Anonymous wrote:Love the white nationalist voices and their wannabes chirping. They can't even feel their faces.

They’re busy tonight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Commissary, anyone?

I’m convinced that so many Service Members struggle when they leave because the cradle-to-grave socialism of the military takes away a lot of day-to-day anxieties. Of course, those anxieties are replaced by other ones - seeing active combat, year-long deployments, etc.

But when socialism works well (see: U.S. military life), people often flounder when they are removed from that structure and tossed into the cold reality of the U.S. civilian economy and society.

The former Service Members I know are doing well and living in multi million dollar homes. They have high school degrees.

Such incredible BS. Listen troll, you’re on a DC board and you can’t throw a stone here without hitting a Colonel. We are military. We live and work with military. We’re not falling for your crap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Commissary, anyone?

I’m convinced that so many Service Members struggle when they leave because the cradle-to-grave socialism of the military takes away a lot of day-to-day anxieties. Of course, those anxieties are replaced by other ones - seeing active combat, year-long deployments, etc.

But when socialism works well (see: U.S. military life), people often flounder when they are removed from that structure and tossed into the cold reality of the U.S. civilian economy and society.

People flounder when trapped in a capitalist economy, you say?

No, people flounder when they have been infantilized and dependent on others and now have to grow up and live independently.

Even our national parks know this; don’t feed the wildlife, they stop learning to forage for their own food

That belief only works if capitalist society provides people the means to live independently. Ever tried supporting a family of four on Walmart wages? They deliberately underpay their workers, knowing that SNAP benefits will make up the difference. The government is subsidizing these large corporations.

Seems like the corporations should learn how to forage for themselves.

If you are a Walmart shelf stocker trying to feed a family of four, it isn’t capitalism that put you in this situation, but a series of poor choices.

And for the record, Walmart pays very well for people who move up the ladder, like $75k - 130k for middle managers. Upwards of $300,000 for super store managers.

Trying to live of minimum wage with a family is hard, because it isn’t meant to be a career but an entrance into employment.

Not everyone can be a super store manager. For every manager, there are dozens of employees. They aren’t all going to get promoted, not because they’re incompetent but because there aren’t enough job openings.

So it isn’t “poor choices”, it’s simple mathematics, although the just world fallacy is comforting to people who are born on third base and think they hit a triple.

After 5 years of service a person at Walmart can make roughly $50,000/year as your basic run of the employee. Team leads make even more. That’s starting salary for most teachers. Not bad for someone with zero skills other than unboxing and working a register.

And again if you are doing this without a partner/spouse and three kids, that isn’t capitalism’s problem, but poor life choices.

Again, it’s math. Even if every minimum wage worker managed to defy the headwinds and acquire the skills to level up, there still wouldn’t be enough spots to promote them into. Entry level jobs that people used to slot into right after college are now being held onto longer, with cascading effects. And where does the “poor life choices” argument stop? If that $50,000 a year manager wasn’t such a lazy loser, they’d be a regional manager. And if that regional manager had made better choices about which family they were born into and which college they attended, they’d be a VP. And on and on up the ladder, until you get to the CEO, who is apparently the only individual capable of making perfect life choices, as evidenced by the fact that they are a CEO. That’s a circular argument.

Faulting individuals for not being in full control of their destiny is like believing in “The Secret”. It’s sleight of hand designed to dismiss larger systemic issues so we don’t ever have to consider or discuss them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a response to market failures. Grocery stores are owned by corporations and don’t want to invest in low income areas where margins are low.

For some reason, it’s fine when rural white people have co-op grocery stores, often subsidized by a local or state government. But this idea in poor neighborhoods of NYC raises hackles?

Y'all cain't take away mah freedom.

Wow, I bet you think you sound authentic

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Commissary, anyone?

I’m convinced that so many Service Members struggle when they leave because the cradle-to-grave socialism of the military takes away a lot of day-to-day anxieties. Of course, those anxieties are replaced by other ones - seeing active combat, year-long deployments, etc.

