Domino Effect

MacDonalds and Walmart workers have more employees on welfare than any other companies in the United States.

Think about that. They’re working, usually anywhere from 40-60 hours a week, and they still need public assistance and government funded healthcare.

minimum wage jobs have little to no health care benefits because of the amount of they make per year the necessity of each worker. the reason they dont have health care or very little coverage is because that costs money and there are 1.5 million workers, and giving each $1000 worth of healthcare coverage per year plus taxes would cost them billions per year. Its not about profit, or being greedy its the fact that they dont have the money to supply it.

Thanks for taking the corporate line. I’ll present the workers’ side of it and use FDR as the benchmark, particularly with regards to the minimum wage:

“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.”

By ‘business’ I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of decent living.”

The minimum wage wasn’t meant to provide rock bottom labor for corporations. It was meant to be a standard for a living wage.

If minimum wage is keeping you at or barely above the poverty line, minimum wage is too low.

Check the stock market (the idiot’s barometer for the ‘health’ of the economy), and when the stock market skyrocketed while unemployment was over 20%, is there a more glaring example that the system is rigged to the wealthy?

And guess what? Those huge corporations who can more than afford health benefits for each and every one of their workers? They don’t have to pay for those health benefits. Those workers go on government assistance. Guess who pays for it? We do.

So, just to make sure you’re keeping score; major corporations make gobs of money, pay their rank and file and pittance, don’t provide health benefits, and WE get stuck with the bill.

This is a long way around me telling you to stop making stupid f**king excuses for the wealthy. You’re not one of them. You’ll never be one of them. And they don’t want you. You’re cannon fodder. Don’t defend them.

this isnt a excuse for the wealthy, they do not have the physical money to provide for their workers. Lets take it from the numbers, walmart in 2016 made about 2.7 billion dollars in profit, this lead to them opening produce, which cost them about 1.1 billion in store changes, 300 million in creating new jobs, leaving the rest to stock investment and creating more job. in reality the ceo of walmart only gains 24 million dollars in worth every year, about 2.1 million in cash, and that is what the ceo should get, he runs a huge company and that is the reward for working hard.

Horseshit.

Just in the money they make off their own stocks could pay for bennys for the entire company. If you say can’t afford to pay a living wage and they don’t want to pay a living wage, you’re overleveraged, so GTFO. The CEO makes, in salary and options, over $23 million a year and, according to their own website, they pay their store managers $180k a year but the rest get hosed?

I am a proud union operating engineer and I will not give my money to a union-busting anti-worker, low-rent crap pile like Walmart.

then you dont have to go there, diffrent roles get paided different wages, if you manage a entire store, which i have heard is alot of work, you will be paid more than a person who shelves food. i worked at safeway, which has worse pay than walmart and can say that the more important stuff you get to handle, the more you are paid. lets say you give 100% of the ceo's wage to the workers, that would give 15 bucks about, 1.5 hours of work. if you take all of the wages of people higher up in walmart, it gives about 38 dollars per worker. if you or someone else is unhappy with working at a crap job, you should of gone to college and got a education, or work somewhere else that gives better benefits

“If you or someone else is unhappy with working at a crap job, you should of gone to college and got a education, or work somewhere else that gives better benefits”

Should *have gone to college. That’s a touch of irony there.

So what you’re saying is these low-wage earners should pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Spoken like a true elitist.

The rest of your response is just ‘conservative’ bulletpoint nonsense. You’re the best kind of cattle...you’re the cow that tries to convince the rest of the herd that the slaughterhouse is a great vacation spot and they should go quietly.

im saying that better paying jobs like that you have a college education, thats who you get a good job. If you have no money to go to college you can go to community college and try to get a scholarship. if you dont have to money or time for college, and a family to provide for, you can get financial aid and maybe that will free up some time for college.

You don’t know what you’re saying. You actually haven’t the foggiest idea of what you’re saying.

What you’re saying is if you have the time and money to go to school, you go to school. And if you don’t have the time or money to go to school, you have to make the time and money to go to school. But if you can’t, you’re not entitled to a living wage.

Heard of looking for a different job? That's what most people do when they aren't paid enough.

Did you pass economics?

Classic leftists response.

Ok Karen

Whatever to tell yourself, pal.

This is a comeback how?

Perhaps you should have lead with that instead of rolling your eyes.

"an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."

Ok, so after you checked the interwebs and cut-and-pasted it, you recognize your error? Ahhh, who am I kidding? You’re still clueless.

“Classic leftists response.”
“Whatever to tell yourself, pal.”

I was completely baffled by your snappy comebacks. But let’s get back to your brilliant initial observation:
“Heard of looking for a different job? That's what most people do when they aren't paid enough.”

