Greedy Bastards

I can add nothing to this …

Walmart offers Thanksgiving workers measly discount in place of holiday pay

 

EXCEPT that the family that owns Walmart, the Waltons, are ranked the wealthiest in the world with an estimated net worth of over $190bn

60 thoughts on “Greedy Bastards

  1. Hello Nan. Way back in the mid 1990’s I worked for Walmart for 6 months and then told them were to put their job. They were then and most likely still are horrible about labor laws and worker safety. You were expected to arrive early and work time off the clock either during your lunch or after your shift. They would set impossible goals and use not completing them as reasons for negative evaluation. They shifted the blame for everything on to the employees during evaluations or job injuries by wording that said basically the employee did wrong and needed to do better. If you were ordered to do something and it went wrong, the employee was responsible and in trouble. I wouldn’t do it and wouldn’t put up with it, I wouldn’t sign blanket forms and would add stuff to forms as needed to correct things before signing. Needless to say they were not really happy with me. They once asked me to use my own truck to deliver a riding lawn mower a customer bought after my shift with no pay and then when I asked them how they were going to get the mower into my truck they told me to buy a set of their ramps. I told them to go fuck themselves. I quit. They thought I was kidding, I wasn’t. They were so angry with me when I did not show up for my next scheduled shift. I laughed.

    So yes I agree very greedy, they see workers as expendable commodities. There are always more where those came from after they use up the ones they have. Their view on employees is use them, break them, replace them. Employees did not matter, no matter the level. There was no loyalty nor reward for working for them. You showed up, got used, and got a small paycheck. Most people there were stuck, they needed to be there and had no where else to go at that time and the company used that.

    That is one reason I have become a progressive Democrat. I want to see the system changed so the lower incomes get more of the pie and the upper incomes pay their share for the amount they take. I want to see programs and laws that help and support the lower economic rungs in society. It is past time as the wealthy have rigged the system to move all the nations wealthy upward to them the 1970’s it seems. Hugs

    Liked by 5 people

    • Get this … something I found on the internet:

      …Walton worked into the company’s corporate structure the idea of “service leadership” that ties worker roles into the concept that “Christ was a servant leader,” and emphasizes the importance in Christian tradition of serving others.

      Don’t pee your pants laughing!!

      Liked by 3 people

      • Do you know that before they opened the store in the morning where / when I worked for them, they gathered the staff for inspirational messages, propaganda, and morning exercises. Yes it was like you see on government films from China. I was a bad employee because while I listened to them talk, I would not rah rah and cheer company slogans, and I sure was not doing jumping jacks and other exercises. I told them when they got on me about it I left that behind after my service in the military. They told me it was required, I told no. Not in the job I applied for nor the job agreement I accepted. So after that when they started the fitness stuff I would go over to the in store MacDonald’s and get breakfast. Legally they couldn’t make me do them, but management sure did not like me much. The reason most people played along is they needed the 20 cents promotions and stuff. Ron made good money and I was not giving up my self respect for a quarter or less more an hour. Hugs

        Liked by 2 people

        • I really wonder why did they want you to do all the “rah rah” and morning exercises? Did they really think, that this would bring up the spirits and some childish notion of espirit de corps in most of their employees, or that these would enjoy something degrading like that? That the employees would be drawn into some mindwashing thing by letting themselves to be forced to all that silly nonsense? Or was it just a nother way to remind the workers of how dependant they are on their employer, that they can be told to do just about anything?

          I have always detested it when some ridiculous childrens play have been force fed in some working environments where I have had to work. Usually, it is due to the fact that there are less than needed highly paid bosses, who need to invent themselves some work to excuse their jobs, use some trick, or draw in some useless consultants to try to better an already infected athmosphere in a working environment. It never works, because bad bosses forcing adult people to play childish games is usually the reason why the environment is infected, never the cure.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Hello rautakyy. You are correct. They really did think that. Plus they claimed the exercises reduced injuries, I did not see how. So they just wanted to convince you it was a great place to work, the company was super grand, and you were happy to work at Walmart. I figure it was a total mind game. Plus as you say they brow beat most people into doing it so it showed how authoritarian the management structure was. Do as your told and accept it as we can make you. Hugs

            Liked by 1 person

  2. I work for Walmart in a warehouse. They made Thanksgiving a mandatory work day this year instead of the usual volunteer basis. I’m actually on vacation this week, so I got lucky. It’s true though, we aren’t offered time and a half on holidays. This year has been terrible when it comes to bonuses/incentives. They have taken away so many perks they used to offer. They did give us turkeys like they have for years, but even that decision was made close to the holiday this year. What they expect from us goes up every year, and our benefits dwindle. It’s sad.