But when socialism works well (see: U.S. military life), people often flounder when they are removed from that structure and tossed into the cold reality of the U.S. civilian economy and society.

People flounder when trapped in a capitalist economy, you say?

No, people flounder when they have been infantilized and dependent on others and now have to grow up and live independently.

Even our national parks know this; don’t feed the wildlife, they stop learning to forage for their own food

That belief only works if capitalist society provides people the means to live independently. Ever tried supporting a family of four on Walmart wages? They deliberately underpay their workers, knowing that SNAP benefits will make up the difference. The government is subsidizing these large corporations.

Seems like the corporations should learn how to forage for themselves.

If you are a Walmart shelf stocker trying to feed a family of four, it isn’t capitalism that put you in this situation, but a series of poor choices.

And for the record, Walmart pays very well for people who move up the ladder, like $75k - 130k for middle managers. Upwards of $300,000 for super store managers.

Trying to live of minimum wage with a family is hard, because it isn’t meant to be a career but an entrance into employment.

Not everyone can be a super store manager. For every manager, there are dozens of employees. They aren’t all going to get promoted, not because they’re incompetent but because there aren’t enough job openings.

So it isn’t “poor choices”, it’s simple mathematics, although the just world fallacy is comforting to people who are born on third base and think they hit a triple.

+1 Silly comment. Every company has a pyramid, and as a matter of structure, not skill, not everyone can rise to the top. Walmart can only have one CEO at a time, so all those hourly workers may aspire to that, but none of them will have a shot at it. This conversation is about what an organization with huge profits ($19.436 billion) pays to those at the bottom of the pyramid that supports and holds up that CEO.

Walmart's top 6 executives earned a combined $99.99 million dollars last year, while their employees rely on government subsidies to feed their families. In what world is that responsible business, moral leadership, rational, fair, or just?

The highest minimum wage in the U.S. is $21.16. Those 6 execs earn the equivalent of 23,000 people combined earning the highest minimum wage in the US on a full 40-hour a week schedule. But of course, most minimum wage earneres only get $7.25/hour and only get an average of 23 hours per week. In that real world, those six people took out of the collective profits a bigger share than 25,000 of their employees combined.

That's why the fiduciary duty language needs to be amended or eliminated for large corporations. It's just an excuse for indentured servitude. No corporations should have tens of billions in profit sitting offshore.

It's not up to you to decide the wages of others. If you want to do that, buy a business and start employing people.

If your business depends on you having to exploit your workers then it's a failed model and you have no business being in business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are small rural communities in more sparsely populated states where local government has established grocery stores and/or cafes to make sure these things are available, help keep money in the community, enable people to not have to drive 25 to 50 miles to buy groceries. (In some of these places, municipally-owned liquor stores or bars are the only places allowed to sell alcohol). A hired manager runs the business.

https://www.ruralgrocery.org/learn/publications/case-studies/St_Paul_Success_Story.pdf --took two seconds to find this, it's in Kansas

https://www.commerce.nd.gov/community-services/community-development-rural-prosperity/cdrp-resources/cdrp-grant-programs/rural

https://civileats.com/2025/08/20/op-ed-public-grocery-stores-already-exist-and-work-well-we-need-more/

Pennsylvania and 17 other states (red, blue, and purple) have state controlled wholesaling of liquor. "State Stores" are the only places liquor can be sold by the bottle in PA, for example.

Good point. Virginia, where I live, is one of them. So that begs the question: if a state can run for-profit liquor stores (alcohol, as a reminder, is not a need like food but a want), then why can’t it run some supermarkets?

We don't want the state to run a liquor store. It's unfortunately been declared a controlled substance, you idiot. That's the only reason for ABC stores.

It's a state monopoly, with no competition on pricing. Not necessarily an ideal model for consumers.

