The epitome of what’s wrong with America - Wal Mart now worth a TRILLION dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It all goes to show we
1.) need to bolster worker protections back up and pay living wages, and
2.) we need to tax big corporations and the billionaires enriched by them a bit more.
That much is crystal clear.

Everybody loves to say we need to “pay living wages” but what does that MEAN?

How is the amount of “living wage” determined?
There are teenage employees still living with parents, or single people living with roommates. They don’t need as much to live on as a single mom with three kids who needs an apartment or house. Does that mean the minimum wage should be set according to what the highest need is? Walmart should pay everyone as if they are feeding a family of four?

What if someone just isn’t ever going to be highly efficient or productive? Would you be happier if those individuals are unemployed and receive welfare? Because that is what happens when wage floors are set.

What do you mean when you say productive?

And are you aware that employed Walmart workers already receive welfare?

By productive, I mean as an example I can scan 5 carts of groceries in 15 minutes vs 2 carts of groceries in 15 minutes. Or I can lift 10 crates in 2 minutes vs 5 crates. Or in addition to scanning groceries I also know how to provide customer service. Some people are naturally better workers than others. They usually grow their skills and obtain higher wages. But for those who don’t, and are just scanning the groceries, it is better for them to be employed than not.

And yes, of course I am aware that Walmart employees already receive benefits. But it’s not Walmart’s fault that there’s a single mom with a deadbeat ex who needs benefits in order to make ends meet. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of its employees have kids they can’t afford. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of their employees never progress beyond the most menial of tasks. And it isn’t Walmart’s fault that things like housing and healthcare, both of which receive large government subsidies, have become so unaffordable that even middle class salaries have a hard time affording them.

Do you think walmart cashiers are paid according to how quickly they scan groceries?

You’re so f—king stupid you’re not worth talking to. Although I’m curious what “skills” you have and how “productive” you are. Please share with the class, we could all use a good laugh.

What an awesome, smart person you must be. What a genius way to win hearts and minds!!

Truth is, I started out as many do. My parents didn’t go to college. My dad worked as a mailman and then had varying success as a small businessman while my mom worked in a factory. My first jobs were in grocery stores and retail. I took student loans and went to college, first gen, blah blah blah. Got a low level call center job, then figured out Microsoft Excel, picked up some accounting skills, eventually went on to build databases, went to on SQL, Python, data analysis with some legal stuff thrown in. Nothing irreplaceable, and I am not that special, but there is a reason I make 150k and not $15 an hour.

I know that grocery stores generally don’t pay some people more than others based on how fast you can scan a cart. I also know that if you have some hustle and are efficient, you can make much more than minimum wage while working at Aldi. Not everyone is cut out for that though… some cannot handle the pace. For those, there is Giant.

Oh, honey. You are suffering under tge delusion that your heart and mind are worth winning. I assure you, they are not. You are a garbage person to your core.

You will never make the world a better place with that attitude.

Did I say Walmart is great?
Did I say they shouldn’t be paying more in taxes?

Would you answer PPs question - is it an employers responsibility to provide a wage that meets an employee’s needs, whatever they are, regardless of the work being performed?

Why won’t you answer this?

Oh right, because it is better to call people garbage and try and shut down any meaningful conversation.

DP. You literally blamed the people who work at Walmart, rather than Waltons who are all billionaires (not just one, all !). You said they should all work at ALDI like that’s the simplest thing in the world. Problem solved.

Do you shop at Walmart with your $150k salary that you earn for nothing special?

You really should read up on how Walmart’s policies put hundreds of thousands out of work, were the biggest drivers of sending manufacturing jobs to China, how they disproportionately their employees use taxpayer-funded social services, and how their low prices contributed to overconsumption and the destruction of the planet.

Do you believe it is an employer’s responsibility to pay whatever a particular employee needs due to their personal circumstances?

No one has said any such thing except you. Did you get a degree from the Charlie Kirk school of “debate” while you learned PYTHON and EXCEL?

You’re a clown, bro.

Posts like 14:49 imply exactly that.

I’m not a bro of any sort. I’m a single mom.

It’s not hard to see why you’re single.

Who needs a man when I can support myself??

But you don’t support yourself. Your man STILL supports you, by your own admission.

Time to sink or swim, honey.

He pays child support according to a formula, not alimony. I make far too much money for alimony.

It must be hard to wrap your head around a self supporting college educated female having different opinions than you.

But you’re not self supporting. You’re making your ex pay you for the kids you chose to have and apparently can’t afford to support on your own. Why should your ex be responsible for your choices? Why should he have to pay you according to, what did you say it was, a formula? Rather than your “market value”? (Which to him is apparently nothing.)

I mean, you’ve been all over this thread preaching against workers being paid according to anything BUT their market value, haven’t you? But you think your situation is somehow different?

Are you the incel from the special concerns forum??
I make 150k, you think I cannot support myself?

Even if I made 600k, my ex husband would still be on the responsible for some degree of child support, based on his income, if they do not live with him. I don’t know what point you are trying to make, other than to try and discredit me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It all goes to show we
1.) need to bolster worker protections back up and pay living wages, and
2.) we need to tax big corporations and the billionaires enriched by them a bit more.
That much is crystal clear.

Everybody loves to say we need to “pay living wages” but what does that MEAN?

How is the amount of “living wage” determined?
There are teenage employees still living with parents, or single people living with roommates. They don’t need as much to live on as a single mom with three kids who needs an apartment or house. Does that mean the minimum wage should be set according to what the highest need is? Walmart should pay everyone as if they are feeding a family of four?

What if someone just isn’t ever going to be highly efficient or productive? Would you be happier if those individuals are unemployed and receive welfare? Because that is what happens when wage floors are set.

What do you mean when you say productive?

And are you aware that employed Walmart workers already receive welfare?

By productive, I mean as an example I can scan 5 carts of groceries in 15 minutes vs 2 carts of groceries in 15 minutes. Or I can lift 10 crates in 2 minutes vs 5 crates. Or in addition to scanning groceries I also know how to provide customer service. Some people are naturally better workers than others. They usually grow their skills and obtain higher wages. But for those who don’t, and are just scanning the groceries, it is better for them to be employed than not.

And yes, of course I am aware that Walmart employees already receive benefits. But it’s not Walmart’s fault that there’s a single mom with a deadbeat ex who needs benefits in order to make ends meet. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of its employees have kids they can’t afford. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of their employees never progress beyond the most menial of tasks. And it isn’t Walmart’s fault that things like housing and healthcare, both of which receive large government subsidies, have become so unaffordable that even middle class salaries have a hard time affording them.

Do you think walmart cashiers are paid according to how quickly they scan groceries?

You’re so f—king stupid you’re not worth talking to. Although I’m curious what “skills” you have and how “productive” you are. Please share with the class, we could all use a good laugh.

What an awesome, smart person you must be. What a genius way to win hearts and minds!!

Truth is, I started out as many do. My parents didn’t go to college. My dad worked as a mailman and then had varying success as a small businessman while my mom worked in a factory. My first jobs were in grocery stores and retail. I took student loans and went to college, first gen, blah blah blah. Got a low level call center job, then figured out Microsoft Excel, picked up some accounting skills, eventually went on to build databases, went to on SQL, Python, data analysis with some legal stuff thrown in. Nothing irreplaceable, and I am not that special, but there is a reason I make 150k and not $15 an hour.

I know that grocery stores generally don’t pay some people more than others based on how fast you can scan a cart. I also know that if you have some hustle and are efficient, you can make much more than minimum wage while working at Aldi. Not everyone is cut out for that though… some cannot handle the pace. For those, there is Giant.

Oh, honey. You are suffering under tge delusion that your heart and mind are worth winning. I assure you, they are not. You are a garbage person to your core.

You will never make the world a better place with that attitude.

Did I say Walmart is great?
Did I say they shouldn’t be paying more in taxes?

Would you answer PPs question - is it an employers responsibility to provide a wage that meets an employee’s needs, whatever they are, regardless of the work being performed?

Why won’t you answer this?

Oh right, because it is better to call people garbage and try and shut down any meaningful conversation.

DP. You literally blamed the people who work at Walmart, rather than Waltons who are all billionaires (not just one, all !). You said they should all work at ALDI like that’s the simplest thing in the world. Problem solved.

Do you shop at Walmart with your $150k salary that you earn for nothing special?

You really should read up on how Walmart’s policies put hundreds of thousands out of work, were the biggest drivers of sending manufacturing jobs to China, how they disproportionately their employees use taxpayer-funded social services, and how their low prices contributed to overconsumption and the destruction of the planet.