    Liked by 3 people

        • Hello Tracy. It would be hard for them to spend all they have now regardless because of all the invested money making new money on top of their other incomes. I read this a few days ago. Hugs

          Imagine someone gave you a million dollars and told you to spend $1,000 every day and come back when you ran out of money. You would return, with no money left, in three years. If someone then gave you a billion dollars and you spent $1,000 each day, you would be spending for about 2,740 years before you went broke.

          Liked by 3 people

    • Disgusting. A family with $190 billion could afford to show some generosity, even if only the the public-relations value. Instead they keep tightening the vice to squeeze more and more out of the people who actually produce the wealth they’ve taken.

      This is parasitism in its rawest form. The Waltons didn’t produce all that wealth. You did.

      Liked by 4 people

  3. Ah, the wonderful perks of hyper-Capitalism and hyper-consumerism enjoyed MOST by the early-retired upper 1% – 10% of America—and now where Xmas shopping begins just before or on Halloween then lasts essentially thru January 5-7 these days! If left up to corporate executives and their families (i.e. Citizens United?), Black Friday will one day be Black Week, not to be confused with Black History Month. Although that too could fall to corporate America as well. 😔

    Liked by 2 people

    • It’s around this time of year that I tend to be most glad I’m not a Christian. The greed and commercialism and pressure are nauseating, and must be even more so to anyone who actually considers Christmas a meaningful day.

      (Yes, I know Christmas doesn’t have anything to do with Christianity, but most Christians believe it does.)

      Liked by 3 people

      • Indeed Infidel. Most decently educated non-Christians KNOW that Christmas in December is a purely PAGAN holiday/festival. Yeshua bar Yosef (Jesus) could not have been born on Dec. 25th. HELL, he didn’t even die by crucifixion in April (Easter) either… another pagan date/festival! 😆 Neither of these two months are precisely known! 🙄

        Liked by 3 people

        • The Puritans refused to celebrate the “pagan” holiday, and rightly so. Even my husband’s greatgrandmother wouldn’t allow a Christmas tree in the house, and I know Jehovah’s witnesses celebrate neither Christmas nor Easter. Which also is a mashup of pagan spring rituals that often have more rituals to do with sex and fertility. Ergo, the easter bunny.

          And it has been postulated that Christ, if he existed, was actually born in October, as these things were reckoned. I do love the image of the snow-laden journey across the desert, by the three wisemen. No one ever notices that.
          (Does it really snow in bethlehem?)

          Liked by 2 people

          • (Does it really snow in bethlehem?)

            OF COURSE IT DOES Judy! If Noah can cram in thousands or millions of all the Earth’s animals into a tiny 3-4 level Ark for a worldwide flood—many Chrissians believed Noah even packed in Cretaceous and Jurassic carnivorous dinosaurs like the T-Rex and Velociraptors; they’re mostly in Williamstown, Kentucky 😉 —then God can CERTAINLY… Oooooo…

            🎶 “Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow” 🎶 in Birth-a-ham!!! Come on Judy, sing it with me!

            (in his best Dean Martin impression!)

            Oh the weather outside is frightful
            But the fire is so delightful
            And since we’ve no place to go (‘cept Birth-a-ham)
            Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow!

            Liked by 2 people

    • Weak unions. Even in the heyday of unions more than half a century ago, only about 30% of the private-sector workforce was unionized. Now I think it’s below 10%.

      As for the government, the majority of the public here is brainwashed into reflexively thinking of all government regulation as insane red tape that strangles business and destroy jobs. A lot of money was spent training people to think that way.

      Notice how every time socialism is mentioned, somebody brings up Venezuela? It’s because they don’t want people thinking of Sweden or the Netherlands.

      The fact that heavily-regulated countries like Germany have been pwning us in exports for decades while maintaining a vigorous middle class, just flies over people’s heads.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Norway should be the comparrison when we talk about Venezuela, because both of them are small oilproducing countries. Norway has a bigger public sector and less private ownership, than Venezuela. Norway has had a long line of socialist premiers and governments and people there are generally fairly happy with their government and how the country is run. Certainly there are no favelas in Oslo.

        Here in Finland we have one month of paid holidays usually kept in the summer, a week long winter holiday, some extra holidays around the year and extra eight weekdays for jobs of physical labour kept when the worker and the employer agree. In practice those 8 days are kept by the labourers when they need to run their errands, or in smaller companies collectively, so that they can shut down the workshop.

