Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tucker Carlson criticizes Amazon and Wall Mart for providing low wages to Workers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    As I said, the problem lies not with Walmart but with government. They set up the rules regarding their social-welfare state. Walmart is simply taking advantage of those rules, as do many people on their own. For example, there are people who know how much they can make working before they won't qualify for the maximum Earned Income Credit (EIC) on their taxes. They quit or better, get fired, just before that amount is reached. That lets them go on unemployment and other welfare and max out their tax return income which is often, combined, worth more than working a low wage job.

    When welfare pays equal or better than a low wage job, why would anyone work when they can simply be handed a paycheck for sluffing off? Getting labeled as "disabled" has become a national pastime. Once you are you get social security checks for life, can still work under the table, often qualify for other government handouts, and spend the rest of your life not doing anything while getting paid pretty damn good for doing it.
    Bold mine...

    As usual, you do not make sense. We had a long period in which there was not any social safety net. That made zero difference to the business at the time. There is no reason to believe that if tomorrow we eliminate the safety net we have, the Walmart management will feel a moral obligation to feel the void by increasing wages. You give them too muhc credit when in reality the only think they care about is how to make more money.
    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by pamak View Post

      Stop BS us!


      you are simply provoking the original poster when in reality you are the one who shamelessly lies when you said "I thought it odd that Carlson would say something like: " Wealthy Americans have a duty to give back." so I listened to his clip.
      Interestingly, he never said anything like that.



      I listened also to his clip.

      Here is the one from the first clip @ 4:08 when he mentions the "moral obligation" of the more powerful to take care of the less powerful in the world



      Now feel free to discredit your self even more by starting the game of semantics ..

      Sorry, even your interpretation doesn't help.


      You will note that even in your quote he doesn't say that, but other than that you are absolutely right.
      But you're doing really good.
      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by pamak View Post

        Bold mine...

        As usual, you do not make sense. We had a long period in which there was not any social safety net. That made zero difference to the business at the time. There is no reason to believe that if tomorrow we eliminate the safety net we have, the Walmart management will feel a moral obligation to feel the void by increasing wages. You give them too muhc credit when in reality the only think they care about is how to make more money.
        That is an argument from ignorance, or proof of a negative. We don't know what Walmart might do if that happened. All we can do is speculate. But, we do know that Walmart takes advantage of the government run social welfare state to keep wages lower than they might otherwise be forced to be.

        I personally think, in your example, that wages would be what the market would bear. That is, in places were Walmart was having difficulty hiring people either because of a low wage, the cost of living, or a labor shortage, wages would rise until they could get the people they needed to run the store. In other places where labor was cheap and plentiful I'd expect the wage to be low.

        For example, I can recall as much as a decade plus ago McDonald's and other fast food stores in places like New York City were paying $10 to $12 + when minimum wage was like $7.50 because they couldn't hire workers for less while the same type of store in say Kansas was having no problems getting them at $7.50.

        Comment


        • #49
          To me, the concept of what rights the corporations have should radically change in order to address the problem of modern economy in which automation threatens to destabilize a big part of the labor force. At some point, it must become clear that the advantage of "limited liability" which is granted by the government in order to shield corporate stockholders from lawsuits against them personally should come with more strings attached.

          And some of these strings should make it clear that corporate management and stockholders should have additional responsibilities to just maximizing profits for them. If people do not want to assume such responsibilities, then they should do business unprotected by the capricious invention of fictitious legal entities, such as corporations. If they do not like such changes, they can do business as sole proprietors if they wish...
          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by pamak View Post
            To me, the concept of what rights the corporations have should radically change in order to address the problem of modern economy in which automation threatens to destabilize a big part of the labor force. At some point, it must become clear that the advantage of "limited liability" which is granted by the government in order to shield corporate stockholders from lawsuits against them personally should come with more strings attached.

            And some of these strings should make it clear that corporate management and stockholders should have additional responsibilities to just maximizing profits for them. If people do not want to assume such responsibilities, then they should do business unprotected by the capricious invention of fictitious legal entities, such as corporations. If they do not like such changes, they can do business as sole proprietors if they wish...
            I think far more importantly, is how do we limit the capriciousness of government? Unaccountable government is far worse than unaccountable corporations.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

              I think far more importantly, is how do we limit the capriciousness of government? Unaccountable government is far worse than unaccountable corporations.
              Ummm, we do have checks and balances against the government. We also have input in government decisions through democratic institutions. By contrast, corporations are wayy more out of control and detached from the common citizen.

