't need public assistance, but don't need living wage jobs, either. People like teenagers still living at home, or retired people who just want to keep themselves from becoming shut-ins, or housewives whose husbands make enough to pay the bills, but they just want a little extra money. And, increasingly, you know who else is benefitting from WalMart's high profits? Just about every IRA and retirement fund out there.......... meaning you, me, koonja, whiskey, NDinLA, phammer, and even that slack-jawed hippie, ACAMP.

 

[Irish YJ]

Taken from the article:


Luxembourg is a great example, they don't do business there, they just "own" things there to pay lower taxes. I could understand if they "owned" their foreign subsidiaries in a country that they have a large presence in and has lower taxes but "owning" businesses in a country that you do nothing else in? While legal it leaves a sour note in peoples mouth especially when paired with how they pay/treat many of their employees (some of their employees are treated/payed well especially the people out of their corporate office).

Here is a similar article with a little extra information.
Report: Walmart holds $76 billion in tax havens

Smart business. Why does the US government have a right to anything made outside of the US? These are not US stores owned by tax havens. They are foreign stores owned by tax havens. It's legal and a product of US government regulation.

We care so much about revenues generated in other countries while we let Chinese and other nations buy up the US.

 

[pkt77242]

Smart business. Why does the US government have a right to anything made outside of the US? These are not US stores owned by tax havens. They are foreign stores owned by tax havens. It's legal and a product of US government regulation.

We care so much about revenues generated in other countries while we let Chinese and other nations buy up the US.

I am not saying that they do, I am saying that the the subsidiaries should be "owned" in an actual country that they are doing business in. Just "owning" the company out of Luxembourg while they don't do business there is what bothers me. I would not be upset if the foreign stores were owned out of say Mexico, or a South American country where they do business.

Though I do find the foreign owned business giving the US corporate parent extremely cheap loans so that they don't have to bring back the profits and pay taxes on it as shady (though legal).

 

[GoIrish41]

The market decides what the bottom is for wages. And Unions bribe politicians to increase wage laws, require companies to spend money on useless employee perks, and then law associations bribe politicians to increase maximum payouts for people who forego all common sense in their use of the products that they bought there, and then injure themselves. The workforce is not subsidized, and you continuing to insinuate it is is not going to change that. A part time cashier at WalMart is going to make the same money, regardless of whether or not they are eligible for public assistance. The difference is; without public assistance, those jobs would be filled by people who don't need public assistance, but don't need living wage jobs, either. People like teenagers still living at home, or retired people who just want to keep themselves from becoming shut-ins, or housewives whose husbands make enough to pay the bills, but they just want a little extra money. And, increasingly, you know who else is benefitting from WalMart's high profits? Just about every IRA and retirement fund out there.......... meaning you, me, koonja, whiskey, NDinLA, phammer, and even that slack-jawed hippie, ACAMP.

Wrong. The minimum wage is the bottom. That is set by the government and hasn't been changed in several years, even as prices have risen. The result is that Walmart makes more profit while workers make less in real dollars. Many of those workers -- full time workers -- don't make enough to live on and they go on public assistance. So the workers that are responsible for the profitability of that massive retailer don't make enough to live on and the our tax dollars fill in the gap. How is that not subsidizing their workforce? Support for policies that enable full time workers to make less than a living wage is just one of many reasons why the GOP is a dumster fire right now, and why their base is rebelling behind a dangerous fool like Trump. We are sickly becoming an oligarchy led by greedy corporations and their political lap dogs in Congress. You keep suggesting that free market forces are at work. Nothing could be further from the truth when in comes to employee compensation at companies like Walmart. You've been duped and are arguing against your own interests and those of a rapidly growing portion of the working poor.

 

[Irish YJ]

Wrong. The minimum wage is the bottom. That is set by the government and hasn't been changed in several years, even as prices have risen. The result is that Walmart makes more profit while workers make less in real dollars. Many of those workers -- full time workers -- don't make enough to live on and they go on public assistance. So the workers that are responsible for the profitability of that massive retailer don't make enough to live on and the our tax dollars fill in the gap. How is that not subsidizing their workforce? Support for policies that enable full time workers to make less than a living wage is just one of many reasons why the GOP is a dumster fire right now, and why their base is rebelling behind a dangerous fool like Trump. We are sickly becoming an oligarchy led by greedy corporations and their political lap dogs in Congress. You keep suggesting that free market forces are at work. Nothing could be further from the truth when in comes to employee compensation at companies like Walmart. You've been duped and are arguing against your own interests and those of a rapidly growing portion of the working poor.

Blame the GOP... Blame Walmart.... do you blame HRC who was on the board of Walmart collecting a check?
.

 

[GoIrish41]

Blame the GOP... Blame Walmart.... do you blame HRC who was on the board of Walmart collecting a check?
.

Absolutely. That's why I support Bernie! And inconsistencies in her narrative are why he was such a formitable challenger to her in the primaries. But at least she is talking about correcting the problem while the bulk of the GOP is stuck in 1980 on the issue.

 

[Irish YJ]

Absolutely. That's why I support Bernie! And inconsistencies in her narrative are why he was such a formitable challenger to her in the primaries. But at least she is talking about correcting the problem while the bulk of the GOP is stuck in 1980 on the issue.

HRC is interested in furthering her political career, not putting big biz in it's place. Walmart was still donating to the Clinton fund as late as 2.5 years ago. Hell Bill is believed to still be advising them. Mrs Walmart donated the max to Hilary just two years ago. In terms of closing the loopholes, and making it harder for the companies to put their money abroad, while making it more attractive to return... That is Trump

 

[kmoose]

Wrong. The minimum wage is the bottom. That is set by the government and hasn't been changed in several years, even as prices have risen. The result is that Walmart makes more profit while workers make less in real dollars. Many of those workers -- full time workers -- don't make enough to live on and they go on public assistance. So the workers that are responsible for the profitability of that massive retailer don't make enough to live on and the our tax dollars fill in the gap. How is that not subsidizing their workforce? Support for policies that enable full time workers to make less than a living wage is just one of many reasons why the GOP is a dumster fire right now, and why their base is rebelling behind a dangerous fool like Trump. We are sickly becoming an oligarchy led by greedy corporations and their political lap dogs in Congress. You keep suggesting that free market forces are at work. Nothing could be further from the truth when in comes to employee compensation at companies like Walmart. You've been duped and are arguing against your own interests and those of a rapidly growing portion of the working poor.

Corporations are not greedy, people are. I have a skill that pays well, so that is where my interests lie. I'm not "duped" about anything. But again............. you certainly appear to be demanding that everyone with a job make a living wage? Retail is traditionally not a living wage occupation, unless you are in a retail management. You appear to want to force all of the companies in the country to provide square pegs with square holes............. even when the square pegs sign up for a position that has round holes. Good luck with that....

 

[Bishop2b5]

Exactly why does someone who failed to take advantage of a free hs education & the opportunity to earn a free college education, failed to improve their job skills at all the jobs they had, and consistently makes poor financial/life choices deserve the same pay and standard of living as those who DID take advantage of their opportunities, worked hard, and made good financial/life choices? And why should those who did then have to support those who didn't? Take responsibility for your life, take responsibility for your behavior & actions, and deal with the consequences, good or bad, for how hard you work, the choices you make, and the results thereof.