        If an employer here would try to exchange money for discounts, as a form of salary for some holiday in a legally binding work contract set by the workers unions and the employers unions (as almost all workrelationships are in Finland) they would only end up in work-court where they would be fined and made to pay compensations for their employees.

        Even so, there are attempts to smuggle in unashamed capitalism into our society as well. The post offices just ended their strike, that they had to have, because their employer – the recently (well, a couple of decades ago) privatized (it is still mostly part of national property) – postal service company tried to move some 700 employees to be under a cheaper union contract. The entire postal services, went to a strike, with the mariner union, transport union and several lesser unions in support. The entire package traffic within Finland almost came to a standstill and right under Yuletide. There were bigger unions making ready to join the strike to support these 700, because their pay would have been seriously cut. If we let it happen to them, it is only a matter of time before it happens to the rest of us.

        Better pay for the common worker means that the nation may collect higher taxes and still people have more spending money to choose to buy domestic products. Further, if those taxes are used for something usefull, like free healthcare, free education and better infrastructure they end up not only providing a more peacefull and less crime infested society, but also a more productive society. Especially so, if those services mentioned are organized by the public sector, because any investment there by the nation results in direct results for the wellbeing of the people and economy, not leak out of the system as winnings of some parasitic owners to some hazy offshore investment banks. Companies, private or public, save money, when their workers are healthier due to a better healthcare. Companies get to use the full brain potential of a nation, if all the students have free access to higher standards of education and even if the lower standards of education secure for the workforce to be able to actually read what the working instructions are. More efficient infrastructure provides for the companies more mobility, markets and opportunities. I do not understand why this seems so hard for some people to understand. Is it just greed, or is greed actually some form of stupidity?

        Liked by 5 people

        • Is it just greed, or is greed actually some form of stupidity?

          YES! (To both.)

          I recognize no system is perfect (although yours sounds pretty darn good), but what we currently have operating in the U.S. needs a LOT of work. Actually, the system itself isn’t all that bad — it’s primarily the individuals who are implementing it that give so many of us heartburn.

          The Nordic countries have always held a certain amount of appeal to me. A bit on the “chilly” side, but by all indications, the people seem happier and more content. Here in the states it seems everyone is so angry! And as you’ve undoubtedly gathered, it’s gotten worse under our current leadership.

          Anyway, thanks for sharing.

          Liked by 2 people

        • There were bigger unions making ready to join the strike to support these 700, because their pay would have been seriously cut. If we let it happen to them, it is only a matter of time before it happens to the rest of us.

          This is also a hugely important point. In the US, the financial parasite class has worked hard to break down that sense of solidarity and divide workers against each other, and to a great extent they’ve succeeded. One tool they’ve used has been race — getting white workers to resent and fear black workers as a threat to their jobs (affirmative action was introduced by Nixon, a Republican president, who was well aware that the resentments it would eventually foster would rebound to the right-wing’s benefit).

          Another division is unionized and non-unionized. Unions today are largely in the government sector. It’s amazing how many non-union workers, who are struggling to survive working for shitty employers, voice anger and resentment at unionized workers they believe have it easy, viewing them as a privileged class who deserve to be dragged down to the level of everyone else. Almost never does one hear them talking about forming their own unions to bring themselves up to the unionized workers’ level, though I think it’s becoming more common.

          As long as the workers can be kept divided and resentful of each other, it benefits the true privileged class, people like the Waltons.

          Liked by 4 people

  4. Remind me again why America might ever be considered a great nation? If they tried this in Canada, Employment Standards legislation would slap them so fast heads would spin. Blows this Canadian mind! Up here anyone who works on a statutory holiday regardless off part/full time classification gets time and a half for working holidays. Geez.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. I calculated out at one point what it would take to double the wages of every Walmart employee, and the Walton’s would still end up making multiple billions every year. And do realize that to spend a billion dollars, you have to spend $532,000 of every working hour of every working day in a full year. How many fucking billions do they want? I stopped shopping at Walmart in protest.

    Liked by 2 people

    • It’s more than apparent that many wealthy people have a less-than-human perception of those who work for them. Employees are not people. They’re just pawns in the game of Make Me Richer.

