If 25% of full-time Walmart cashiers were men, each with six kids at home

[Boojatta]

(the biological children of exactly one stable marriage, not foster children or adopted children), and each with a wife working part-time in addition to taking care of the six kids...

then would you blame Walmart for not paying enough money to support what we now consider to be a large family?

[guitar man]

1. well

If they don't have enough ambition to get educated and do something better than Wal-Mart :sarcasm:

I live in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and we have been "Wal-Mart-ed" to death here. As an Oklahoma taxpayer, I am bilked to death paying for food, housing and medical care for the workers of a company owned by some of the RICHEST PEOPLE ON THE PLANET.

In addition, I have seen them suck up so much corporate welfare here it's obscene. If they can't operate their company without handouts, too bad. I think it's time to cut it off and let it fall, someone will come along and replace it.

[dysfunctional press]

2. no.

it's not walmart's (or any other employer's) responsibility to pay "enough money to support what we now consider to be a large family".
if someone makes the decision to have a large family- it's their responsibility to find a job/livlihood that pays enough to support that family.

and it's usually a good idea to have the job/livlihood at least lined up before starting on the large family.

pretty basic stuff.

[Bill McBlueState]

3. what if there aren't any jobs like that?

If the largest American employer gives its workers shit for pay and benefits, other employers are forced to follow its example if they have any hope of competing with the largest employer's prices.

Let that kind of thing go on for a few years, and soon many families have no access to jobs with fair wages and benefits.

[dysfunctional press]

4. then don't choose to have a large family.

or learn to live on what you earn.

it's the responsibility of the person who chooses to have a large family to provide for them, NOT the employer.

[Bill McBlueState]

5. many employers offer family health coverage

Many employers offer some kind of family health plan. My employer, for example, offers health insurance to my family for about $600 a year, whether I have no children or ten children. The architects of such plans apparently disagree with your claim that it's not the employer's responsibility to provide for a large family.

But, if Republican and libertarian economists continue to have their way, your claim will come closer to describing reality.

[sandnsea]

7. One mom, one kid

qualifies for food stamps in Oregon and our minimum wage is $7.80 an hour. What do you think is going on in states that still pay $5.15. You cannot blame the workers because the company chooses to let taxpayers subsidize their labor costs. Costco just raised cashier wages to 11.50. That means every other retail company can do the exact same thing. People simply cannot have low prices at the expense of these workers, and then bitch about the fact that they need govt assistance to make ends meet. You can't have it both ways.

[dysfunctional press]

8. exactly.

"You cannot blame the workers because the company chooses to let taxpayers subsidize their labor costs

just like you can't blame a company for paying as little as people are willing to work for.

it's simple economics.

[sandnsea]

9. Wow

So you blame the enslaved workers in places like the Mariana Islands?? You blame workers held captive in sweat shops? It's their own fault they were born into an economic system that preys on the weakest among us, and blames them for being preyed on?? That system just keeps picking away at the workers like vultures. And people like you stand back and cheer them on in hopes you, too, can become a vulture some day. Just sick.

[dysfunctional press]

10. i clearly said "willing"...forced labor is another issue.

i wasn't aware that the walmart workers were in some type of indentured servitude...?
is that what you're saying? that those walmart cashiers have been forced into their jobs and kept there at the point of a gun?

if so, i wasn't aware of that aspect of their plight.

if not, then it's up to them to get a better job. that's how a lot of us did it- we started at low-paying, even menial jobs, and worked our way up the capitalist food chain. and until the socio-economic situation changes DRASTICALLY in this country/world- that's the way it works. the sooner people who work at walmart realize that, the better off they have a chance to be.

[sandnsea]

21. The workers PAY for the privilege

They PAID to be taken to other countries and trapped in sweat shops they can't get out of. Desperate people do desperate things. Same as in this country. When we side with the predators, we enable them to exploit workers everywhere. That's the way it works.

