- Joined
- Jul 26, 2018
- Messages
- 8,873
- Reaction score
- 5
Maybe he doesn't think white people are on welfare? They make up over 40% of all SNAP recipients. You can't let your people starve, DIDM.
Bernie's new anti welfare build
- Thread starter japman40
- Start date
Maybe he doesn't think white people are on welfare? They make up over 40% of all SNAP recipients. You can't let your people starve, DIDM.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2018
- Messages
- 3,384
- Reaction score
- 0
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 5,261
- Reaction score
- 1,251
Sorry, Google failed me. That number was total revenue. The point still stands though, they have plenty of money and can certainly afford to pay all their employees a livable wage.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 32,738
- Reaction score
- 1
And if by chance they can't, they should not rely on the tax payer to keep non productive jobs.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 43,412
- Reaction score
- 43,810
I think you should look up how much annual profit/employee Walmart makes each year. It's about $6,000/employee, so if they turned Walmart into a charity and not a business, the most they could possibly offer their lowest paid employees is around $11/hour before they start losing money. The only other option would be to fire half their employees to increase pay for the people who are left. That is what Costco does by having half the employees for each dollar earned. You can have more people working or fewer workers making more money but you can't have both.
A Walmart cashier is not supposed to be a career, it's a job young people get for a short time to get some work experience before getting promoted or moving on to something else.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 5,261
- Reaction score
- 1,251
Source?
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 43,412
- Reaction score
- 43,810
I don't know how to post links from my phone. There's a forbes article if you type walmart profits apple into google. Walmart profits $6300/employee, while apple profits $407,000/employee.
I hear this argument a lot and it's often used as an excuse to ignore the larger issue of why, despite many service jobs offering almost no benefit to society, they're so prevalent.
If these low wage jobs are meant for kids out of high school, why are there so many adults in their 30s, 40s, and 50s fighting tooth and nail to be employed in this sector?
Perhaps there's a breakdown or malfunction in the job market/economy, rather than the lazy explanation that, ironically, it's the employees who are lazy and seek easy/low-skill labor.
And if your numbers are correct that Apple employees create $400k+/yr in revenue compared to Walmart employees creating $6k/yr, then I'd say that's an excellent example illustrating the breakdown I explained.
Many items sold at Walmart and Costco are necessities, literally nothing at an Apple store is needed to survive/maintain hygiene. So why the hell is there so much money being hung up in that industry? I think reversing that trend should be a goal.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 5,261
- Reaction score
- 1,251
I read that article. The math is fuzzy at best but i wont argue the point further. Retails profit margin does seem to be smaller than i thought. I dont think its that small but whatever.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2007
- Messages
- 38,903
- Reaction score
- 11,375
How to make something like that up and keep profit up.
Cut number of employees.
You are seeing more and more stores going to self check out and self order. The Wal-Mart near me is putting in a lot of new self check outs. The McDonald's near by just remodeled and put in new self order and pay.
Then you cut benefits. You lower or do away with the companies share of the benefits. So the matching 401 goes to employees part only. Then they cut the companies side of anything eles like any heath care.
Then you increase prices a little to make up the rest if nessary.
I see nothing wrong with raising the feudal wage to 10, 11 or 12 an hour but even that will affect all the the above some what.
Cut number of employees.
You are seeing more and more stores going to self check out and self order. The Wal-Mart near me is putting in a lot of new self check outs. The McDonald's near by just remodeled and put in new self order and pay.
Then you cut benefits. You lower or do away with the companies share of the benefits. So the matching 401 goes to employees part only. Then they cut the companies side of anything eles like any heath care.
Then you increase prices a little to make up the rest if nessary.
I see nothing wrong with raising the feudal wage to 10, 11 or 12 an hour but even that will affect all the the above some what.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2010
- Messages
- 54,663
- Reaction score
- 11,984
Counting employees in America only? because Walmart has a huge world presence around the world, my city for example has 2.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 43,412
- Reaction score
- 43,810
Well yeah, there's no US government mandate that's going to affect wages in other countries, so those are irrelevant.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 55,916
- Reaction score
- 27,192
Wal-Mart actually teaches their employees how to sign up for SNAP so they don't have to pay them enough money to actually buy food from Wal-Mart.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2016
- Messages
- 34,002
- Reaction score
- 0
How about the fact that Republicans have full control of the government right now, and haven't cut these programs. They are afraid. They know the reality of their bullshit will get them thrown out of office, if they ever actually did it.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 43,412
- Reaction score
- 43,810
Which programs, specifically?
The most egregious were the bank bailouts, and the government was not completely free of culpability in that situation, and while I definitely do not support them, they did pay those back. Neither party opposes corporate favors, which is why I'm opposed to government involvement in business practices. They shouldn't have control of them and would therefore play no part in any collapse of them. The government shouldn't have favors to give and these would have to be dismantled over time rather than just pulling out the rug and collapsing them all at once.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 42,374
- Reaction score
- 5
Can we put the old man to bed already
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...-bezos-bill-would-hurt-the-working-class.html
Bernie Sanders’s BEZOS Bill Would Hurt the Working Class, Not the Rich
By Jonathan Chait
Bernie Sanders has been on a very odd rhetorical crusade to rebrand public assistance to low-wage workers as “corporate welfare” that actually benefits their bosses. This messaging gambit has given Sanders a new way to lambaste the rich (i.e., “It’s time to get Mr. Bezos off welfare”) while framing his ideas in novel ways that appeal to anti-government constituencies. Tucker Carlson excitedly picked up the theme, claiming that Jeff Bezos and other billionaires are “offloading their payroll costs onto taxpayers. This is an indefensible scam. Why is only Bernie talking about it?”
