Love how liberals like to equate "tax breaks" to "welfare." Business is already subjected to double taxation, getting a break on one set of taxes isn't welfare.
Love how liberals like to equate "tax breaks" to "welfare." Business is already subjected to double taxation, getting a break on one set of taxes isn't welfare.
Are you denying the existence of Corporate Welfare or Crony Capitalism?Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Maybe you should re-examine who's calling tax credits "welfare", and who are the beneficiaries.
Its better to say nothing at all than something that is going to cost you money. I really don't think the cost of paying the person for the time to come up with and publish those statements, plus the loss of profits due to negative PR, is going to be less than what they gain from the odd effect of people seeing negative reactions concerning McDonalds and thus going to make a purchase at McDonalds.
. . .
I.E. The "advice" column was probably published by some idiot without the approval at the top.
Hope is the denial of reality
Are you kidding? Nothing published under the McDonald's trademark happens without "approval" from the top.
Edit: Things are pretty bad when multi-million dollar ad campaigns are run by Walmart, McDonald's, Coca Cola, BP, etc. extolling the "virtues" of their corporate business practices. Trying to undo negative press, appeal to consumers' ethical conflicts, and make more profits in the process.
See, when you buy a big screen TV from Walmart at holiday time....at deep discount prices....you're employing local "Associates", and keeping them from unemployment lines! They neglect to mention they're holding food drives for their "Associates" in the break room, because they're working at poverty level wages.
Last edited by GGT; 11-24-2013 at 07:34 AM.
They seem pretty happy to be working there.
I like how people always focus on the bottom of the totem pole when in reality lots of places have crap *entry level* positions and then have opportunity to grow from there. The example of the part timer moving to management is perfect.
They were making a fucking TV commercial, of course they appear "happy".They seem pretty happy to be working there.
I like how people always focus on the bottom of the totem pole when in reality lots of places have crap *entry level* positions and then have opportunity to grow from there. The example of the part timer moving to management is perfect.
The part-timer moving to "management" likely took more than eight (8) years, with a wage increase from $7.25/hour to $9.00/hour, according to Walmart's own internal data (and reported by outside sources).
There are good reasons to focus on the bottom income quintiles:
First, because these are no longer *entry level* positions, or hiring teenagers for pocket money. Retail services are the largest hiring sector, particularly fast food franchise and big box stores, but also hospitality/tourism. The majority of employees are in the 20-39 year old age group. Many have college degrees, and at least one child, with no other employment "prospects". Others are retirees/seniors who had to re-enter the work force after their retirement got blown up in the Financial Crisis.
Second, there have been fundamental, structural shifts in labor markets. The US economy has nearly tripled since the 1970's....with ~ 80% of the income gains "enjoyed" by the top 1-10% quintiles. The six (6) Walton family members are among the richest persons in the world, employing 1/3-1/2 of of the US retail work force in Walmart stores, subsidiaries, and contractors.
For every Walmart Superstore, there are around 900,000 people applying for government assistance in that community. That's after getting local/municipal/state tax credits, with the promise of "jobs and economic activity".
I'm not quite sure how this "well, you can move to management!" is supposed to work - is there really a 1:1 ratio for worker to management?
Because that's what the ratio would have to be for this particular Lewk-logic to work.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
walmart managers can still be part-time workers. It pretty much means that you're responsible for department scheduling. Each store could easily have more than a dozen people with manager in their title. Might sound like a lot until you remember that these people are each over at least a dozen part time associates. Might focus on the bottom, but so far we seem to be giving that bottom more credit than its due. Rarely do part timers get scheduled consistent maximum hours.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 12-04-2013 at 10:46 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Look up the meaning of the word "example."
Lewk up the meaning of the term bait and switch.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Which other opportunities do you think there are for low-skilled people?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Most places have build in career paths. At my first part time job you would start doing one thing but as you picked up training and responsibility you would get incremental raises. I'm guessing that Wal-Mart and other retailers have similar options. In any event if someone is low-skilled and can't find better work perhaps they should do something to better themselves instead of whining about it.
considering these people are already being supported by the government, this would likely mean even more support via taxpayer dollars. Why Lewk, I never took you for such a person!
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
And, pray tell, how exactly are you supposed to do that on minimum wage?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Don't forget time! An education doesn't just cost money.
. . .
That was sort of implied as from what I've gathered, one single job at minimum wage probably won't cut it. At least if you're not single and have children to support.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
What is needed is a very blunt sex ed in school.
Pole A into Slot B will = C.
C= no money, no life, no fun.
Maybe should promote homosex in school...
Waits for Lewk's head to explode.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Today's labor market and economy has changed since "your first PT job".Where the hell have you been the last decade? Millions of middle-income manufacturing jobs were replaced with service-sector jobs, lower pay, and no benefits. It's been a slow recovery, with more people needing jobs than are available---causing underemployment, delayed retirements, and pushing middle-income down to low-income and working-poor.