The economy was crappy when I started out in the late 70's. But my house payment was a week's wages and I made just a few cents over minimum wage. A week of low income wages is $200 to $280, depending on where someone lives. You can't rent a camp trailer for that. My electric bill was $7.00. It's at least $70.00 now. It's not the same and people like you are letting this happen.

[dysfunctional press]

24. YOU'RE "letting it happen" just as well...

or don't you participate in this economy...?

[DaveJ]

11. "You can't blame the company"

Well, I can call that company pathetic. A business's success is based on the success of all its employees, not just it's shareholders and top executives. So, IMHO, big box stores are pathetic for they way they treat millions of people in America, and we should do all we can to encourage them to change their ways.

[dysfunctional press]

13. i don't shop at walmart.

but you can't blame them because of the morans who do, and who keep coming back for more and more, thereby validating their possibly immoral although legal business practices.

[DaveJ]

14. These companies lower wages

So yes they are related to a cycle that drives people to need to shop there.

[dysfunctional press]

16. nobody "needs" to shop there.

they choose to.

it may be the most convenient choice- and yes, that seems to be what many or even most americans choose, often even to their own ultimate peril. but it's still their own fault, and that of their elected representatives.

companies exist for one reason- to make money for their investors. that's the way our system currently works.

[DaveJ]

19. Our system does not work that way exactly

If companies only had to worry about shareholders we'd be living in a hellish place. In actuality companies have to consider their impact on the community in the form of government regulations. I'm saying that these regulations need to be modified to counteract the negative repercussions of these places. Retail really is a horrible place to work right now, much worse than it used to be, and I know because I come from a "Wal-mart family". My dad played tennis with Sam Walton a few times and I met him when I was a kid. But things are worse now, trust me. It can't continue this way.

Of course people are not literally forced, but economic reality and familial obligations persuade people to shop at the cheapest places even it's immoral. Two wrongs do not make a right.

[dysfunctional press]

20. yes it does.

name three companies(not charitable organizations) that are NOT in business to make a profit.

government regulations are part of the business landscape, and determines the rules by which the companies play, but their ultimate function is still exactly just to make a profit for the investors, within the confines of those laws.

[DaveJ]

25. We'll have to agree to disagree then.

A successful 'business' thrives to benefit all its employees, whereas a 'corporation' is supported by shareholders and is obligated (in some ways legally) to maximize their profit. This is where corporations differ from privately owned businesses but we the people have regulations that SHOULD prevent them from getting out of hand -- like they are now -- totally and completely out of hand. Basically we are playing semantics at this point, but why your semantics seems to be siding with them I don't understand.

OF COURSE a business can be run by scumbags. They have been throughout history. We should be up in arms against these scumbags though ESPECIALLY when they are protected by their status as PUBLICLY owned corporations.

I'm not sure you really think that Wal-Mart and their ilk (Lowes, Target, Home Depot, etc etc etc) have a negative social impact. If you don't think they do you can make that point. But if you realize, as I do, that these places are widening the socioeconomic gap, and turning us into a banana republic, I don't understand why you are not taking a stance against their utterly disgusting business practices.

To say they are operating within the law is not an excuse. We are here to try to make an argument for changing the laws. Why are you seemingly against that goal?

Anyway, I can see we won't agree on this so I'll leave it at that.

[dysfunctional press]

26. i never said i was against it- i was pointing out the facts.

i don't shop at walmart, and i make as many responsible decisions as a consumer as possible in my situation. for instance- in chicago, i do most of my home remodelling shopping at a local chain called "crafty beaver"- it's not the cheapest, but it isn't home depot, either. but there are things i do have to go to either menard's or home depot, because the beaver doesn't stock them. i also vote for and support what i feel are the most realistically progressive candidates.

but none of that changes the facts of the situation, that the vast majority of the people and corporations in this country are in it for themselves, first and foremost. and if history is any judge, until some type of catastrophic event occurs(think 9/11 times 6,894)- it isn't likely to change all that much.