              We cannot check them nor can we influence their decisions since the majority of the stocks is controlled by about the top 10% of the population. And since in corporate elections the more stocks you have the more votes yo cast, we effectively have a system which is controlled by the top 10% of the population. And yes, despite your 401s and IRAs and anything that uses stocks as investments for retirement, we still see a wealthy elite control the majority of the stocks

              http://time.com/money/5054009/stock-...rcent-richest/
              The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks

              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by pamak View Post

                Bold mine...

                As usual, you do not make sense. We had a long period in which there was not any social safety net. That made zero difference to the business at the time. There is no reason to believe that if tomorrow we eliminate the safety net we have, the Walmart management will feel a moral obligation to feel the void by increasing wages. You give them too muhc credit when in reality the only think they care about is how to make more money.
                Of course there would be no moral obligation for a company to pay more if there were no safety net. That's not how economics works.

                However the worker, no longer receiving a handout, is likely to make greater efforts to to earn more to make up the difference. The incentive for him to seek employment elsewhere would be greater so that if Walmart wanted to keep him they would have to pay him more. This is why people argue that the taxpayer is subsidising Walmart. They are enabling Walmart to pay workers less than they would under a free market.

                Morals have nothing to do with it.
                "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by pamak View Post

                  Ummm, we do have checks and balances against the government. We also have input in government decisions through democratic institutions. By contrast, corporations are wayy more out of control and detached from the common citizen.

                  We cannot check them nor can we influence their decisions since the majority of the stocks is controlled by about the top 10% of the population. And since in corporate elections the more stocks you have the more votes yo cast, we effectively have a system which is controlled by the top 10% of the population. And yes, despite your 401s and IRAs and anything that uses stocks as investments for retirement, we still see a wealthy elite control the majority of the stocks

                  http://time.com/money/5054009/stock-...rcent-richest/
                  The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks
                  Really? What corporation can force you to buy their product? Name a corporation that can use force to take everything you have without a trial or throw you in prison. In a trail situation, a corporation will weigh the cost of the trial against simply paying out and choose. The government has no such compunction as they have unlimited resources. They can, theoretically, take your money to pay for trying you in court until you are broke then convict and incarcerate you.

                  If everybody decided to stop buying Walmart's products, Walmart would have a problem. If everyone under the original Obamacare decided health insurance was too damn expensive and stopped buying it, the government would simply tax you to the tune of those payments as punishment and nothing would change.

                  Government is far, far, more dangerous than any corporation ever was or is.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Surrey View Post

                    Of course there would be no moral obligation for a company to pay more if there were no safety net. That's not how economics works.

                    However the worker, no longer receiving a handout, is likely to make greater efforts to to earn more to make up the difference. The incentive for him to seek employment elsewhere would be greater so that if Walmart wanted to keep him they would have to pay him more. This is why people argue that the taxpayer is subsidising Walmart. They are enabling Walmart to pay workers less than they would under a free market.

                    Morals have nothing to do with it.
                    Under the same economic conditions, the result would have been the same. Some workers who for some reason could not make it elsewhere (mostly low-skilled) would end-up working for Walmart. When we developed a safety net was because the private sector did not voluntarily offer living wages even when the workers were **** poor.

                    On the other hand, I can see an argument that a more desperate worker is also a more dangerous one, and a person who is more willing to fight for a living wage. But this in effect would replicate the conditions of the past since the government interventions in the market were the result of social unrest and not a result of some sudden divine revelation to help the workers...
                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by pamak View Post
                      To me, the concept of what rights the corporations have should radically change in order to address the problem of modern economy in which automation threatens to destabilize a big part of the labor force. At some point, it must become clear that the advantage of "limited liability" which is granted by the government in order to shield corporate stockholders from lawsuits against them personally should come with more strings attached.

                      And some of these strings should make it clear that corporate management and stockholders should have additional responsibilities to just maximizing profits for them. If people do not want to assume such responsibilities, then they should do business unprotected by the capricious invention of fictitious legal entities, such as corporations. If they do not like such changes, they can do business as sole proprietors if they wish...
                      Automation was 'destabilising a large part of the labour force' at the time when limited liability companies were invented.
                      Limited liability has been a spectacular success as far as the world economy is involved. With a very few exceptions all but the smallest economic entities have limited liability. Further the limited liability of shares is factored into the return they provide to investors. If liability were not limited investors would either not invest or would demand a vastly greater return.
                      "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                        Really? What corporation can force you to buy their product? Name a corporation that can use force to take everything you have without a trial or throw you in prison. In a trail situation, a corporation will weigh the cost of the trial against simply paying out and choose. The government has no such compunction as they have unlimited resources. They can, theoretically, take your money to pay for trying you in court until you are broke then convict and incarcerate you.