Why do you talk about low-income/poor people as if they're all lazy whiners who aren't trying to better themselves? Why can't you admit it's really hard work to hold down 2 or 3 PT jobs, live paycheck-to-paycheck at poverty wages, and actually get ahead?
Because what we should be striving for as a country is to have more unskilled/semi-skilled jobs with unaffordable pensions!
Hope is the denial of reality
I wish the economy would just get better so we [the US] could stop having stupid debates like this over minimum wage.
I wish it was summer again so we wouldn't have to worry about homeless people freezing to death!
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
The private service/retail sector doesn't have "pensions" for minimum wage workers. They might be lucky enough to have employer matching IRA contributions, or some sort of employee profit-sharing plan, but that's not a "pension".
If wishes were fishes...."It's the economy, stupid."
Since 70% of our economy is driven by consumption of goods/services, raising min. wage to inflation-adjusted purchasing prices would make things better. Businesses need demand from customers with money to spend. If they paid better wages, that would also reduce the need for public assistance, and lower taxes funding those programs.
If you've got some ground-breaking idea on how to shift our economy from consumption/consumerism....that creates enough good-paying jobs for everyone who wants/needs work to get out of poverty, and grows the middle class....let's hear it.
I like how willing you are to make definitive statements without a shred of evidence to support your position. If you believe something, it must be true! And if you believe the opposite next week (or at the same time), well, that must be true as well!
Hope is the denial of reality
We all know that this argument is more fierce than ever because there are people struggling to make full-time employment living out of jobs designed to be mostly part-time and entry-level. That's a function of our bad economy.
The "evidence" has been quoted and sourced, often and repeatedly, since at least '07. Are you denying the structural changes in our economy, the loss of manufacturing jobs, the auto industry debacle, the housing bubble bursting, the financial crisis and global recession....or just the many D & D economic threads you've participated in?
It's the result of our mature and modern economy reacting to "new normals". Greater productivity and efficiency from computers and robotics, plus outsourcing labor to cheaper developing nations....without similar paying opportunities to fill in the gaps. The Big Transition, The Information Age, the "Service Industry Revolution", or whatever we call it -- it's arrived with huge (and growing) disparities in employment and income.
Hey, Loki! Here's another definitive statement based on decades of economic data collection and academic analysis: the US economy hasn't seen this kind of disparity between top-and-bottom income groups since the Gilded Age. And compared to other developed nations, we're losing ground on upward mobility, while middle-income groups are shrinking. An hour glass shape works well for women's figures, but not for national economies.
Income disparity is virtually meaningless across a wide-enough geographic and economic cohort; income is not zero-sum.
Right, just dilute the problem with "wide-enough" data, and it maybe it won't look so bad.
As I said in another thread....we're mostly discussing the US and minimum wage jobs, comparing our previous labor markets to current times, and how working folks are supposed to earn a living in this new economy. Income disparity isn't a problem in itself -- there will always be people at the top, middle, and bottom. Our problem is the shrinking middle.
It's a meaningful problem when the top 10% make 50% of all income, and corporate/CEO earnings have gone from 20 times worker wages to 200 times (or more). It's meaningful that 2/3 of our GDP is now in retail and service industries, but the bulk of those employees are making less than $35,000/year for FT work....and rely on public assistance to make ends meet.
You're a smart, well-read guy. I have no idea how you can read all the economic information available, and still deny that income disparity is a huge and growing problem in the US. What's up with that?
Because purchasing power is more important, and purchasing power has grown. And I blame bad government and Fed policy for inflating housing prices over the past 20 years, which has done more to erode purchasing power than anything.
Almost as importantly, making a big paycheck doesn't mean you sit on that money and hoard it like Scrooge McDuck. It exists as part of our financial system, with an emphasis on system.
Consumer "purchasing power" index for important, crucial things (health care, higher education, housing) has been shrinking. For decades. These things are now beyond reach for millions of Americans, including those who used to be considered middle-income.
Sure, our "purchasing power" for convenience items, fast food, big-screen TVs, smart phones, game platforms, and household goods has grown. But is it a good trade to have cheap stuff made in China, at the expense of losing domestic jobs? Is it good policy to pay service/retail workers like cheap, replaceable cogs? I don't think so. Particularly not when we're still trying to recover from The Great Recession, adjust to a new economy in transition....and create enough jobs to replace the millions lost, plus jobs for new entrants.
Big paychecks aren't the problem. Having individual millionaires or billionaires isn't the complaint. It's more about the corporate/institutional control of earnings and profits that don't trickle down to 90% of the population. For years we've read about business and investor class "uncertainty" (aka fear) sitting on $2 trillion. Instead of putting it to work in the real economy by innovating and hiring....our financial system incentivizes off-shore accounts, moving money around internationally, and gambling via securitization and derivates. Emphasis on financial.Almost as importantly, making a big paycheck doesn't mean you sit on that money and hoard it like Scrooge McDuck. It exists as part of our financial system, with an emphasis on system.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