The ones I've known about were municipal only. Where my family comes from there's a large region of the state settled by Scandinavian and German Lutheran farmers. Temperance movement was strong and many towns retained no alcohol sales ordinances. Hometown had 3.2 beer starting when Prohibition ended. It took 50 years and 3 separate elections for them to agree to a single liquor license that was purchased by the owner of the 3.2 tavern. Others went the municipal liquor route somewhere in the 40s or 50s. I would assume a statewide monopoly has some kind of regulation that determines overall profit margins.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Commissary, anyone?

I’m convinced that so many Service Members struggle when they leave because the cradle-to-grave socialism of the military takes away a lot of day-to-day anxieties. Of course, those anxieties are replaced by other ones - seeing active combat, year-long deployments, etc.

But when socialism works well (see: U.S. military life), people often flounder when they are removed from that structure and tossed into the cold reality of the U.S. civilian economy and society.

People flounder when trapped in a capitalist economy, you say?

No, people flounder when they have been infantilized and dependent on others and now have to grow up and live independently.

Even our national parks know this; don’t feed the wildlife, they stop learning to forage for their own food

That belief only works if capitalist society provides people the means to live independently. Ever tried supporting a family of four on Walmart wages? They deliberately underpay their workers, knowing that SNAP benefits will make up the difference. The government is subsidizing these large corporations.

Seems like the corporations should learn how to forage for themselves.

If you are a Walmart shelf stocker trying to feed a family of four, it isn’t capitalism that put you in this situation, but a series of poor choices.

And for the record, Walmart pays very well for people who move up the ladder, like $75k - 130k for middle managers. Upwards of $300,000 for super store managers.

Trying to live of minimum wage with a family is hard, because it isn’t meant to be a career but an entrance into employment.

Not everyone can be a super store manager. For every manager, there are dozens of employees. They aren’t all going to get promoted, not because they’re incompetent but because there aren’t enough job openings.

So it isn’t “poor choices”, it’s simple mathematics, although the just world fallacy is comforting to people who are born on third base and think they hit a triple.

After 5 years of service a person at Walmart can make roughly $50,000/year as your basic run of the employee. Team leads make even more. That’s starting salary for most teachers. Not bad for someone with zero skills other than unboxing and working a register.

And again if you are doing this without a partner/spouse and three kids, that isn’t capitalism’s problem, but poor life choices.

I live in a lower COL area (mid-range) than DC. I have a friend (divorced, 2 teen age kids). She had left college when their daughter was born premature and ended up working retail. She divorced her husband when it turned out he was giving the house payment money to an affair partner (they had split costs and had separate accounts). She is also an enrolled tribal member (grandmother 100% Native American) which at intermittent times has meant some extra money. In the last year her income has grown so that she no longer qualifies for any benefits. She said it's extremely difficult. She even has affordable housing, a small house from a private landlord who does not gouge tenants and maintains properties well. And kids are old enough to not need childcare (which used to be traded with her sister anyway). She says it's pretty much fried tofu and vegetables and rice for meals. I asked her what her annual income is, she wasn't totally sure (different sources, she has 2 jobs, there is child support, and there is occasional tribal money) but when we added it up it was somewhere around $56k. Not enough.

Love the white nationalist voices and their wannabes chirping. They can't even feel their faces.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Commissary, anyone?

I’m convinced that so many Service Members struggle when they leave because the cradle-to-grave socialism of the military takes away a lot of day-to-day anxieties. Of course, those anxieties are replaced by other ones - seeing active combat, year-long deployments, etc.

But when socialism works well (see: U.S. military life), people often flounder when they are removed from that structure and tossed into the cold reality of the U.S. civilian economy and society.

People flounder when trapped in a capitalist economy, you say?

No, people flounder when they have been infantilized and dependent on others and now have to grow up and live independently.