      Walmart is just one of many …

      Liked by 3 people

    • I used to see Walmart as a cheap sell for substandard goods, but this past few years I’ve been amazed to see things like quality facecloths for $17 each (each, mind you) and men’s socks for J.C. Penney’s prices. They have quietly been expanding their lines of products into quality merchandise, and it would seem that they’re raking in money more than ever. WalMart is not just for breakfast anymore.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Hello Judyt. One reason Walmart can do this is they have up ended the system. With other stores the maker says they will sell XX amount for this price to the store. But with Walmart with their power of massive sales tells the makers what they will pay and how much and how the maker will deliver. Companies that don’t let Walmart have that control will not place their product in Walmart stores which may cause them to fail, especially small ones or start ups. That is how they can get such profits while giving deals, because they force the manufacture to take less than they should get or do get from other companies. During the run up to the Christmas season they act like mob bosses to companies wanting to put their product in Walmart stores. It can make a difference to a company of fail or succeed to get their product into Walmart but some times they have to do it at a loss and hope to make it up else where. Totally unfair. Hugs

        Liked by 3 people

    • I’ve stopped shopping at Walmart as well Steve. However, I did it years ago not because of wages paid, but they were installing more and more “Self Checkout” computer systems and hiring/paying less and less HUMAN checkers and competent department workers. And Steve, we all know why the mega corporations like Walmart, SAMS, CVS, Target, etc, are keeping (increasing?) computerized Self Checkouts. 😡

      In case someone doesn’t know why Self Checkouts are increasing in mega stores, paying human employees is every businesses BIGGEST monthly/quarterly expense, along with proper health, dental, and MAYBE optical benefits to compliment. Corporations simply DO NOT want to pay their employees fair wages or offer decent benefits and pensions. Period! That is the modern business model of (deregulated) U.S. Capitalism. It is atrociously unequal and greedy for top CEO’s and their families and ivory towers in gated communities. What’s the Repub bank mottos/banners?

      “Let’s Make Upper America Fatter Again!”???

      Liked by 2 people

  6. Wow… greedy bastards for not wanting to expand there company budget to include a Thanksgiving bonus. Are they breaking any laws for not doing so? No. You’re simply complaining Nan, you can’t force companies to provide bonuses to their employees regardless of their opulence. OK, you don’t like it when wealthy companies that provide hundreds of thousands of jobs to Americans annually don’t give out bonuses, this doesn’t “do” or “fix” anything. Nan, I’m so sick of this “wealth inequality” argument flying around leftistville, ‘oh the poor people that work at Walmart’, well ‘shit’ what gave everyone the idea that working at Walmart was supposed to be a career choice? You’re making a useless argument, the different degrees of hardship, and of ingenuity exercised, must always be taken into account when assessing the value of someone’s labor. Anyone with an IQ above 10, providing they have arms and legs, can sufficiently hold a job at Walmart. This is not to bash individuals who find employment at Walmart, but essentially to fabricate a point that precisely describes the narrative you are painting. You are annoyed that the Waltons are not giving out Thanksgiving bonuses, but whatever money they didn’t give out regardless of it’s amount went directly into the economy anyway. Whether they bought a yacht or a new store, the money simply doesn’t just “stay in their safes!” This is called capitalism, you and your leftist clan of blogger cronies are all subtly advocating for “wealth redistribution”, where you take from the rich and give to the poor. Yeah, well what the hell happens when you start taking from the rich and giving to poor? Well, your taking money out of investors pockets and giving it to people who will simply buy materialistic commodities. The more money you start taking from the affluent, the less the economy continues to grow because now you don’t have any investors, do you really understand what your advocating for?

    Like

    • you and your leftist clan of blogger cronies are all subtly advocating for “wealth redistribution”

      I absolutely deny that I, for one, am being in any way “subtle” about advocating redistribution of wealth from the parasites who have stolen it back to the workers who created it.

      Liked by 4 people

      • I second that. Nothing subtle about it. It’s like pulling off a band aid. You gotta do it fast and quick and just deal with the crying, whining, and infantile moaning that’s sure to follow by utterly ignoring it. Now, I’m off to insult people I don’t know on their blogs and websites cause…well…cause this is the internet, and safely insulting strangers who don’t conform to my ideology, whilst behind a keyboard, in an anonymous fashion, is what it’s for. $Amen$

        Liked by 3 people

      • Workers don’t take risks, thats exactly why owners make substantially more capital annually then they do. An employee gets paid in terms of how much the owner finds his labor to be worth, not how much the employee thinks his labor is worth. I would expound further on this idea, but I don’t see the point, your so inherently ignorant regarding basic economics, so much so that you have come to believe that the 1% (whom make the world go round) are so-called “parasites.”