Do you believe it is an employer’s responsibility to pay whatever a particular employee needs due to their personal circumstances?

No one has said any such thing except you. Did you get a degree from the Charlie Kirk school of “debate” while you learned PYTHON and EXCEL?

You’re a clown, bro.

Posts like 14:49 imply exactly that.

I’m not a bro of any sort. I’m a single mom.

It’s not hard to see why you’re single.

Who needs a man when I can support myself??

She’s being subsidized by the taxpayers to raise her spawn she irresponsibly had without securing a two parent household.

Not me. I work, make money, and pay all kinds of taxes. While I am technically “single” my kids do have a dad who also works, pays taxes, and helps provide for those kids. I just wanted PP to know I am not a “bro”.

“All kinds of taxes” - sure, Jan. Let’s see your filing for last year and we’ll point out all the breaks you’re getting.

Also hilarious that you’re forcing some man to subsidize your choice to be a single mom.

Just curious, are you MAGA? Misogynist? I am so terribly confused.

That much is obvious.

Well, are you MAGA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It all goes to show we
1.) need to bolster worker protections back up and pay living wages, and
2.) we need to tax big corporations and the billionaires enriched by them a bit more.
That much is crystal clear.

Everybody loves to say we need to “pay living wages” but what does that MEAN?

How is the amount of “living wage” determined?
There are teenage employees still living with parents, or single people living with roommates. They don’t need as much to live on as a single mom with three kids who needs an apartment or house. Does that mean the minimum wage should be set according to what the highest need is? Walmart should pay everyone as if they are feeding a family of four?

What if someone just isn’t ever going to be highly efficient or productive? Would you be happier if those individuals are unemployed and receive welfare? Because that is what happens when wage floors are set.

What do you mean when you say productive?

And are you aware that employed Walmart workers already receive welfare?

By productive, I mean as an example I can scan 5 carts of groceries in 15 minutes vs 2 carts of groceries in 15 minutes. Or I can lift 10 crates in 2 minutes vs 5 crates. Or in addition to scanning groceries I also know how to provide customer service. Some people are naturally better workers than others. They usually grow their skills and obtain higher wages. But for those who don’t, and are just scanning the groceries, it is better for them to be employed than not.

And yes, of course I am aware that Walmart employees already receive benefits. But it’s not Walmart’s fault that there’s a single mom with a deadbeat ex who needs benefits in order to make ends meet. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of its employees have kids they can’t afford. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of their employees never progress beyond the most menial of tasks. And it isn’t Walmart’s fault that things like housing and healthcare, both of which receive large government subsidies, have become so unaffordable that even middle class salaries have a hard time affording them.

Do you think walmart cashiers are paid according to how quickly they scan groceries?

You’re so f—king stupid you’re not worth talking to. Although I’m curious what “skills” you have and how “productive” you are. Please share with the class, we could all use a good laugh.

What an awesome, smart person you must be. What a genius way to win hearts and minds!!

Truth is, I started out as many do. My parents didn’t go to college. My dad worked as a mailman and then had varying success as a small businessman while my mom worked in a factory. My first jobs were in grocery stores and retail. I took student loans and went to college, first gen, blah blah blah. Got a low level call center job, then figured out Microsoft Excel, picked up some accounting skills, eventually went on to build databases, went to on SQL, Python, data analysis with some legal stuff thrown in. Nothing irreplaceable, and I am not that special, but there is a reason I make 150k and not $15 an hour.

I know that grocery stores generally don’t pay some people more than others based on how fast you can scan a cart. I also know that if you have some hustle and are efficient, you can make much more than minimum wage while working at Aldi. Not everyone is cut out for that though… some cannot handle the pace. For those, there is Giant.

Oh, honey. You are suffering under tge delusion that your heart and mind are worth winning. I assure you, they are not. You are a garbage person to your core.

You will never make the world a better place with that attitude.

Did I say Walmart is great?
Did I say they shouldn’t be paying more in taxes?

Would you answer PPs question - is it an employers responsibility to provide a wage that meets an employee’s needs, whatever they are, regardless of the work being performed?

Why won’t you answer this?

Oh right, because it is better to call people garbage and try and shut down any meaningful conversation.

DP. You literally blamed the people who work at Walmart, rather than Waltons who are all billionaires (not just one, all !). You said they should all work at ALDI like that’s the simplest thing in the world. Problem solved.

Do you shop at Walmart with your $150k salary that you earn for nothing special?

You really should read up on how Walmart’s policies put hundreds of thousands out of work, were the biggest drivers of sending manufacturing jobs to China, how they disproportionately their employees use taxpayer-funded social services, and how their low prices contributed to overconsumption and the destruction of the planet.

Do you believe it is an employer’s responsibility to pay whatever a particular employee needs due to their personal circumstances?

No one has said any such thing except you. Did you get a degree from the Charlie Kirk school of “debate” while you learned PYTHON and EXCEL?

You’re a clown, bro.

Posts like 14:49 imply exactly that.

I’m not a bro of any sort. I’m a single mom.

It’s not hard to see why you’re single.

Who needs a man when I can support myself??

But you don’t support yourself. Your man STILL supports you, by your own admission.

Time to sink or swim, honey.

He pays child support according to a formula, not alimony. I make far too much money for alimony.

It must be hard to wrap your head around a self supporting college educated female having different opinions than you.

But you’re not self supporting. You’re making your ex pay you for the kids you chose to have and apparently can’t afford to support on your own. Why should your ex be responsible for your choices? Why should he have to pay you according to, what did you say it was, a formula? Rather than your “market value”? (Which to him is apparently nothing.)

I mean, you’ve been all over this thread preaching against workers being paid according to anything BUT their market value, haven’t you? But you think your situation is somehow different?

Are you this nasty to all women or just the ones who disagree with you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It all goes to show we
1.) need to bolster worker protections back up and pay living wages, and
2.) we need to tax big corporations and the billionaires enriched by them a bit more.
That much is crystal clear.

Everybody loves to say we need to “pay living wages” but what does that MEAN?

How is the amount of “living wage” determined?
There are teenage employees still living with parents, or single people living with roommates. They don’t need as much to live on as a single mom with three kids who needs an apartment or house. Does that mean the minimum wage should be set according to what the highest need is? Walmart should pay everyone as if they are feeding a family of four?

What if someone just isn’t ever going to be highly efficient or productive? Would you be happier if those individuals are unemployed and receive welfare? Because that is what happens when wage floors are set.

What do you mean when you say productive?

And are you aware that employed Walmart workers already receive welfare?

By productive, I mean as an example I can scan 5 carts of groceries in 15 minutes vs 2 carts of groceries in 15 minutes. Or I can lift 10 crates in 2 minutes vs 5 crates. Or in addition to scanning groceries I also know how to provide customer service. Some people are naturally better workers than others. They usually grow their skills and obtain higher wages. But for those who don’t, and are just scanning the groceries, it is better for them to be employed than not.

And yes, of course I am aware that Walmart employees already receive benefits. But it’s not Walmart’s fault that there’s a single mom with a deadbeat ex who needs benefits in order to make ends meet. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of its employees have kids they can’t afford. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of their employees never progress beyond the most menial of tasks. And it isn’t Walmart’s fault that things like housing and healthcare, both of which receive large government subsidies, have become so unaffordable that even middle class salaries have a hard time affording them.

Do you think walmart cashiers are paid according to how quickly they scan groceries?

You’re so f—king stupid you’re not worth talking to. Although I’m curious what “skills” you have and how “productive” you are. Please share with the class, we could all use a good laugh.

What an awesome, smart person you must be. What a genius way to win hearts and minds!!

Truth is, I started out as many do. My parents didn’t go to college. My dad worked as a mailman and then had varying success as a small businessman while my mom worked in a factory. My first jobs were in grocery stores and retail. I took student loans and went to college, first gen, blah blah blah. Got a low level call center job, then figured out Microsoft Excel, picked up some accounting skills, eventually went on to build databases, went to on SQL, Python, data analysis with some legal stuff thrown in. Nothing irreplaceable, and I am not that special, but there is a reason I make 150k and not $15 an hour.

I know that grocery stores generally don’t pay some people more than others based on how fast you can scan a cart. I also know that if you have some hustle and are efficient, you can make much more than minimum wage while working at Aldi. Not everyone is cut out for that though… some cannot handle the pace. For those, there is Giant.

Oh, honey. You are suffering under tge delusion that your heart and mind are worth winning. I assure you, they are not. You are a garbage person to your core.

You will never make the world a better place with that attitude.

Did I say Walmart is great?
Did I say they shouldn’t be paying more in taxes?