Even our national parks know this; don’t feed the wildlife, they stop learning to forage for their own food

That belief only works if capitalist society provides people the means to live independently. Ever tried supporting a family of four on Walmart wages? They deliberately underpay their workers, knowing that SNAP benefits will make up the difference. The government is subsidizing these large corporations.

Seems like the corporations should learn how to forage for themselves.

If you are a Walmart shelf stocker trying to feed a family of four, it isn’t capitalism that put you in this situation, but a series of poor choices.

And for the record, Walmart pays very well for people who move up the ladder, like $75k - 130k for middle managers. Upwards of $300,000 for super store managers.

Trying to live of minimum wage with a family is hard, because it isn’t meant to be a career but an entrance into employment.

Not everyone can be a super store manager. For every manager, there are dozens of employees. They aren’t all going to get promoted, not because they’re incompetent but because there aren’t enough job openings.

So it isn’t “poor choices”, it’s simple mathematics, although the just world fallacy is comforting to people who are born on third base and think they hit a triple.

+1 Silly comment. Every company has a pyramid, and as a matter of structure, not skill, not everyone can rise to the top. Walmart can only have one CEO at a time, so all those hourly workers may aspire to that, but none of them will have a shot at it. This conversation is about what an organization with huge profits ($19.436 billion) pays to those at the bottom of the pyramid that supports and holds up that CEO.

Walmart's top 6 executives earned a combined $99.99 million dollars last year, while their employees rely on government subsidies to feed their families. In what world is that responsible business, moral leadership, rational, fair, or just?

The highest minimum wage in the U.S. is $21.16. Those 6 execs earn the equivalent of 23,000 people combined earning the highest minimum wage in the US on a full 40-hour a week schedule. But of course, most minimum wage earneres only get $7.25/hour and only get an average of 23 hours per week. In that real world, those six people took out of the collective profits a bigger share than 25,000 of their employees combined.

That's why the fiduciary duty language needs to be amended or eliminated for large corporations. It's just an excuse for indentured servitude. No corporations should have tens of billions in profit sitting offshore.

It's not up to you to decide the wages of others. If you want to do that, buy a business and start employing people.

What nonsense. nobody is "indentured" or obligated to work anywhere in particular. The market decides what an individual employee is worth. Anything else artificially distorts costs, prices, and results. Similarly, people are free to support only themselves on their wages, or to elect to have families to support additionally. Nobody is forcing anyone to reproduce and thereby have high costs and a consequent need for increased wages. It's a voluntary election, and ought not be the government or taxpayer issue to address.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are small rural communities in more sparsely populated states where local government has established grocery stores and/or cafes to make sure these things are available, help keep money in the community, enable people to not have to drive 25 to 50 miles to buy groceries. (In some of these places, municipally-owned liquor stores or bars are the only places allowed to sell alcohol). A hired manager runs the business.

https://www.ruralgrocery.org/learn/publications/case-studies/St_Paul_Success_Story.pdf --took two seconds to find this, it's in Kansas

https://www.commerce.nd.gov/community-services/community-development-rural-prosperity/cdrp-resources/cdrp-grant-programs/rural

https://civileats.com/2025/08/20/op-ed-public-grocery-stores-already-exist-and-work-well-we-need-more/

Pennsylvania and 17 other states (red, blue, and purple) have state controlled wholesaling of liquor. "State Stores" are the only places liquor can be sold by the bottle in PA, for example.

Good point. Virginia, where I live, is one of them. So that begs the question: if a state can run for-profit liquor stores (alcohol, as a reminder, is not a need like food but a want), then why can’t it run some supermarkets?

We don't want the state to run a liquor store. It's unfortunately been declared a controlled substance, you idiot. That's the only reason for ABC stores.

It's a state monopoly, with no competition on pricing. Not necessarily an ideal model for consumers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Commissary, anyone?