But the entire underlying premise of Sanders’s argument is false. Social welfare benefits workers, not their bosses. Now Sanders has turned his talking point into a piece of legislation whose perverse design and effects only serve to demonstrate the falsity of the assumption that created it.
The Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies (BEZOS) Act, which Sanders has co-sponsored with left-wing House Democrat Ro Khanna, imposes a tax on large corporations equal to the value of the social spending — specifically, Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), rental subsidies, and free or reduced-price school meals — collected by their employees. Its intent is to force these firms to raise their employees’ wages high enough so that they no longer qualify for public assistance, in order to avoid paying the new tax.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a center-left think tank, points out several crippling flaws in this proposal. Penalizing firms who have employees receiving federal benefits would create several perverse side effects. Those firms would have an incentive to avoid hiring employees more likely to receive Medicaid and other forms of assistance — i.e., employees who have families or expensive medical needs. They would also be incentivized both to pressure their employees not to sign up for public assistance and to lobby politically against the expansion of social welfare benefits. State Medicaid expansion would become a large new cost to these companies, and the BEZOS Act would give them a new incentive to oppose it.
The imagined positive effects of the new law would be ineffectual. “Companies that raise wages would have to do so for all workers in particular job categories, not just those who receive public benefit,” the CBPP analysis points out. “That would be more expensive to companies than paying the tax penalty.” As the Center notes, there are several ways to encourage higher wages for low-income workers that, unlike this one, would work. If the goal is to publish companies for paying workers too little, raising the minimum wage (which Sanders also supports) is a more effective tool.
Sanders is not a policy wonk. His political style revolves around reducing all political questions to simple moral fables in which almost every public problem is attributed to the greed of “the billionaire class.” His attacks on public assistance cross the line from brutal oversimplification into outright demagoguery. By forming the argument as a bill whose effects can be predicted, the BEZOS bill performs the service of revealing just how misguided this particular bit of anti-corporate propaganda is.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...-bezos-bill-would-hurt-the-working-class.html
Bernie Sanders’s BEZOS Bill Would Hurt the Working Class, Not the Rich
By Jonathan Chait
Bernie Sanders has been on a very odd rhetorical crusade to rebrand public assistance to low-wage workers as “corporate welfare” that actually benefits their bosses. This messaging gambit has given Sanders a new way to lambaste the rich (i.e., “It’s time to get Mr. Bezos off welfare”) while framing his ideas in novel ways that appeal to anti-government constituencies. Tucker Carlson excitedly picked up the theme, claiming that Jeff Bezos and other billionaires are “offloading their payroll costs onto taxpayers. This is an indefensible scam. Why is only Bernie talking about it?”
But the entire underlying premise of Sanders’s argument is false. Social welfare benefits workers, not their bosses. Now Sanders has turned his talking point into a piece of legislation whose perverse design and effects only serve to demonstrate the falsity of the assumption that created it.
The Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies (BEZOS) Act, which Sanders has co-sponsored with left-wing House Democrat Ro Khanna, imposes a tax on large corporations equal to the value of the social spending — specifically, Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), rental subsidies, and free or reduced-price school meals — collected by their employees. Its intent is to force these firms to raise their employees’ wages high enough so that they no longer qualify for public assistance, in order to avoid paying the new tax.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a center-left think tank, points out several crippling flaws in this proposal. Penalizing firms who have employees receiving federal benefits would create several perverse side effects. Those firms would have an incentive to avoid hiring employees more likely to receive Medicaid and other forms of assistance — i.e., employees who have families or expensive medical needs. They would also be incentivized both to pressure their employees not to sign up for public assistance and to lobby politically against the expansion of social welfare benefits. State Medicaid expansion would become a large new cost to these companies, and the BEZOS Act would give them a new incentive to oppose it.
The imagined positive effects of the new law would be ineffectual. “Companies that raise wages would have to do so for all workers in particular job categories, not just those who receive public benefit,” the CBPP analysis points out. “That would be more expensive to companies than paying the tax penalty.” As the Center notes, there are several ways to encourage higher wages for low-income workers that, unlike this one, would work. If the goal is to publish companies for paying workers too little, raising the minimum wage (which Sanders also supports) is a more effective tool.
Sanders is not a policy wonk. His political style revolves around reducing all political questions to simple moral fables in which almost every public problem is attributed to the greed of “the billionaire class.” His attacks on public assistance cross the line from brutal oversimplification into outright demagoguery. By forming the argument as a bill whose effects can be predicted, the BEZOS bill performs the service of revealing just how misguided this particular bit of anti-corporate propaganda is.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2016
- Messages
- 34,002
- Reaction score
- 0
What a steaming pile of shit.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 42,374
- Reaction score
- 5
Lol I knew you would have that reaction
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2016
- Messages
- 34,002
- Reaction score
- 0
You claimed republicans support capitalism with as little government as possible.
I responded that Republicans obviously do not believe in that, as they have been in charge nearly 2 years with full control, and I see mountains of government all throughout our economy still.
My statement is simply that your claim is false. Republican actions prove that is not what your elected officials believe.