‘Conservatives’ love to play the ‘pull yourself up by your bootstraps’ angle whenever it comes to leveling the playing field. The truth of the matter is that, particularly in this country, a rising tide doesn’t raise all boats. A recent report by the nonpartisan Rand Group found that between the years 1975 and 2018, the top 1% ‘redistributed’ (translation: STOLE) 50 trillion...with a T...dollars from the bottom 90%. The stock market boomed surged with 20+% unemployment...mainly because people who could afford to buy stocks low in massive amounts (translation: RICH PEOPLE) capitalized on the suffering of the general public.

So spare me your basic bitch bootstrap nonsense, k?

Ok, keep on with those strawman tactics.

You do realize that the top 20% pay 90% of the taxes right?

....and there’s no money for anything but this administration managed to find $1.5 trillion in tax cuts for the ultra wealthy.

You can try and pull the economics card, but here’s some simple math: if I’m paying 42% out of my paycheck every week, and still live a comfortable, middle-class lifestyle, someone making a million dollars can pay at least that percentage, if not more.

The US economy was never stronger than post-WWII when the tax rates on the top 1% were 80%+.

You’re arguing in favor of a club you will never be a part of. It’s kind of sad, actually.

Your in the top 10% if you make 100k a year. I've never been hired by someone on welfare.

Okay, not quite a strawman, but definitely a clunky sidestep.

You haven’t addressed my point. If my combined state and federal tax rate is 42%, why should a millionaire or a billionaire get away with paying a smaller percentage? If can afford to pay more, why don’t you have to pay more?

Why reduce the capital gains taxes? Why reduce the tax on stocks, which requires nothing but money to make work, when the value of those stocks is rooted in the sweat of labor?

But, again, a $1.5 TRILLION tax cut for the wealthiest of us? Remind me the last time trickle-down economics actually worked.

If you tax the rich too much they either leave or bribe politicians to give them tax loopholes. Getting rid of the manager investors is a big mistake. Kind of like what's happening to the Democrat states.

So what did you get in your Intro to Econ class? C-?

Your answer to me regarding rich people paying their fair share in taxes is, essentially, “we’re afraid of them.” And therein lies the problem.

Interesting observation regarding blue states. Take a look at this article and let me know if you see a pattern...
https://247wallst.com/special-report/2018/10/04/americas-richest-and-poorest-states-6

I’ll save you the time. Democratic states compose 15 of the top 20 richest states and 9 of the top 10...and Alaska is only there because of oil.

Not to mention that when companies get tax too high they move to a different country, but that does not happen..right? where did Ford go?

walmart workers have nothing to worry about

yeah those guys chillin

too stupid to unionize

It’s got less to do with being too stupid and more to do with Walmart (and others of their ilk) actively union busting and preventing workers from organizing.

It’s actually quite insidious the way these corporations convince people to actively participate in their own wage oppression.

voters were the ones who agreed to be "right to work" states

While I agree with your sentiment, it’s the delivery that needs work.

Yes, voters agreed to the right-to-work propaganda, but that’s because they believed the propaganda. Sometimes people are ignorant of the truth and screaming it at them won’t deliver the message any more than hitting them with a hammer will.

It’s the old bull-young bull adage.

Or, you can lead a horse to water and sometimes it just dies.

delivery or digiorno? if they believed the propaganda, isn't that because they are stupid?

I know ‘uneducated’ people that are way smarter than most college-educated people. Give them the correct information and the smart ones will figure it out.

Calling them ‘stupid’ just alienates them. That’s not the point. You can’t harangue people into agreeing with you.

Agree with the first part, but if they are uneducated, but "smart", why are they voting for right to work?

If you’ve been raised on a steady diet of nothing but corporate propaganda, what else do you know? It’s human nature to accept it as fact because people don't want to hurt other people, right?

Sometimes you have to force change and let the results speak for themselves.

Yeah, I see your point. Which is why I ask people who complain about their poverty why they vote for perpetuate it. The meme here perpetuates poverty by supporting right to work and trickle down economics.

Um......
raising taxes on the rich would be a good thing
because the rich don’t typically pay someone a high salary.
And honestly, the richer you are the more you have to spend.

so heres what you get wrong.
the rich usually get their money by working as a higher up member of a company or trade stocks, both require lots of hard work and effort. There is a large difference in work effort between person who makes coffee from 9-5 and a person who runs a multi billion dollar company. Taxing the rich more will increase product price and will inflate the market, they already contribute so much by spending money and IT IS NOT YOUR SAY how rich spend their money, they earned it, they can spend it how they please

The rich also often make money from inheritance, and I really don’t think raising taxes on people who make so so so much more money than people struggling to get by. Someone working 9 to 5 might not choose to work 9 to 5, but because of their childhood responsibilities or hard life have to. When someone has a disproportionately large amount of money I say some of it should go to taxes.
Right. And rich people still frequently underpay people.