Would you answer PPs question - is it an employers responsibility to provide a wage that meets an employee’s needs, whatever they are, regardless of the work being performed?

Why won’t you answer this?

Oh right, because it is better to call people garbage and try and shut down any meaningful conversation.

DP. You literally blamed the people who work at Walmart, rather than Waltons who are all billionaires (not just one, all !). You said they should all work at ALDI like that’s the simplest thing in the world. Problem solved.

Do you shop at Walmart with your $150k salary that you earn for nothing special?

You really should read up on how Walmart’s policies put hundreds of thousands out of work, were the biggest drivers of sending manufacturing jobs to China, how they disproportionately their employees use taxpayer-funded social services, and how their low prices contributed to overconsumption and the destruction of the planet.

Do you believe it is an employer’s responsibility to pay whatever a particular employee needs due to their personal circumstances?

No one has said any such thing except you. Did you get a degree from the Charlie Kirk school of “debate” while you learned PYTHON and EXCEL?

You’re a clown, bro.

Posts like 14:49 imply exactly that.

I’m not a bro of any sort. I’m a single mom.

It’s not hard to see why you’re single.

Who needs a man when I can support myself??

But you don’t support yourself. Your man STILL supports you, by your own admission.

Time to sink or swim, honey.

He pays child support according to a formula, not alimony. I make far too much money for alimony.

It must be hard to wrap your head around a self supporting college educated female having different opinions than you.

But you’re not self supporting. You’re making your ex pay you for the kids you chose to have and apparently can’t afford to support on your own. Why should your ex be responsible for your choices? Why should he have to pay you according to, what did you say it was, a formula? Rather than your “market value”? (Which to him is apparently nothing.)

I mean, you’ve been all over this thread preaching against workers being paid according to anything BUT their market value, haven’t you? But you think your situation is somehow different?

Are you the incel from the special concerns forum??
I make 150k, you think I cannot support myself?

Even if I made 600k, my ex husband would still be on the responsible for some degree of child support, based on his income, if they do not live with him. I don’t know what point you are trying to make, other than to try and discredit me.

I’m asking you why you are okay with the government deciding, based on a formula, how much your EX has to PAY to support your kids, but you are vehemently opposed to the government deciding, based on a formula, how much an EMPLOYER has to PAY so their workers can support themselves.

Maybe your ex thinks you spend too much on the kids, and it shouldn’t cost X amount of dollars per month to raise them - it should only cost X-Y dollars, and you’re simply making frivolous choices. (This is basically your logic from earlier in this thread as to why the mere idea of a “living wage” is a non-starter, is it not?)

Why are you okay with the government setting a floor for one case but not the other?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It all goes to show we
1.) need to bolster worker protections back up and pay living wages, and
2.) we need to tax big corporations and the billionaires enriched by them a bit more.
That much is crystal clear.

Everybody loves to say we need to “pay living wages” but what does that MEAN?

How is the amount of “living wage” determined?
There are teenage employees still living with parents, or single people living with roommates. They don’t need as much to live on as a single mom with three kids who needs an apartment or house. Does that mean the minimum wage should be set according to what the highest need is? Walmart should pay everyone as if they are feeding a family of four?

What if someone just isn’t ever going to be highly efficient or productive? Would you be happier if those individuals are unemployed and receive welfare? Because that is what happens when wage floors are set.

What do you mean when you say productive?

And are you aware that employed Walmart workers already receive welfare?

By productive, I mean as an example I can scan 5 carts of groceries in 15 minutes vs 2 carts of groceries in 15 minutes. Or I can lift 10 crates in 2 minutes vs 5 crates. Or in addition to scanning groceries I also know how to provide customer service. Some people are naturally better workers than others. They usually grow their skills and obtain higher wages. But for those who don’t, and are just scanning the groceries, it is better for them to be employed than not.

And yes, of course I am aware that Walmart employees already receive benefits. But it’s not Walmart’s fault that there’s a single mom with a deadbeat ex who needs benefits in order to make ends meet. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of its employees have kids they can’t afford. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of their employees never progress beyond the most menial of tasks. And it isn’t Walmart’s fault that things like housing and healthcare, both of which receive large government subsidies, have become so unaffordable that even middle class salaries have a hard time affording them.

Do you think walmart cashiers are paid according to how quickly they scan groceries?

You’re so f—king stupid you’re not worth talking to. Although I’m curious what “skills” you have and how “productive” you are. Please share with the class, we could all use a good laugh.

What an awesome, smart person you must be. What a genius way to win hearts and minds!!

Truth is, I started out as many do. My parents didn’t go to college. My dad worked as a mailman and then had varying success as a small businessman while my mom worked in a factory. My first jobs were in grocery stores and retail. I took student loans and went to college, first gen, blah blah blah. Got a low level call center job, then figured out Microsoft Excel, picked up some accounting skills, eventually went on to build databases, went to on SQL, Python, data analysis with some legal stuff thrown in. Nothing irreplaceable, and I am not that special, but there is a reason I make 150k and not $15 an hour.

I know that grocery stores generally don’t pay some people more than others based on how fast you can scan a cart. I also know that if you have some hustle and are efficient, you can make much more than minimum wage while working at Aldi. Not everyone is cut out for that though… some cannot handle the pace. For those, there is Giant.

Oh, honey. You are suffering under tge delusion that your heart and mind are worth winning. I assure you, they are not. You are a garbage person to your core.

You will never make the world a better place with that attitude.

Did I say Walmart is great?
Did I say they shouldn’t be paying more in taxes?

Would you answer PPs question - is it an employers responsibility to provide a wage that meets an employee’s needs, whatever they are, regardless of the work being performed?

Why won’t you answer this?

Oh right, because it is better to call people garbage and try and shut down any meaningful conversation.

DP. You literally blamed the people who work at Walmart, rather than Waltons who are all billionaires (not just one, all !). You said they should all work at ALDI like that’s the simplest thing in the world. Problem solved.

Do you shop at Walmart with your $150k salary that you earn for nothing special?

You really should read up on how Walmart’s policies put hundreds of thousands out of work, were the biggest drivers of sending manufacturing jobs to China, how they disproportionately their employees use taxpayer-funded social services, and how their low prices contributed to overconsumption and the destruction of the planet.

Do you believe it is an employer’s responsibility to pay whatever a particular employee needs due to their personal circumstances?

Who is more important to the company, front line workers or shareholders? Why should taxpayers have to subsidize businesses who should pay a living wage?

There's no taxpayer subsidy. WM pays taxes. It pays market rates for labor at all levels, like other businesses. Employees worth minimum wage receive that. Employees worth more get more. Why should anyone be paid more than the market says they're worth? If they're so valuable, surely somebody would pay them accordingly? WM is hardly unique in that dynamic - there are plenty of low-paid occupations which employ people with limited skills/capabilities.

I'd like to be paid more, but achieving that is on me, not on my employer.

So everyone in a low paying job deserves a shitty lot in life?! Wow. I’ve heard some really horrible things on this forum, but this is one of the absolute worst.

You’re a total effing hypocrite if you shop anyplace that employees adults at minimum wage jobs. You’re also one of you teens, and all their friends, don’t work those jobs.

The Waltons don’t have to hoard money on the taxpayer dime. They could live off 2 billion and have 500 billion to pay their employees decently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone arguing that FT workers shouldn’t have employer-provided healthcare is a ghoul.

Anyone arguing that Walmart is fine fine when it consistently under-employs people to prevent paying them healthcare and sick days and family leave is a ghoul.

Anyone arguing that people who have too many kids, so they shouldn’t be guaranteed full-time work that includes healthcare and sick leave and even (gasp!) union membership is a ghoul.

So I guess you don’t support single payer then.

The REALITY is we don’t have single payer. I live in REALITY. Until we have that our society demands businesses pay.

If Starbucks can, Walmart can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It all goes to show we
1.) need to bolster worker protections back up and pay living wages, and
2.) we need to tax big corporations and the billionaires enriched by them a bit more.
That much is crystal clear.

Everybody loves to say we need to “pay living wages” but what does that MEAN?

How is the amount of “living wage” determined?
There are teenage employees still living with parents, or single people living with roommates. They don’t need as much to live on as a single mom with three kids who needs an apartment or house. Does that mean the minimum wage should be set according to what the highest need is? Walmart should pay everyone as if they are feeding a family of four?

What if someone just isn’t ever going to be highly efficient or productive? Would you be happier if those individuals are unemployed and receive welfare? Because that is what happens when wage floors are set.

What do you mean when you say productive?

And are you aware that employed Walmart workers already receive welfare?