[Thothmes]

30. Successful Business

I disagree with you one one point. A successful business thrives to benefit all its employees. This is incorrect. A successful business thrives to benefit its owner. The fact that employees may benefit, enjoy their situation and prosper from their employment in a particular business is due to an employer that recognizes taking care of his employees is part of a sound business plan.

[Horse with no Name]

12. That works out really well for engineers that had a good job

when they had their family.
Only problem is that most of those jobs are gone.
Some of those people are now working low-paying service jobs.

[dysfunctional press]

15. and that's the fault of the politicians, NOT the companies.

china is a communist country, just like cuba and the soviet union- why didn't the politicians retain the same type of economic embargo?

companies exist for one reason- to make money for their investors, first and foremost. getting an mba can be summed up in three words: maximize shareholder value.

and usually, the best engineers at the best companies will still have their jobs- like anything else- 'survival of the fittest' applies to capitalism as well.

[Horse with no Name]

17. Not to even get into that part

You acted as if all of these people didn't plan their futures or their families.
I'm here to tell you that some of them did.
Then politics and free trade interfered.
Not everyone is irresponsible.

[dysfunctional press]

22. i didn't say that people are irresponsible- i said that they ARE responsible.

we are each responsible for the path we choose, and the ramifications of that choice. nobody has a 100% lifetime job guarantee.

[DaveJ]

18. I agree with you on that...

This all IS the fault of the politicians. Corporations operate within their manmade legal boundaries, not natural boundaries. There is nothing preventing government from taking care of things.

[sandnsea]

23. Not off of MY TAX DOLLARS

The companies DO NOT have the right to make money for their investors through taxpayer subsidized labor costs. That's what happens when WE don't insist they pay their workers a wage that will allow those workers to pay their own housing, food, heat, health care, etc. Every time a worker receives a govt benefit, WE are subsidizing corporate profits for investors who don't lift a finger to earn that money.

I don't blame investors for wanting to ride that gravy train. But there are more workers than investors and when WE let them get away with that shit, WE are beyond stupid. They are laughing all the way to the bank.

[dysfunctional press]

27. obviously, that's incorrect.

the government sets the minimum wage, and the government decides at what income level people qualify for government assistance. if people CHOOSE to have families that they cannot support on their paycheck, it's not the fault/responsibility of their employer.

and yes, WE all are the ones who set up the system, let it work the way it does, and sit back spending our free time typing about it.

is this a great country, or what?

[sandnsea]

28. Welcome to ignore n/t

I don't waste my time with people who aren't serious about the issues that face this country and the world. This isn't a joke.

[dysfunctional press]

29. some people have a bad reaction to the truth.

and don't like being reminded that they are just as a big a part of the problem as anyone else...:shrug:

[haele]

33. It's not just subsidizing corporate profits through wages/benefits -

It's also about not treating local businesses the same as the big box stores -
Local governments are systematically being over-run by large development corporations seating their cronies on commissions and boards who get kickbacks by these box/mall anchor stores across the board (grocery, pharmacy, hardware, general retail)to use city or county property basically free of charge to develop and move in on the false promises of "helping the local economy". So tax revenues that would normally pay for infrastructure development - utilities, police and fire, roads, schools, environmental quality control, etc are not being collected during both the development phase and the first few years the box store is in business to sweeten the deal.
This usually ends badly - better paying jobs with local or union retail businesses disappear as the big box strangles local competitors, which further depresses the tax base by the loss of those businesses, resulting in cuts in city or county service jobs as well as fewer retail jobs (due to fewer stores), which now depresses the consumer side of the local economy...
Which increases lower income issues like poverty and crime. And now, your local government does not have enough police and other social resources to combat those problems. And the cycle continues, as now the middle class service jobs (mechanical/technical, legal, health and wellbeing)dry up because no one can afford "extra" services and local economy slides further down and the gap between the local "rich" and the rest of the community increases.
I've seen this happen too many times here in California. The developers promise all sorts of benefits, but with mysterious cost over-runs which somehow end up with the promised "library, fire station and civic center adjacent to the new mall" or "road improvements and new lower/middle income housing projects" they were also supposed to provide remaining fallow fields to be turned into a parking lot and too many smaller local businesses and corporations, like small manufacturing, closing down because they're having to shoulder a higher tax burden while the big box store is granted a two to five year tax break. And even after that, the profits never make it back to the local economy, they always go to the corporate office, which is usually located out of state somewhere like Delaware where the tax laws are very favorable to big businesses.