        Like

        • Hello Dylan. Most owners do not take risks either if they are smart, especially those with money. I have owned several businesses in my life, made money and lost money and managed to do OK, but it taught me how things work. When you start a business you incorporate it as a separate identity from your self even if you will be the sole or majority owner. You take all loans and credit in the name of the business. If you make money you move it from the business to yourself, but if you lose money it is the business that gets hit. If like tRump has done 6 times you need to bankrupt the company to get out of the debt it has taken on it never legally effects the owner, but it does effect the shit out of the workers who lose everything. Case in point look at the wealthy coal owner who declared bankruptcy protecting himself while owing two weeks of pay to the workers who lost everything. Some were on holiday overseas and couldn’t get home, and many thinking their pay had been deposited became over drawn on their bank accounts. You know me, I can provide you the relevant links if you wish. For companies like Walmart workers are simply numbers, nothing more. Commodities and assets to be used.

          Dylan you seem to be ignorant or simply mistaken about basic economic theory. First what drives demand for new products and for an increase in product manufacture is people buying the items. This creates a demand for more of the item to be made, and then that creates a need for more people to sell the item. It is a self sustaining loop that starts at the bottom , not the top. If the the bottom can not buy , then the rest of the chain falls apart. That is why run away capitalism fails and runs to ruin. Mark Cuban gave a really great Ted Talk on this. As a wealthy billionaire he said he could only buy so many shirts, pants and other goods, but he couldn’t make up for the millions of sales that would be generated if the lower incomes could also buy the product.

          When Walmart or companies like them fail to provide workers with living wages and benefits it causes two problems. First as I mentioned the workers can not buy things, which drains the economy of its drive. Remember if no one buys there is no reason to make more of an item, no reason to hire more workers to sell the item and so on, the whole system falls apart. The second is the cost of providing the for the needs of the workers are moved on to local and federal taxpayers.

          You might wonder what Walmart not paying a living wage is costing the state and federal governments? Quite a lot actually. See when they break down which groups are using the most social assistance programs two groups are at the top of the list. Military families and Walmart employees. So all our tax dollars go to subsidies the billionaire Walmart owners making more profits. Doesn’t seem like they are the hero job creator to me.

          One last point Dylan. What giving more money to the wealthy does. Nothing for the economy or the workers. See if you give money to the lower incomes they have to and need to spend it which stimulates the economy. But the wealthy do not need to do so , and they park the money in all sorts of places including simply banking it. Now you asked what about the huge tax cut / breaks for the wealthy recently pasted. Well like all the ones before them, they did not trickle down to the workers, but instead allowed companies to use their huge give backs to buy back their own stocks, increasing the dividend to the stock holder but doing nothing for the workers or the economy as a whole. Simply put the diverting the wealth upward as has been happening strangles an economy. The proof is how much better and stable the economies of countries that regulate capitalism and in the far higher satisfaction rates of the people in those countries, not to mention all other quality of life indicators.

          Hugs

          Liked by 4 people

      • I third that! 😉

        I hopped over to Dylan Shetler’s blog for about 15-mins and it offers nothing the world hasn’t already heard/read from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Jerry Springer even. 😉 Should I include our current POTUS? Lol

        I’m sure if I dug deeper I’d also find that Dylan Shetler comes from a specific demographic, education, and circle of like-minded echoers… if you know what I mean. More precisely, Dylan and his like (never?) hardly ever rub shoulders over several months or 1-2 years with America’s lower 50%, much less the bottom 10%. Those types usually only do pseudo-charities via their predominately WHITE, opulent churches once a month or twice a year… for one day.

        Of course, that is nothing like investing one’s time/energy over 3-6 months or more in those Not-So-Wealthy-White urban or rural areas of America. In fact, one MUST learn that neighborhood dialect to really achieve true long-term success. I have a hunch that Dylan has no clue what I’m talking about. 😄

        Liked by 4 people

        • PT, do you read Scottie’s blog? He and Dylan have had several intense “conversations.” One thing that’s notable about all this is at the beginning, Dylan used several familiar “attack” methods to support his viewpoint. However, as Scottie continued to respond with “facts only,” things gradually changed to a more intelligent interchange.

          There’s no doubt Dylan is a dyed-in-the-wool “echoer” (as you put it), but hopefully, Scottie has given him some food for thought (even though Dylan will never admit it, I’m sure).