By productive, I mean as an example I can scan 5 carts of groceries in 15 minutes vs 2 carts of groceries in 15 minutes. Or I can lift 10 crates in 2 minutes vs 5 crates. Or in addition to scanning groceries I also know how to provide customer service. Some people are naturally better workers than others. They usually grow their skills and obtain higher wages. But for those who don’t, and are just scanning the groceries, it is better for them to be employed than not.

And yes, of course I am aware that Walmart employees already receive benefits. But it’s not Walmart’s fault that there’s a single mom with a deadbeat ex who needs benefits in order to make ends meet. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of its employees have kids they can’t afford. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of their employees never progress beyond the most menial of tasks. And it isn’t Walmart’s fault that things like housing and healthcare, both of which receive large government subsidies, have become so unaffordable that even middle class salaries have a hard time affording them.

Do you think walmart cashiers are paid according to how quickly they scan groceries?

You’re so f—king stupid you’re not worth talking to. Although I’m curious what “skills” you have and how “productive” you are. Please share with the class, we could all use a good laugh.

What an awesome, smart person you must be. What a genius way to win hearts and minds!!

Truth is, I started out as many do. My parents didn’t go to college. My dad worked as a mailman and then had varying success as a small businessman while my mom worked in a factory. My first jobs were in grocery stores and retail. I took student loans and went to college, first gen, blah blah blah. Got a low level call center job, then figured out Microsoft Excel, picked up some accounting skills, eventually went on to build databases, went to on SQL, Python, data analysis with some legal stuff thrown in. Nothing irreplaceable, and I am not that special, but there is a reason I make 150k and not $15 an hour.

I know that grocery stores generally don’t pay some people more than others based on how fast you can scan a cart. I also know that if you have some hustle and are efficient, you can make much more than minimum wage while working at Aldi. Not everyone is cut out for that though… some cannot handle the pace. For those, there is Giant.

Oh, honey. You are suffering under tge delusion that your heart and mind are worth winning. I assure you, they are not. You are a garbage person to your core.

You will never make the world a better place with that attitude.

Did I say Walmart is great?
Did I say they shouldn’t be paying more in taxes?

Would you answer PPs question - is it an employers responsibility to provide a wage that meets an employee’s needs, whatever they are, regardless of the work being performed?

Why won’t you answer this?

Oh right, because it is better to call people garbage and try and shut down any meaningful conversation.

DP. You literally blamed the people who work at Walmart, rather than Waltons who are all billionaires (not just one, all !). You said they should all work at ALDI like that’s the simplest thing in the world. Problem solved.

Do you shop at Walmart with your $150k salary that you earn for nothing special?

You really should read up on how Walmart’s policies put hundreds of thousands out of work, were the biggest drivers of sending manufacturing jobs to China, how they disproportionately their employees use taxpayer-funded social services, and how their low prices contributed to overconsumption and the destruction of the planet.

Do you believe it is an employer’s responsibility to pay whatever a particular employee needs due to their personal circumstances?

No one has said any such thing except you. Did you get a degree from the Charlie Kirk school of “debate” while you learned PYTHON and EXCEL?

You’re a clown, bro.

Posts like 14:49 imply exactly that.

I’m not a bro of any sort. I’m a single mom.

It’s not hard to see why you’re single.

Who needs a man when I can support myself??

But you don’t support yourself. Your man STILL supports you, by your own admission.

Time to sink or swim, honey.

He pays child support according to a formula, not alimony. I make far too much money for alimony.

It must be hard to wrap your head around a self supporting college educated female having different opinions than you.

But you’re not self supporting. You’re making your ex pay you for the kids you chose to have and apparently can’t afford to support on your own. Why should your ex be responsible for your choices? Why should he have to pay you according to, what did you say it was, a formula? Rather than your “market value”? (Which to him is apparently nothing.)

I mean, you’ve been all over this thread preaching against workers being paid according to anything BUT their market value, haven’t you? But you think your situation is somehow different?

She’s never gonna get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It all goes to show we
1.) need to bolster worker protections back up and pay living wages, and
2.) we need to tax big corporations and the billionaires enriched by them a bit more.
That much is crystal clear.

Everybody loves to say we need to “pay living wages” but what does that MEAN?

How is the amount of “living wage” determined?
There are teenage employees still living with parents, or single people living with roommates. They don’t need as much to live on as a single mom with three kids who needs an apartment or house. Does that mean the minimum wage should be set according to what the highest need is? Walmart should pay everyone as if they are feeding a family of four?

What if someone just isn’t ever going to be highly efficient or productive? Would you be happier if those individuals are unemployed and receive welfare? Because that is what happens when wage floors are set.

What do you mean when you say productive?

And are you aware that employed Walmart workers already receive welfare?

By productive, I mean as an example I can scan 5 carts of groceries in 15 minutes vs 2 carts of groceries in 15 minutes. Or I can lift 10 crates in 2 minutes vs 5 crates. Or in addition to scanning groceries I also know how to provide customer service. Some people are naturally better workers than others. They usually grow their skills and obtain higher wages. But for those who don’t, and are just scanning the groceries, it is better for them to be employed than not.

And yes, of course I am aware that Walmart employees already receive benefits. But it’s not Walmart’s fault that there’s a single mom with a deadbeat ex who needs benefits in order to make ends meet. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of its employees have kids they can’t afford. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of their employees never progress beyond the most menial of tasks. And it isn’t Walmart’s fault that things like housing and healthcare, both of which receive large government subsidies, have become so unaffordable that even middle class salaries have a hard time affording them.

Do you think walmart cashiers are paid according to how quickly they scan groceries?

You’re so f—king stupid you’re not worth talking to. Although I’m curious what “skills” you have and how “productive” you are. Please share with the class, we could all use a good laugh.

What an awesome, smart person you must be. What a genius way to win hearts and minds!!

Truth is, I started out as many do. My parents didn’t go to college. My dad worked as a mailman and then had varying success as a small businessman while my mom worked in a factory. My first jobs were in grocery stores and retail. I took student loans and went to college, first gen, blah blah blah. Got a low level call center job, then figured out Microsoft Excel, picked up some accounting skills, eventually went on to build databases, went to on SQL, Python, data analysis with some legal stuff thrown in. Nothing irreplaceable, and I am not that special, but there is a reason I make 150k and not $15 an hour.

I know that grocery stores generally don’t pay some people more than others based on how fast you can scan a cart. I also know that if you have some hustle and are efficient, you can make much more than minimum wage while working at Aldi. Not everyone is cut out for that though… some cannot handle the pace. For those, there is Giant.

Oh, honey. You are suffering under tge delusion that your heart and mind are worth winning. I assure you, they are not. You are a garbage person to your core.

You will never make the world a better place with that attitude.

Did I say Walmart is great?
Did I say they shouldn’t be paying more in taxes?

Would you answer PPs question - is it an employers responsibility to provide a wage that meets an employee’s needs, whatever they are, regardless of the work being performed?

Why won’t you answer this?

Oh right, because it is better to call people garbage and try and shut down any meaningful conversation.

DP. You literally blamed the people who work at Walmart, rather than Waltons who are all billionaires (not just one, all !). You said they should all work at ALDI like that’s the simplest thing in the world. Problem solved.

Do you shop at Walmart with your $150k salary that you earn for nothing special?

You really should read up on how Walmart’s policies put hundreds of thousands out of work, were the biggest drivers of sending manufacturing jobs to China, how they disproportionately their employees use taxpayer-funded social services, and how their low prices contributed to overconsumption and the destruction of the planet.

Do you believe it is an employer’s responsibility to pay whatever a particular employee needs due to their personal circumstances?

No one has said any such thing except you. Did you get a degree from the Charlie Kirk school of “debate” while you learned PYTHON and EXCEL?

You’re a clown, bro.

Posts like 14:49 imply exactly that.

I’m not a bro of any sort. I’m a single mom.

It’s not hard to see why you’re single.

Who needs a man when I can support myself??

But you don’t support yourself. Your man STILL supports you, by your own admission.

Time to sink or swim, honey.

He pays child support according to a formula, not alimony. I make far too much money for alimony.

It must be hard to wrap your head around a self supporting college educated female having different opinions than you.

But you’re not self supporting. You’re making your ex pay you for the kids you chose to have and apparently can’t afford to support on your own. Why should your ex be responsible for your choices? Why should he have to pay you according to, what did you say it was, a formula? Rather than your “market value”? (Which to him is apparently nothing.)

I mean, you’ve been all over this thread preaching against workers being paid according to anything BUT their market value, haven’t you? But you think your situation is somehow different?

Are you the incel from the special concerns forum??
I make 150k, you think I cannot support myself?