The local area never sees a benefit when a big box moves in. Never. The only "local business" that ever sees a benefit is the very short term benefit the development company makes while they're building - usually using undocumented or non-union (cheap) labor. Once it's built, they have to go around looking for another big box development to force through the local development commission boards and make "next year's profits". Meantime, jobs are being lost left and right, and the local economies go down the toilet. The local area becomes basically a ghost town, a couple big box businesses in malls, some housing tracts over what used to be successful farmland or manufacturing centers that becomes at best suburban bedrooms for commuters (at worst, rental ghettos owned by a few slum-lords as everyone else either sold out or was eventually foreclosed upon), and no other real local jobs other than a very few police, fire and other services that are otherwise cut to the bone, not seeing any income increase over the past four or five years.

Wal-Mart and other box stores - a scam all the way around.

Haele

[sandnsea]

6. Are you kidding me?

Are you saying a full time minimum wage job, and another part-time minimum wage job - is enough to raise ONE KID??? News flash. It isn't. It might be enough to pay your very basic bills, but a vehicle breakdown or kids illness or some emergency will put that family over the brink and make it impossible to recover. It's also impossible to save for college or provide any extra lessons which are the kind of thing wealthy people do to build self esteem and just a basic sense that the world is good. So I don't know where you got your mythical 6 kids from, but that's not what is going on in America.

[Boojatta]

31. I tried to select words to signal that it's a hypothetical.

So I don't know where you got your mythical 6 kids from, but that's not what is going on in America.

See emphasized words:

If 25% of full-time Walmart cashiers were men, each with six kids at home (the biological children of exactly one stable marriage, not foster children or adopted children), and each with a wife working part-time in addition to taking care of the six kids...

then would you blame Walmart for not paying enough money to support what we now consider to be a large family?

[haele]

34. In the bad old days, a minimum wage worker could support a family of 4

My father and mother - while both were part time university students throughout the 60's, dad working as a garage mechanic - later a student teacher and substitute teacher - and mom working as a part-time librarian - later a university secretary, never making much more minimum wage at any time - were able to do this and still afford a week of summer family vacation (usually camping at a national park a hundred or so miles away), a car and insurance, and medical and "hobbies" (music and YMCA "Indian Guides") for us two kids. There were a few tight times when they both got into the graduate portion of their studies, but we were still able to do it and live in a decent, working class area of town.

I have contemporaries who's parents worked in general labor or retail all their lives, and were still able to buy a house and raise families of 4 to 8. One of my best friends growing up had three slightly older siblings and was being raised by a widow who worked as bank teller, with no other job. Her father apparently left them with only enough money to be able to pay off the existing bills, including Lisa's birth when he died in an auto accident before she was born. The mother was able to send all four kids off to college.

It was common knowledge back then that not everyone could be a manager or a professional - not because they didn't have "the smarts" or the drive, but because there are always only so many management and professional jobs around in any one area. The number of under-employed degreed people there has always been around pretty much proves this.
Having a good job in the field you trained in has always been more a matter of luck and who you know than anything else - luck that there's an opening at the time that you're looking and who you know - or are able to impress - that will be able to make you more desirable to hire than everyone else who is applying for the same job you are. The higher up the ladder you want to go, the harder it is to find both luck and impressionable potential employers. Back in the day, it appeared that most companies understood this and would make an effort to be ethical enough in their practices to enable their lower level full-time workers to have at least a living wage.

The Reagan years pretty much destroyed the idea of a successful blue collar worker.

Haele

[Nikki Stone1]

32. Yes.

They pay crap for wages and don't allow unions, regardless of the number of children anyone has.