          Liked by 3 people

          • Thank you Nan. No, back when I had much more free time to follow the 25+ blogs I follow, I did frequent Scottie’s blog. But since my change in schedule after moving back to Dallas, I can no longer keep up with all those blogs. Sorry. Scottie knows this as well. I barely have time for the 4-5 I poorly follow now. :/

            Of all people to have the big heart and patience for hard-line (rude?) Conservatives, Scottie is one of the best to possibly warm them into actual human beings! 😉 ❤ GO SCOTTIE! Three cheers for Scottie!

            Liked by 2 people

            • He’s a trooper when it comes to such things. I’m glad he’s out there doing that because I simply do not have the patience for it. I’m a “pull the band aid off ‘n let ’em holler” kinda guy. I shoot from the hip. I tell it like it is. I say the things others won’t. I’m also famous and can therefor grab women by the…..You get the idea. 🙂 Now, I’m off to shoot from the hip and chew gum at the same time.

              Oh, and don’t forget what Marlon Brando once said to his tailor, Buddy Bubblethighs, “Buddy, what we gotta do is take all da wealthy peoples money ‘n spread it around like butta ta da rest ov da people, and ta hell wit ’em if’n dey don’t likes it ‘n whine!” Wise guy that Brando was.

              Liked by 3 people

  7. Scottie, none of your response is relevant to what I said. Not once did you mention the fact that your advocating for “wealth redistribution.” You claimed “What giving more money to the wealthy does. Nothing for the economy or the workers.” I ask you again Scottie, “Since when are the wealthy supposed to do anything for the workers?” This goes back to individual rights, as well as character. My first premise for my argument against wealth redistribution, is that “everyone in a free society has the right to the value of their own labor”, so whether it be a plumber or a billionaire, those individuals are both entitled to the reap the entire value of their personal labor. My second premise is that “not all billionaires are greedy bastards!” The left enjoys conveying the notion that “all” billionaires are “inherently evil”, and that regardless of the economic viability of the world around them, that they will always be “greedy” no good rotten people. But that is far from the truth. You see Scottie, greed is spread all across the board. I’ve met greedy poor people, and yes, I’ve met greedy rich people. Greed is really a poor basis for wealth because it is caustic. It eats away at the source of the wealth. Billionaires are billionaires because they are exceptional at business. In a highly religious society (like America used to be), affluent individuals would dump high amounts of capital into charities and good causes, like libraries and schools (like I said it all depends on the person). In the early 20th century, the robber barons felt led by the word of God to provide for the poor, as many stories in the Bible paint this as a “holy act.” Scottie, we are on two different trains, you are willing to strip people of their individual rights in the name of “social justice”, while I am trying to explain to you that the particular philosophy you are proclaiming to be “worthy of expectance” has already been implemented and tried. Sorry Scottie, I don’t think we’re anywhere near agreement on this one, I simply can’t side with immorality. People will always be greedy, but that doesn’t give us the right to commit theft against them. If you’d like, you could respond in more detail as to what exactly you meant by “regulating capitalism”, you didn’t necessarily specify what “should” be regulated?

    PS. For all of the other bloggers that decided to participate in this conversation (especially Professor Taboo), there is one thing Scottie has taught me, and that is, “usage of ad-homonyms is proof your argument is garbage!” Assuming someone’s social status without much evidence is a ineffective and ignorant move, especially on the internet. I have a hunch that Professor Taboo has no clue what I’m talking about.
    🙂

    Like

    • Dylan …

      “The next time you drive into a Walmart parking lot, pause for a second to note that this Walmart–like the more than five thousand other Walmarts across the country– cost taxpayers about $1 million in direct subsidies to the employees who don’t earn enough money to pay for an apartment, buy food, or get even the most basic health care for their children. In total, Walmart benefits from more than $7 billion in subsidies each year from taxpayers like you. Those “low, low prices” are made possible by low, low wages–and by the taxes you pay to keep those workers alive on their low, low pay. Every year, employers like retailers and fast-food outlets pay wages that are so low that the rest of America ponies up a collective $153 billion to subsidize their workers. That’s $153 billion every year.”