Even if I made 600k, my ex husband would still be on the responsible for some degree of child support, based on his income, if they do not live with him. I don’t know what point you are trying to make, other than to try and discredit me.

I’m asking you why you are okay with the government deciding, based on a formula, how much your EX has to PAY to support your kids, but you are vehemently opposed to the government deciding, based on a formula, how much an EMPLOYER has to PAY so their workers can support themselves.

Maybe your ex thinks you spend too much on the kids, and it shouldn’t cost X amount of dollars per month to raise them - it should only cost X-Y dollars, and you’re simply making frivolous choices. (This is basically your logic from earlier in this thread as to why the mere idea of a “living wage” is a non-starter, is it not?)

Why are you okay with the government setting a floor for one case but not the other?

Because children should not have to go hungry?

Because there is, objectively, a floor, or minimum amount, children need in order to be housed and clothed and fed. If the parents cannot provide it directly or through child support, then there is welfare.

And there is also, objectively, a floor or absolute minimum to what an individual needs to live on. That we can agree on.

But there is one thing that has a ceiling, but no floor. That is a person’s productivity. There is a limit to what one person can accomplish on their own in an allotted amount of time, but there is no floor. The floor is zero. Of course, no one will pay someone to do zero. But they will pay them to do something that might not require tons of physical or mental effort every minute of every hour, or require advanced skills, like high schoolers working at an ice cream or coffee shop, or lifeguarding, or hostessing at a small restaurant. I don’t know about you, but I’m glad those jobs exist for people because they provide value and an opportunity to get on the ladder. My very first job was pushing carts for 4.25 an hour. It didn’t buy much back then, either.
Not every job is meant to provide someone with the ability to earn their whole living.

It would suck to live in a rural town where Walmart is the only job, but the same could be said about ANY employer in that situation: they would pay what the market requires in order to keep employees. Which I know isn’t much, in places like SW Virginia for example. That’s why people are leaving those run down rural areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It all goes to show we
1.) need to bolster worker protections back up and pay living wages, and
2.) we need to tax big corporations and the billionaires enriched by them a bit more.
That much is crystal clear.

Everybody loves to say we need to “pay living wages” but what does that MEAN?

How is the amount of “living wage” determined?
There are teenage employees still living with parents, or single people living with roommates. They don’t need as much to live on as a single mom with three kids who needs an apartment or house. Does that mean the minimum wage should be set according to what the highest need is? Walmart should pay everyone as if they are feeding a family of four?

What if someone just isn’t ever going to be highly efficient or productive? Would you be happier if those individuals are unemployed and receive welfare? Because that is what happens when wage floors are set.

What do you mean when you say productive?

And are you aware that employed Walmart workers already receive welfare?

By productive, I mean as an example I can scan 5 carts of groceries in 15 minutes vs 2 carts of groceries in 15 minutes. Or I can lift 10 crates in 2 minutes vs 5 crates. Or in addition to scanning groceries I also know how to provide customer service. Some people are naturally better workers than others. They usually grow their skills and obtain higher wages. But for those who don’t, and are just scanning the groceries, it is better for them to be employed than not.

And yes, of course I am aware that Walmart employees already receive benefits. But it’s not Walmart’s fault that there’s a single mom with a deadbeat ex who needs benefits in order to make ends meet. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of its employees have kids they can’t afford. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of their employees never progress beyond the most menial of tasks. And it isn’t Walmart’s fault that things like housing and healthcare, both of which receive large government subsidies, have become so unaffordable that even middle class salaries have a hard time affording them.

Do you think walmart cashiers are paid according to how quickly they scan groceries?

You’re so f—king stupid you’re not worth talking to. Although I’m curious what “skills” you have and how “productive” you are. Please share with the class, we could all use a good laugh.

What an awesome, smart person you must be. What a genius way to win hearts and minds!!

Truth is, I started out as many do. My parents didn’t go to college. My dad worked as a mailman and then had varying success as a small businessman while my mom worked in a factory. My first jobs were in grocery stores and retail. I took student loans and went to college, first gen, blah blah blah. Got a low level call center job, then figured out Microsoft Excel, picked up some accounting skills, eventually went on to build databases, went to on SQL, Python, data analysis with some legal stuff thrown in. Nothing irreplaceable, and I am not that special, but there is a reason I make 150k and not $15 an hour.

I know that grocery stores generally don’t pay some people more than others based on how fast you can scan a cart. I also know that if you have some hustle and are efficient, you can make much more than minimum wage while working at Aldi. Not everyone is cut out for that though… some cannot handle the pace. For those, there is Giant.

Oh, honey. You are suffering under tge delusion that your heart and mind are worth winning. I assure you, they are not. You are a garbage person to your core.

You will never make the world a better place with that attitude.

Did I say Walmart is great?
Did I say they shouldn’t be paying more in taxes?

Would you answer PPs question - is it an employers responsibility to provide a wage that meets an employee’s needs, whatever they are, regardless of the work being performed?

Why won’t you answer this?

Oh right, because it is better to call people garbage and try and shut down any meaningful conversation.

DP. You literally blamed the people who work at Walmart, rather than Waltons who are all billionaires (not just one, all !). You said they should all work at ALDI like that’s the simplest thing in the world. Problem solved.

Do you shop at Walmart with your $150k salary that you earn for nothing special?

You really should read up on how Walmart’s policies put hundreds of thousands out of work, were the biggest drivers of sending manufacturing jobs to China, how they disproportionately their employees use taxpayer-funded social services, and how their low prices contributed to overconsumption and the destruction of the planet.

Do you believe it is an employer’s responsibility to pay whatever a particular employee needs due to their personal circumstances?

Who is more important to the company, front line workers or shareholders? Why should taxpayers have to subsidize businesses who should pay a living wage?

There's no taxpayer subsidy. WM pays taxes. It pays market rates for labor at all levels, like other businesses. Employees worth minimum wage receive that. Employees worth more get more. Why should anyone be paid more than the market says they're worth? If they're so valuable, surely somebody would pay them accordingly? WM is hardly unique in that dynamic - there are plenty of low-paid occupations which employ people with limited skills/capabilities.

I'd like to be paid more, but achieving that is on me, not on my employer.

So everyone in a low paying job deserves a shitty lot in life?! Wow. I’ve heard some really horrible things on this forum, but this is one of the absolute worst.

You’re a total effing hypocrite if you shop anyplace that employees adults at minimum wage jobs. You’re also one of you teens, and all their friends, don’t work those jobs.

The Waltons don’t have to hoard money on the taxpayer dime. They could live off 2 billion and have 500 billion to pay their employees decently.

You are wayyyy overestimating the number of adults making minimum wage.
Just checked and the starting wage for cart pushers at my nearby store is 16 an hour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It all goes to show we
1.) need to bolster worker protections back up and pay living wages, and
2.) we need to tax big corporations and the billionaires enriched by them a bit more.
That much is crystal clear.

Everybody loves to say we need to “pay living wages” but what does that MEAN?

How is the amount of “living wage” determined?
There are teenage employees still living with parents, or single people living with roommates. They don’t need as much to live on as a single mom with three kids who needs an apartment or house. Does that mean the minimum wage should be set according to what the highest need is? Walmart should pay everyone as if they are feeding a family of four?

What if someone just isn’t ever going to be highly efficient or productive? Would you be happier if those individuals are unemployed and receive welfare? Because that is what happens when wage floors are set.

What do you mean when you say productive?

And are you aware that employed Walmart workers already receive welfare?

By productive, I mean as an example I can scan 5 carts of groceries in 15 minutes vs 2 carts of groceries in 15 minutes. Or I can lift 10 crates in 2 minutes vs 5 crates. Or in addition to scanning groceries I also know how to provide customer service. Some people are naturally better workers than others. They usually grow their skills and obtain higher wages. But for those who don’t, and are just scanning the groceries, it is better for them to be employed than not.

And yes, of course I am aware that Walmart employees already receive benefits. But it’s not Walmart’s fault that there’s a single mom with a deadbeat ex who needs benefits in order to make ends meet. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of its employees have kids they can’t afford. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of their employees never progress beyond the most menial of tasks. And it isn’t Walmart’s fault that things like housing and healthcare, both of which receive large government subsidies, have become so unaffordable that even middle class salaries have a hard time affording them.

Do you think walmart cashiers are paid according to how quickly they scan groceries?

You’re so f—king stupid you’re not worth talking to. Although I’m curious what “skills” you have and how “productive” you are. Please share with the class, we could all use a good laugh.

What an awesome, smart person you must be. What a genius way to win hearts and minds!!