I’m convinced that so many Service Members struggle when they leave because the cradle-to-grave socialism of the military takes away a lot of day-to-day anxieties. Of course, those anxieties are replaced by other ones - seeing active combat, year-long deployments, etc.

But when socialism works well (see: U.S. military life), people often flounder when they are removed from that structure and tossed into the cold reality of the U.S. civilian economy and society.

People flounder when trapped in a capitalist economy, you say?

No, people flounder when they have been infantilized and dependent on others and now have to grow up and live independently.

Even our national parks know this; don’t feed the wildlife, they stop learning to forage for their own food

That belief only works if capitalist society provides people the means to live independently. Ever tried supporting a family of four on Walmart wages? They deliberately underpay their workers, knowing that SNAP benefits will make up the difference. The government is subsidizing these large corporations.

Seems like the corporations should learn how to forage for themselves.

If you are a Walmart shelf stocker trying to feed a family of four, it isn’t capitalism that put you in this situation, but a series of poor choices.

And for the record, Walmart pays very well for people who move up the ladder, like $75k - 130k for middle managers. Upwards of $300,000 for super store managers.

Trying to live of minimum wage with a family is hard, because it isn’t meant to be a career but an entrance into employment.

Not everyone can be a super store manager. For every manager, there are dozens of employees. They aren’t all going to get promoted, not because they’re incompetent but because there aren’t enough job openings.

So it isn’t “poor choices”, it’s simple mathematics, although the just world fallacy is comforting to people who are born on third base and think they hit a triple.

After 5 years of service a person at Walmart can make roughly $50,000/year as your basic run of the employee. Team leads make even more. That’s starting salary for most teachers. Not bad for someone with zero skills other than unboxing and working a register.

And again if you are doing this without a partner/spouse and three kids, that isn’t capitalism’s problem, but poor life choices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Commissary, anyone?

I’m convinced that so many Service Members struggle when they leave because the cradle-to-grave socialism of the military takes away a lot of day-to-day anxieties. Of course, those anxieties are replaced by other ones - seeing active combat, year-long deployments, etc.

But when socialism works well (see: U.S. military life), people often flounder when they are removed from that structure and tossed into the cold reality of the U.S. civilian economy and society.

People flounder when trapped in a capitalist economy, you say?

No, people flounder when they have been infantilized and dependent on others and now have to grow up and live independently.

Even our national parks know this; don’t feed the wildlife, they stop learning to forage for their own food

That belief only works if capitalist society provides people the means to live independently. Ever tried supporting a family of four on Walmart wages? They deliberately underpay their workers, knowing that SNAP benefits will make up the difference. The government is subsidizing these large corporations.

Seems like the corporations should learn how to forage for themselves.

If you are a Walmart shelf stocker trying to feed a family of four, it isn’t capitalism that put you in this situation, but a series of poor choices.

And for the record, Walmart pays very well for people who move up the ladder, like $75k - 130k for middle managers. Upwards of $300,000 for super store managers.

Trying to live of minimum wage with a family is hard, because it isn’t meant to be a career but an entrance into employment.

Not everyone can be a super store manager. For every manager, there are dozens of employees. They aren’t all going to get promoted, not because they’re incompetent but because there aren’t enough job openings.

So it isn’t “poor choices”, it’s simple mathematics, although the just world fallacy is comforting to people who are born on third base and think they hit a triple.

+1 Silly comment. Every company has a pyramid, and as a matter of structure, not skill, not everyone can rise to the top. Walmart can only have one CEO at a time, so all those hourly workers may aspire to that, but none of them will have a shot at it. This conversation is about what an organization with huge profits ($19.436 billion) pays to those at the bottom of the pyramid that supports and holds up that CEO.

Walmart's top 6 executives earned a combined $99.99 million dollars last year, while their employees rely on government subsidies to feed their families. In what world is that responsible business, moral leadership, rational, fair, or just?