      — Elizabeth Warren, The Fight is Our Fight: The Battle to Save America’s Middle Class

      Liked by 1 person

      • Nan, according to a 2014 report I found by Americans for Tax Fairness, Wal-Mart receives an estimated $6.2 billion in subsidies every year, primarily from the Federal Government. If Wal-Mart would only pay its workers more, the narrative runs, taxpayers would save all this money. Except this is wrong. The ATF, a coalition of union and liberal advocacy groups, based its findings on a 2013 report written by Democrats on the House Education and the Workforce Committee. Simply, none of these sources is objective by any means. House Democrats based their findings on data from one state, Wisconsin. They found that 3,216 Wal-Mart workers were enrolled in the state’s Medicaid program. Based on this number, the report calculates that a Wal-Mart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.7 million a year. To formulate that number, Democrats assumed that everyone enrolled in Medicaid is also enrolled in every other public program available for low-income families — including food stamps, subsidized housing, child care subsidies, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and more, which accounted for 72% of the supposed taxpayer costs. Plus, it states that “extrapolating taxpayer costs for Wal-Mart stores in other states based on the Wisconsin data is difficult” in large part because the state had looser rules for who could enroll in Medicaid.
        Get this, Americans for Tax Fairness simply took this already grossly inflated number and applied it to the rest of the nation. And voila, it came up with its $6.2 billion “Wal-Mart Tax.” (By the way, Wal-Mart actually paid $6.2 billion in federal income taxes in 2014.) Even if some Wal-Mart employees are collecting government benefits, that doesn’t mean taxpayers are subsidizing Wal-Mart. What I found is that most of those government aid programs are designed specifically to supplement wage income. It seems Democrats are constantly pushing to expand eligibility for these programs so more working families can collect government benefits. Blaming Wal-Mart because some do makes no sense. It’s interesting, even if the government forced Wal-Mart to raise its wages, which is the entire point of these union-backed “studies” that would likely cost taxpayers more. Why? Because Wal-Mart would hire fewer workers, leaving still more people dependent on government programs. Or it would be forced to raise prices, which would hurt lower-income families hardest.

        Next time you pull propaganda material from Liz Warren’s campaign website, make sure to double check with the facts 🙂

        Like

  8. Dylan, whether I agree with your perspective or not, while reading your comment I was thinking to myself that you were offering some decent information. However, your last “snide” remark erased any respect I had for what you had previously written. You did the same thing in your response to the Professor.

    I happen to have some very intelligent people who read this blog and several are more than willing to discuss sensitive subjects without letting emotions and/or prejudices get in the way. If you wish to continue to participate, I suggest you do the same.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. I not so sure I am the one who is revealing my emotions here. You said “However, your last “snide” remark erased any respect I had for what you had previously written”, which insinuates to me that indeed, directly after reading my last thought, you allowed your emotions to prevail entirely over the highly objective material I presented you. I agree, we can all practice tolerance every now and then (I myself included). But Nan, you aren’t rationalizing your position very well. Providing me with Elizabeth Warren campaign rhetoric in your past responses is not at all helping support your claims. If you don’t mind kindly ignoring my last “snide” remark (which I understand you wish I had not made), I would actually like to hear your response.

    Like

    • Re: Warren’s “campaign rhetoric” — it’s no better or worse than what others have put forth to support their position. I just happened to agree with her perspective.

      However, more to the point, I don’t care to get into a discussion as to why I agree because that isn’t the subject of this post. Rather, it’s related to the fact that so many wealthy people tend to have no concern for the very people that allow them to be included on Forbes’ list of billionaires.

      I suppose you could say my perspective is more about people than politics. IMO, this tends to be the position of those who support democratic socialism; that is, both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I get it Nan, you subtly advocate for wealth redistribution in the name of “meeting public needs” through democratic socialism, which seems to be the most common position progressives are settling for these days, regarding the economy at least. But what I’m attempting to convey in the most coherent manner, is that I don’t think you are recognizing the dangers of promoting a system such as “democratic socialism.” First off, because you don’t understand the system (I DONT UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM), and therefore it is not possible for you to even possess a “rational” opinion regarding the topic. Do you realize that in order to have a democratic socialist society, it would be necessary to uproot the entire existing capitalistic system? The capitalistic system we currently reside in revolves around the belief that “people are entitled to the value of their own labor”, which essentially is dictated by how much hardship and ingenuity their individual labor consumes. Like I stated a while back, people that are employed at Walmart perform daily tasks that do not require significant hardship or ingenuousness, that is why there wages are what they are. However, in a democratic socialist society, according to Democratic 2020 hopefuls, individuals are allowed to dictate how much they find there labor to be worth. So Nan, who decides how much your labor is worth? If you work for Walmart, and democratic socialism gets implemented, how much capital are you entitled to collect from the companies revenue? What chunk of the profit do you deserve?