Truth is, I started out as many do. My parents didn’t go to college. My dad worked as a mailman and then had varying success as a small businessman while my mom worked in a factory. My first jobs were in grocery stores and retail. I took student loans and went to college, first gen, blah blah blah. Got a low level call center job, then figured out Microsoft Excel, picked up some accounting skills, eventually went on to build databases, went to on SQL, Python, data analysis with some legal stuff thrown in. Nothing irreplaceable, and I am not that special, but there is a reason I make 150k and not $15 an hour.

I know that grocery stores generally don’t pay some people more than others based on how fast you can scan a cart. I also know that if you have some hustle and are efficient, you can make much more than minimum wage while working at Aldi. Not everyone is cut out for that though… some cannot handle the pace. For those, there is Giant.

Oh, honey. You are suffering under tge delusion that your heart and mind are worth winning. I assure you, they are not. You are a garbage person to your core.

You will never make the world a better place with that attitude.

Did I say Walmart is great?
Did I say they shouldn’t be paying more in taxes?

Would you answer PPs question - is it an employers responsibility to provide a wage that meets an employee’s needs, whatever they are, regardless of the work being performed?

Why won’t you answer this?

Oh right, because it is better to call people garbage and try and shut down any meaningful conversation.

DP. You literally blamed the people who work at Walmart, rather than Waltons who are all billionaires (not just one, all !). You said they should all work at ALDI like that’s the simplest thing in the world. Problem solved.

Do you shop at Walmart with your $150k salary that you earn for nothing special?

You really should read up on how Walmart’s policies put hundreds of thousands out of work, were the biggest drivers of sending manufacturing jobs to China, how they disproportionately their employees use taxpayer-funded social services, and how their low prices contributed to overconsumption and the destruction of the planet.

Do you believe it is an employer’s responsibility to pay whatever a particular employee needs due to their personal circumstances?

Who is more important to the company, front line workers or shareholders? Why should taxpayers have to subsidize businesses who should pay a living wage?

There's no taxpayer subsidy. WM pays taxes. It pays market rates for labor at all levels, like other businesses. Employees worth minimum wage receive that. Employees worth more get more. Why should anyone be paid more than the market says they're worth? If they're so valuable, surely somebody would pay them accordingly? WM is hardly unique in that dynamic - there are plenty of low-paid occupations which employ people with limited skills/capabilities.

I'd like to be paid more, but achieving that is on me, not on my employer.

So everyone in a low paying job deserves a shitty lot in life?! Wow. I’ve heard some really horrible things on this forum, but this is one of the absolute worst.

You’re a total effing hypocrite if you shop anyplace that employees adults at minimum wage jobs. You’re also one of you teens, and all their friends, don’t work those jobs.

The Waltons don’t have to hoard money on the taxpayer dime. They could live off 2 billion and have 500 billion to pay their employees decently.

This poster never said anyone deserves a $hitty life.

But why do you infantilize low wage workers as though they have no agency?
Should we all be shielded from the consequences of whatever decisions we make? Are we owed a certain lifestyle just for existing?
You obviously know nothing about how corporations work if you think it’s as simple as the Waltons paying out 500 billion to their employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It all goes to show we
1.) need to bolster worker protections back up and pay living wages, and
2.) we need to tax big corporations and the billionaires enriched by them a bit more.
That much is crystal clear.

Everybody loves to say we need to “pay living wages” but what does that MEAN?

How is the amount of “living wage” determined?
There are teenage employees still living with parents, or single people living with roommates. They don’t need as much to live on as a single mom with three kids who needs an apartment or house. Does that mean the minimum wage should be set according to what the highest need is? Walmart should pay everyone as if they are feeding a family of four?

What if someone just isn’t ever going to be highly efficient or productive? Would you be happier if those individuals are unemployed and receive welfare? Because that is what happens when wage floors are set.

What do you mean when you say productive?

And are you aware that employed Walmart workers already receive welfare?

By productive, I mean as an example I can scan 5 carts of groceries in 15 minutes vs 2 carts of groceries in 15 minutes. Or I can lift 10 crates in 2 minutes vs 5 crates. Or in addition to scanning groceries I also know how to provide customer service. Some people are naturally better workers than others. They usually grow their skills and obtain higher wages. But for those who don’t, and are just scanning the groceries, it is better for them to be employed than not.

And yes, of course I am aware that Walmart employees already receive benefits. But it’s not Walmart’s fault that there’s a single mom with a deadbeat ex who needs benefits in order to make ends meet. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of its employees have kids they can’t afford. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of their employees never progress beyond the most menial of tasks. And it isn’t Walmart’s fault that things like housing and healthcare, both of which receive large government subsidies, have become so unaffordable that even middle class salaries have a hard time affording them.

Do you think walmart cashiers are paid according to how quickly they scan groceries?

You’re so f—king stupid you’re not worth talking to. Although I’m curious what “skills” you have and how “productive” you are. Please share with the class, we could all use a good laugh.

What an awesome, smart person you must be. What a genius way to win hearts and minds!!

Truth is, I started out as many do. My parents didn’t go to college. My dad worked as a mailman and then had varying success as a small businessman while my mom worked in a factory. My first jobs were in grocery stores and retail. I took student loans and went to college, first gen, blah blah blah. Got a low level call center job, then figured out Microsoft Excel, picked up some accounting skills, eventually went on to build databases, went to on SQL, Python, data analysis with some legal stuff thrown in. Nothing irreplaceable, and I am not that special, but there is a reason I make 150k and not $15 an hour.

I know that grocery stores generally don’t pay some people more than others based on how fast you can scan a cart. I also know that if you have some hustle and are efficient, you can make much more than minimum wage while working at Aldi. Not everyone is cut out for that though… some cannot handle the pace. For those, there is Giant.

Oh, honey. You are suffering under tge delusion that your heart and mind are worth winning. I assure you, they are not. You are a garbage person to your core.

You will never make the world a better place with that attitude.

Did I say Walmart is great?
Did I say they shouldn’t be paying more in taxes?

Would you answer PPs question - is it an employers responsibility to provide a wage that meets an employee’s needs, whatever they are, regardless of the work being performed?

Why won’t you answer this?

Oh right, because it is better to call people garbage and try and shut down any meaningful conversation.

DP. You literally blamed the people who work at Walmart, rather than Waltons who are all billionaires (not just one, all !). You said they should all work at ALDI like that’s the simplest thing in the world. Problem solved.

Do you shop at Walmart with your $150k salary that you earn for nothing special?

You really should read up on how Walmart’s policies put hundreds of thousands out of work, were the biggest drivers of sending manufacturing jobs to China, how they disproportionately their employees use taxpayer-funded social services, and how their low prices contributed to overconsumption and the destruction of the planet.

Do you believe it is an employer’s responsibility to pay whatever a particular employee needs due to their personal circumstances?

Who is more important to the company, front line workers or shareholders? Why should taxpayers have to subsidize businesses who should pay a living wage?

There's no taxpayer subsidy. WM pays taxes. It pays market rates for labor at all levels, like other businesses. Employees worth minimum wage receive that. Employees worth more get more. Why should anyone be paid more than the market says they're worth? If they're so valuable, surely somebody would pay them accordingly? WM is hardly unique in that dynamic - there are plenty of low-paid occupations which employ people with limited skills/capabilities.

I'd like to be paid more, but achieving that is on me, not on my employer.

So everyone in a low paying job deserves a shitty lot in life?! Wow. I’ve heard some really horrible things on this forum, but this is one of the absolute worst.

You’re a total effing hypocrite if you shop anyplace that employees adults at minimum wage jobs. You’re also one of you teens, and all their friends, don’t work those jobs.

The Waltons don’t have to hoard money on the taxpayer dime. They could live off 2 billion and have 500 billion to pay their employees decently.

Everyone in a low paying job deserves whatever they make of it. They can strive to improve themselves, their skills, their qualifications, and their personal situations. They can avoid making bad life decisions, like not completing their free, government-paid, education through HS. They can avoid marrying or cohabiting with patently unsuitable partners, and taking on child-rearing responsibilities with no idea how they are going to support both themselves and their children. They can, sometimes, join the military and learn new skills and obtain further education at government expense. They can do great work, display initiative, be reliable, and look for better-paying work based on their employment history and accomplishments. Hillbilly Elegy is a good exposition why many people are in the positions they are in.

Sometimes things just happen to people, but usually the things that "happen" are predictable results of the choices people make. Those choices very often result in financial stability and success, or not. When someone's situation is the result of their own choices, they live with those choices; it's not anyone else's role to provide them with a better lifestyle for no reason at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It all goes to show we
1.) need to bolster worker protections back up and pay living wages, and
2.) we need to tax big corporations and the billionaires enriched by them a bit more.
That much is crystal clear.