The highest minimum wage in the U.S. is $21.16. Those 6 execs earn the equivalent of 23,000 people combined earning the highest minimum wage in the US on a full 40-hour a week schedule. But of course, most minimum wage earneres only get $7.25/hour and only get an average of 23 hours per week. In that real world, those six people took out of the collective profits a bigger share than 25,000 of their employees combined.

That's why the fiduciary duty language needs to be amended or eliminated for large corporations. It's just an excuse for indentured servitude. No corporations should have tens of billions in profit sitting offshore.

It's not up to you to decide the wages of others. If you want to do that, buy a business and start employing people.

Literally proved my point on why slave labor laws need to be amended. Gottem!

Anonymous wrote:Commissary, anyone?

Do you know what a commissary is?

Are you seriously equating a benefit that people EARN by working with a handout?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Commissary, anyone?

I’m convinced that so many Service Members struggle when they leave because the cradle-to-grave socialism of the military takes away a lot of day-to-day anxieties. Of course, those anxieties are replaced by other ones - seeing active combat, year-long deployments, etc.

But when socialism works well (see: U.S. military life), people often flounder when they are removed from that structure and tossed into the cold reality of the U.S. civilian economy and society.

The former Service Members I know are doing well and living in multi million dollar homes. They have high school degrees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Commissary, anyone?

I’m convinced that so many Service Members struggle when they leave because the cradle-to-grave socialism of the military takes away a lot of day-to-day anxieties. Of course, those anxieties are replaced by other ones - seeing active combat, year-long deployments, etc.

But when socialism works well (see: U.S. military life), people often flounder when they are removed from that structure and tossed into the cold reality of the U.S. civilian economy and society.

People flounder when trapped in a capitalist economy, you say?

No, people flounder when they have been infantilized and dependent on others and now have to grow up and live independently.

Even our national parks know this; don’t feed the wildlife, they stop learning to forage for their own food

That belief only works if capitalist society provides people the means to live independently. Ever tried supporting a family of four on Walmart wages? They deliberately underpay their workers, knowing that SNAP benefits will make up the difference. The government is subsidizing these large corporations.

Seems like the corporations should learn how to forage for themselves.

If you are a Walmart shelf stocker trying to feed a family of four, it isn’t capitalism that put you in this situation, but a series of poor choices.

And for the record, Walmart pays very well for people who move up the ladder, like $75k - 130k for middle managers. Upwards of $300,000 for super store managers.

Trying to live of minimum wage with a family is hard, because it isn’t meant to be a career but an entrance into employment.

Not everyone can be a super store manager. For every manager, there are dozens of employees. They aren’t all going to get promoted, not because they’re incompetent but because there aren’t enough job openings.

So it isn’t “poor choices”, it’s simple mathematics, although the just world fallacy is comforting to people who are born on third base and think they hit a triple.

+1 Silly comment. Every company has a pyramid, and as a matter of structure, not skill, not everyone can rise to the top. Walmart can only have one CEO at a time, so all those hourly workers may aspire to that, but none of them will have a shot at it. This conversation is about what an organization with huge profits ($19.436 billion) pays to those at the bottom of the pyramid that supports and holds up that CEO.

Walmart's top 6 executives earned a combined $99.99 million dollars last year, while their employees rely on government subsidies to feed their families. In what world is that responsible business, moral leadership, rational, fair, or just?

The highest minimum wage in the U.S. is $21.16. Those 6 execs earn the equivalent of 23,000 people combined earning the highest minimum wage in the US on a full 40-hour a week schedule. But of course, most minimum wage earneres only get $7.25/hour and only get an average of 23 hours per week. In that real world, those six people took out of the collective profits a bigger share than 25,000 of their employees combined.

That's why the fiduciary duty language needs to be amended or eliminated for large corporations. It's just an excuse for indentured servitude. No corporations should have tens of billions in profit sitting offshore.

It's not up to you to decide the wages of others. If you want to do that, buy a business and start employing people.