        These are all objective questions Nan, I’m all open to hearing new ideas (I think new ideas are amazing), but I need to know the full extent of the idea, or else I can’t buy into it’s promises. This is why I don’t agree with democratic socialism, not only because a similar version of it took millions of lives during the 20th century, but also due to it’s lack of transparency.

        Like

        • I wasn’t going to respond because personally, I don’t care to get into long drawn-out discussions on subjects that likely will never be agreed upon. However, re-reading your comment, one sentence jumped out at me … However, in a democratic socialist society, according to Democratic 2020 hopefuls, individuals are allowed to dictate how much they find there labor to be worth.

          I would be interested in knowing where you read/heard this and which “hopeful” said it (in those words).

          BTW, I don’t need another “lecture” from you on economics. I’d just like you to provide the information I requested. Thanks!

          Liked by 1 person

          • No problem Nan, their are free economic courses online you can take anyway, of which have far superior information in comparison to what I can supply you with, but allow me to answer your question.

            Here is this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om43AMROOnw

            @ 5:09 / Elizabeth Warren says “their power is more important than building an America for everyone.”

            What does “building an America for everyone mean?” And then less than a minute later she states, “I believe in markets, what I don’t believe in is theft.” These are the principles of “Democratic Socialism.” Nan you can’t build an “America that works for everyone” without committing theft! There is no such thing as “UTOPIA”, and for some reason, Liz Warren can’t admit this, so I am forced to take her words seriously. If she truly believes she could make America a utopia, then I can only assume what actions she will take (if elected). I concluded (some time ago) that the only possible way, in which Warren could “make an America that works for everyone”, is by redistributing wealth, and an important component of “wealth redistribution” is allowing employees to dictate the value of their own labor. Of course there are also many other components of wealth redistribution, including “wealth taxes”, and “high tax rates” for individuals that meet a certain criteria of opulence. Bernie Sanders has one of the most extreme wealth tax proposals yet, and he has openly admitted that in order to fund his universal healthcare plan, taxes would most likely be raised on the middle class. The question conservatives (like myself) are asking the Dems, is “you have all of these socialist policy proposals, now how will you pay for them without violating the liberty of other individuals?” I all for universal healthcare, just as long as it doesn’t forcibly require people of more “financial stability” to hand over a chunk of their own earnings.

            Also, why would you ask me this question? You said, “I would be interested in knowing where you read/heard this?” What I said was something you probably know as a “talking point”, although this talking point (unlike others) has significant connotations behind it, connotations in which I just described.

            Regardless, I believe I “somewhat” answered your question, but then again you’ll probably perceive I didn’t. Oh well 🙂
            One more thing : Since I answered your question, can you answer one for me? Here it is, “how do you make an America that works for everyone?” Now that’s a tough question for a leftist, even Warren has failed to answer that one. – Nice chat

            Like

            • You’re correct. I do not perceive you answered my question. Let’s try again.

              I’m not asking for your interpretation of other people’s political beliefs/positions. I’m asking WHO actually said this — individuals are allowed to dictate how much they find there labor to be worth.

              Like

  10. Not one Democratic 2020 hopeful has ever said anything regarding what I wrote, that’s because what I wrote was a “talking point”, not (objective fact). I used my own personal interpretation of these leftists candidates to strengthen my argument against wealth redistribution. I already provided you with my interpretation of their candidacies, and you have yet to respond to any of my questions regarding them, or why any of my ideas about them may or may not be correct. I am starting to doubt whether or not you are coherent enough to have rational dialogue with the opposing side.

    Let’s try again.

    I’m not asking you to avoid answering my questions, but rather, “How do you make an America that works for everyone?” BTW I just had a fantastic idea, I’m going to head over to Scottie’s Toy Box and ask him how he thinks we can make an America that works for everyone! Then I will post his response on this page 🙂

    Like

    • I used my own personal interpretation of these leftists candidates

      Personal interpretations count for little in serious conversations. Further, “Leftist” is a misnomer that you used in a derogatory manner which automatically sets the stage for the type of discussion that will follow.

      I chose NOT to respond to your question because, as I pointed out before, I’m not interested in getting into a “political” discussion. This post was about the Waltons — and the link I provided is to an article that supports how I feel about their treatment of the Walmart workers. You disagree. That’s certainly your prerogative, but to then go into a wide-ranging discussion on today’s politics is not welcome.

      Perhaps Scottie will satisfy your desire/need for an elongated political discussion.

      Liked by 1 person

Take Some Time To Share Your Thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.