Everybody loves to say we need to “pay living wages” but what does that MEAN?

How is the amount of “living wage” determined?
There are teenage employees still living with parents, or single people living with roommates. They don’t need as much to live on as a single mom with three kids who needs an apartment or house. Does that mean the minimum wage should be set according to what the highest need is? Walmart should pay everyone as if they are feeding a family of four?

What if someone just isn’t ever going to be highly efficient or productive? Would you be happier if those individuals are unemployed and receive welfare? Because that is what happens when wage floors are set.

What do you mean when you say productive?

And are you aware that employed Walmart workers already receive welfare?

By productive, I mean as an example I can scan 5 carts of groceries in 15 minutes vs 2 carts of groceries in 15 minutes. Or I can lift 10 crates in 2 minutes vs 5 crates. Or in addition to scanning groceries I also know how to provide customer service. Some people are naturally better workers than others. They usually grow their skills and obtain higher wages. But for those who don’t, and are just scanning the groceries, it is better for them to be employed than not.

And yes, of course I am aware that Walmart employees already receive benefits. But it’s not Walmart’s fault that there’s a single mom with a deadbeat ex who needs benefits in order to make ends meet. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of its employees have kids they can’t afford. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of their employees never progress beyond the most menial of tasks. And it isn’t Walmart’s fault that things like housing and healthcare, both of which receive large government subsidies, have become so unaffordable that even middle class salaries have a hard time affording them.

Do you think walmart cashiers are paid according to how quickly they scan groceries?

You’re so f—king stupid you’re not worth talking to. Although I’m curious what “skills” you have and how “productive” you are. Please share with the class, we could all use a good laugh.

What an awesome, smart person you must be. What a genius way to win hearts and minds!!

Truth is, I started out as many do. My parents didn’t go to college. My dad worked as a mailman and then had varying success as a small businessman while my mom worked in a factory. My first jobs were in grocery stores and retail. I took student loans and went to college, first gen, blah blah blah. Got a low level call center job, then figured out Microsoft Excel, picked up some accounting skills, eventually went on to build databases, went to on SQL, Python, data analysis with some legal stuff thrown in. Nothing irreplaceable, and I am not that special, but there is a reason I make 150k and not $15 an hour.

I know that grocery stores generally don’t pay some people more than others based on how fast you can scan a cart. I also know that if you have some hustle and are efficient, you can make much more than minimum wage while working at Aldi. Not everyone is cut out for that though… some cannot handle the pace. For those, there is Giant.

Oh, honey. You are suffering under tge delusion that your heart and mind are worth winning. I assure you, they are not. You are a garbage person to your core.

You will never make the world a better place with that attitude.

Did I say Walmart is great?
Did I say they shouldn’t be paying more in taxes?

Would you answer PPs question - is it an employers responsibility to provide a wage that meets an employee’s needs, whatever they are, regardless of the work being performed?

Why won’t you answer this?

Oh right, because it is better to call people garbage and try and shut down any meaningful conversation.

DP. You literally blamed the people who work at Walmart, rather than Waltons who are all billionaires (not just one, all !). You said they should all work at ALDI like that’s the simplest thing in the world. Problem solved.

Do you shop at Walmart with your $150k salary that you earn for nothing special?

You really should read up on how Walmart’s policies put hundreds of thousands out of work, were the biggest drivers of sending manufacturing jobs to China, how they disproportionately their employees use taxpayer-funded social services, and how their low prices contributed to overconsumption and the destruction of the planet.

Do you believe it is an employer’s responsibility to pay whatever a particular employee needs due to their personal circumstances?

Who is more important to the company, front line workers or shareholders? Why should taxpayers have to subsidize businesses who should pay a living wage?

There's no taxpayer subsidy. WM pays taxes. It pays market rates for labor at all levels, like other businesses. Employees worth minimum wage receive that. Employees worth more get more. Why should anyone be paid more than the market says they're worth? If they're so valuable, surely somebody would pay them accordingly? WM is hardly unique in that dynamic - there are plenty of low-paid occupations which employ people with limited skills/capabilities.

I'd like to be paid more, but achieving that is on me, not on my employer.

So everyone in a low paying job deserves a shitty lot in life?! Wow. I’ve heard some really horrible things on this forum, but this is one of the absolute worst.

You’re a total effing hypocrite if you shop anyplace that employees adults at minimum wage jobs. You’re also one of you teens, and all their friends, don’t work those jobs.

The Waltons don’t have to hoard money on the taxpayer dime. They could live off 2 billion and have 500 billion to pay their employees decently.

Everyone in a low paying job deserves whatever they make of it. They can strive to improve themselves, their skills, their qualifications, and their personal situations. They can avoid making bad life decisions, like not completing their free, government-paid, education through HS. They can avoid marrying or cohabiting with patently unsuitable partners, and taking on child-rearing responsibilities with no idea how they are going to support both themselves and their children. They can, sometimes, join the military and learn new skills and obtain further education at government expense. They can do great work, display initiative, be reliable, and look for better-paying work based on their employment history and accomplishments. Hillbilly Elegy is a good exposition why many people are in the positions they are in.

Sometimes things just happen to people, but usually the things that "happen" are predictable results of the choices people make. Those choices very often result in financial stability and success, or not. When someone's situation is the result of their own choices, they live with those choices; it's not anyone else's role to provide them with a better lifestyle for no reason at all.

What "life choices" someone made has zero bearing on the floor level for pay. You're just making excuses for exploiting others. And blaming the poor for being poor. If they are such horrible and useless people then why do you keep hiring them? It's because you need them. So pay them fairly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It all goes to show we
1.) need to bolster worker protections back up and pay living wages, and
2.) we need to tax big corporations and the billionaires enriched by them a bit more.
That much is crystal clear.

Everybody loves to say we need to “pay living wages” but what does that MEAN?

How is the amount of “living wage” determined?
There are teenage employees still living with parents, or single people living with roommates. They don’t need as much to live on as a single mom with three kids who needs an apartment or house. Does that mean the minimum wage should be set according to what the highest need is? Walmart should pay everyone as if they are feeding a family of four?

What if someone just isn’t ever going to be highly efficient or productive? Would you be happier if those individuals are unemployed and receive welfare? Because that is what happens when wage floors are set.

What do you mean when you say productive?

And are you aware that employed Walmart workers already receive welfare?

By productive, I mean as an example I can scan 5 carts of groceries in 15 minutes vs 2 carts of groceries in 15 minutes. Or I can lift 10 crates in 2 minutes vs 5 crates. Or in addition to scanning groceries I also know how to provide customer service. Some people are naturally better workers than others. They usually grow their skills and obtain higher wages. But for those who don’t, and are just scanning the groceries, it is better for them to be employed than not.

And yes, of course I am aware that Walmart employees already receive benefits. But it’s not Walmart’s fault that there’s a single mom with a deadbeat ex who needs benefits in order to make ends meet. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of its employees have kids they can’t afford. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of their employees never progress beyond the most menial of tasks. And it isn’t Walmart’s fault that things like housing and healthcare, both of which receive large government subsidies, have become so unaffordable that even middle class salaries have a hard time affording them.

Do you think walmart cashiers are paid according to how quickly they scan groceries?

You’re so f—king stupid you’re not worth talking to. Although I’m curious what “skills” you have and how “productive” you are. Please share with the class, we could all use a good laugh.

What an awesome, smart person you must be. What a genius way to win hearts and minds!!

Truth is, I started out as many do. My parents didn’t go to college. My dad worked as a mailman and then had varying success as a small businessman while my mom worked in a factory. My first jobs were in grocery stores and retail. I took student loans and went to college, first gen, blah blah blah. Got a low level call center job, then figured out Microsoft Excel, picked up some accounting skills, eventually went on to build databases, went to on SQL, Python, data analysis with some legal stuff thrown in. Nothing irreplaceable, and I am not that special, but there is a reason I make 150k and not $15 an hour.

I know that grocery stores generally don’t pay some people more than others based on how fast you can scan a cart. I also know that if you have some hustle and are efficient, you can make much more than minimum wage while working at Aldi. Not everyone is cut out for that though… some cannot handle the pace. For those, there is Giant.

Oh, honey. You are suffering under tge delusion that your heart and mind are worth winning. I assure you, they are not. You are a garbage person to your core.

You will never make the world a better place with that attitude.

Did I say Walmart is great?
Did I say they shouldn’t be paying more in taxes?

Would you answer PPs question - is it an employers responsibility to provide a wage that meets an employee’s needs, whatever they are, regardless of the work being performed?

Why won’t you answer this?