                        If everybody decided to stop buying Walmart's products, Walmart would have a problem. If everyone under the original Obamacare decided health insurance was too damn expensive and stopped buying it, the government would simply tax you to the tune of those payments as punishment and nothing would change.

                        Government is far, far, more dangerous than any corporation ever was or is.
                        If you want to survive in a modern economy, you are forced to buy corporate products. Try to survive without internet! Try to operate a business or even a household without having a credit card and credit score. I learned this first hand when I came from Greece at a tie when bank finance there was undeveloped. I never needed then a credit card or a credit report. After I came here, I realized soon that I had to adapt quickly to new rules and establish as soon as possible credit score.

                        Then on top of the above, we have the issue of legal decisions which permit money to influence politics which means that with an excessive inequality, the top 10% is much more powerful in using politicians to accomplish its objectives. Corporations are much more dangerous in subverting democracy. We cannot address government abuse without addressing the money in politics.
                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by pamak View Post

                          If you want to survive in a modern economy, you are forced to buy corporate products. Try to survive without internet! Try to operate a business or even a household without having a credit card and credit score. I learned this first hand when I came from Greece at a tie when bank finance there was undeveloped. I never needed then a credit card or a credit report. After I came here, I realized soon that I had to adapt quickly to new rules and establish as soon as possible credit score.

                          Then on top of the above, we have the issue of legal decisions which permit money to influence politics which means that with an excessive inequality, the top 10% is much more powerful in using politicians to accomplish its objectives. Corporations are much more dangerous in subverting democracy. We cannot address government abuse without addressing the money in politics.
                          Your from Greece? Where little happens unless you give a government official a little envolpe? Where taxes are optional? Where the reason for not using credit cards and banks is to evade tax?

                          I know which system I prefer.

                          "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Surrey View Post

                            Your from Greece? Where little happens unless you give a government official a little envolpe? Where taxes are optional? Where the reason for not using credit cards and banks is to evade tax?

                            I know which system I prefer.
                            You are way off!

                            When I left there was not a liberalization of the banker sector in Greece. The weak drahma helped to control spending and debt. But with the adoption of EU many things changed. While I was here (US), the Greek banks managed to promote the same BS practices to the consumers. People getting credit to pay for everyday expenses became very popular, and this was certainly a sign of what was going to come.
                            Last edited by pamak; 19 Sep 18, 18:29.
                            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post

                              No wonder your business is barely making it by. Not all businesses are meant to survive off peanuts and paying employees in peanuts. I'd start with getting a website going first.

                              You should listen to democratic policies, they help economies. Which is why blue states have better economies than red states. The writing is on the wall, I don't think you care to notice it.
                              You have no clue what you're talking about concerning my business. And surviving doesn't mean barely making it. A 15 dollar an hour minimum isn't realistic. And that increase without a corresponding increase for everyone else would create more problems, as skilled workers are suddenly worth less.
                              ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

                              BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

                              BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post

                                You have no clue what you're talking about concerning my business. And surviving doesn't mean barely making it. A 15 dollar an hour minimum isn't realistic. And that increase without a corresponding increase for everyone else would create more problems, as skilled workers are suddenly worth less.
                                Nope! An increase at the bottom of the pay scale does not affect the salary of EVERYBODY. It does affect the salaries of people close to minimum wage but such increases diminish as we go up the ladder and soon vanish. By the way, there is no doubt that $15 in SF is different from paying $15 in Kansas. Also, there is no doubt that small business have bigger challenges when they compete against big corporationst. As it was already mentioned before, is well known that the Wallmart business leads to the closure of smaller competitors. That was all good and nice when people supporting Wallmart could argue that any practice that leads to cheaper products is good for the public. The average American consumer could buy this claim as long as it did not see himself become victims of such practices. Of course, now that many Americans see the cheap Chinese products and the corporate tactics directly affecting them, they decided that such thing is unacceptable...
                                Last edited by pamak; 19 Sep 18, 18:56.
                                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X