Oh right, because it is better to call people garbage and try and shut down any meaningful conversation.

DP. You literally blamed the people who work at Walmart, rather than Waltons who are all billionaires (not just one, all !). You said they should all work at ALDI like that’s the simplest thing in the world. Problem solved.

Do you shop at Walmart with your $150k salary that you earn for nothing special?

You really should read up on how Walmart’s policies put hundreds of thousands out of work, were the biggest drivers of sending manufacturing jobs to China, how they disproportionately their employees use taxpayer-funded social services, and how their low prices contributed to overconsumption and the destruction of the planet.

Do you believe it is an employer’s responsibility to pay whatever a particular employee needs due to their personal circumstances?

No one has said any such thing except you. Did you get a degree from the Charlie Kirk school of “debate” while you learned PYTHON and EXCEL?

You’re a clown, bro.

Posts like 14:49 imply exactly that.

I’m not a bro of any sort. I’m a single mom.

It’s not hard to see why you’re single.

Who needs a man when I can support myself??

But you don’t support yourself. Your man STILL supports you, by your own admission.

Time to sink or swim, honey.

He pays child support according to a formula, not alimony. I make far too much money for alimony.

It must be hard to wrap your head around a self supporting college educated female having different opinions than you.

But you’re not self supporting. You’re making your ex pay you for the kids you chose to have and apparently can’t afford to support on your own. Why should your ex be responsible for your choices? Why should he have to pay you according to, what did you say it was, a formula? Rather than your “market value”? (Which to him is apparently nothing.)

I mean, you’ve been all over this thread preaching against workers being paid according to anything BUT their market value, haven’t you? But you think your situation is somehow different?

Are you the incel from the special concerns forum??
I make 150k, you think I cannot support myself?

Even if I made 600k, my ex husband would still be on the responsible for some degree of child support, based on his income, if they do not live with him. I don’t know what point you are trying to make, other than to try and discredit me.

I’m asking you why you are okay with the government deciding, based on a formula, how much your EX has to PAY to support your kids, but you are vehemently opposed to the government deciding, based on a formula, how much an EMPLOYER has to PAY so their workers can support themselves.

Maybe your ex thinks you spend too much on the kids, and it shouldn’t cost X amount of dollars per month to raise them - it should only cost X-Y dollars, and you’re simply making frivolous choices. (This is basically your logic from earlier in this thread as to why the mere idea of a “living wage” is a non-starter, is it not?)

Why are you okay with the government setting a floor for one case but not the other?

DP. This is some nonsensical bullshit. Let it go.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps not coincidentally, the country has had an increase in immigration, and many immigrants are happy to take that minimum wage job and make the most of it while living economically with family members or others in their community. Sharing rides, eating simple meals, thrifting.
Meanwhile, average low income nothing special white people simply complain that they aren’t being paid what they are worth. Why can’t they learn to economize?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It all goes to show we
1.) need to bolster worker protections back up and pay living wages, and
2.) we need to tax big corporations and the billionaires enriched by them a bit more.
That much is crystal clear.

Everybody loves to say we need to “pay living wages” but what does that MEAN?

How is the amount of “living wage” determined?
There are teenage employees still living with parents, or single people living with roommates. They don’t need as much to live on as a single mom with three kids who needs an apartment or house. Does that mean the minimum wage should be set according to what the highest need is? Walmart should pay everyone as if they are feeding a family of four?

What if someone just isn’t ever going to be highly efficient or productive? Would you be happier if those individuals are unemployed and receive welfare? Because that is what happens when wage floors are set.

What do you mean when you say productive?

And are you aware that employed Walmart workers already receive welfare?

By productive, I mean as an example I can scan 5 carts of groceries in 15 minutes vs 2 carts of groceries in 15 minutes. Or I can lift 10 crates in 2 minutes vs 5 crates. Or in addition to scanning groceries I also know how to provide customer service. Some people are naturally better workers than others. They usually grow their skills and obtain higher wages. But for those who don’t, and are just scanning the groceries, it is better for them to be employed than not.

And yes, of course I am aware that Walmart employees already receive benefits. But it’s not Walmart’s fault that there’s a single mom with a deadbeat ex who needs benefits in order to make ends meet. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of its employees have kids they can’t afford. It’s not Walmart’s fault that some of their employees never progress beyond the most menial of tasks. And it isn’t Walmart’s fault that things like housing and healthcare, both of which receive large government subsidies, have become so unaffordable that even middle class salaries have a hard time affording them.

Do you think walmart cashiers are paid according to how quickly they scan groceries?

You’re so f—king stupid you’re not worth talking to. Although I’m curious what “skills” you have and how “productive” you are. Please share with the class, we could all use a good laugh.

What an awesome, smart person you must be. What a genius way to win hearts and minds!!

Truth is, I started out as many do. My parents didn’t go to college. My dad worked as a mailman and then had varying success as a small businessman while my mom worked in a factory. My first jobs were in grocery stores and retail. I took student loans and went to college, first gen, blah blah blah. Got a low level call center job, then figured out Microsoft Excel, picked up some accounting skills, eventually went on to build databases, went to on SQL, Python, data analysis with some legal stuff thrown in. Nothing irreplaceable, and I am not that special, but there is a reason I make 150k and not $15 an hour.

I know that grocery stores generally don’t pay some people more than others based on how fast you can scan a cart. I also know that if you have some hustle and are efficient, you can make much more than minimum wage while working at Aldi. Not everyone is cut out for that though… some cannot handle the pace. For those, there is Giant.

Oh, honey. You are suffering under tge delusion that your heart and mind are worth winning. I assure you, they are not. You are a garbage person to your core.

You will never make the world a better place with that attitude.

Did I say Walmart is great?
Did I say they shouldn’t be paying more in taxes?

Would you answer PPs question - is it an employers responsibility to provide a wage that meets an employee’s needs, whatever they are, regardless of the work being performed?

Why won’t you answer this?

Oh right, because it is better to call people garbage and try and shut down any meaningful conversation.

DP. You literally blamed the people who work at Walmart, rather than Waltons who are all billionaires (not just one, all !). You said they should all work at ALDI like that’s the simplest thing in the world. Problem solved.

Do you shop at Walmart with your $150k salary that you earn for nothing special?

You really should read up on how Walmart’s policies put hundreds of thousands out of work, were the biggest drivers of sending manufacturing jobs to China, how they disproportionately their employees use taxpayer-funded social services, and how their low prices contributed to overconsumption and the destruction of the planet.

Do you believe it is an employer’s responsibility to pay whatever a particular employee needs due to their personal circumstances?

Who is more important to the company, front line workers or shareholders? Why should taxpayers have to subsidize businesses who should pay a living wage?

There's no taxpayer subsidy. WM pays taxes. It pays market rates for labor at all levels, like other businesses. Employees worth minimum wage receive that. Employees worth more get more. Why should anyone be paid more than the market says they're worth? If they're so valuable, surely somebody would pay them accordingly? WM is hardly unique in that dynamic - there are plenty of low-paid occupations which employ people with limited skills/capabilities.

I'd like to be paid more, but achieving that is on me, not on my employer.

So everyone in a low paying job deserves a shitty lot in life?! Wow. I’ve heard some really horrible things on this forum, but this is one of the absolute worst.

You’re a total effing hypocrite if you shop anyplace that employees adults at minimum wage jobs. You’re also one of you teens, and all their friends, don’t work those jobs.

The Waltons don’t have to hoard money on the taxpayer dime. They could live off 2 billion and have 500 billion to pay their employees decently.

Everyone in a low paying job deserves whatever they make of it. They can strive to improve themselves, their skills, their qualifications, and their personal situations. They can avoid making bad life decisions, like not completing their free, government-paid, education through HS. They can avoid marrying or cohabiting with patently unsuitable partners, and taking on child-rearing responsibilities with no idea how they are going to support both themselves and their children. They can, sometimes, join the military and learn new skills and obtain further education at government expense. They can do great work, display initiative, be reliable, and look for better-paying work based on their employment history and accomplishments. Hillbilly Elegy is a good exposition why many people are in the positions they are in.

Sometimes things just happen to people, but usually the things that "happen" are predictable results of the choices people make. Those choices very often result in financial stability and success, or not. When someone's situation is the result of their own choices, they live with those choices; it's not anyone else's role to provide them with a better lifestyle for no reason at all.

What "life choices" someone made has zero bearing on the floor level for pay. You're just making excuses for exploiting others. And blaming the poor for being poor. If they are such horrible and useless people then why do you keep hiring them? It's because you need them. So pay them fairly.

There is only one measure of fair, and that is what the market will bear.