Except it isn't the responsibility of an employer to provide each of its employees any particular standard of living. Just because the government gives away goodies to some of Walmart's employees doesn't say anything about Walmart. It also says more about Walmart's employees than about Walmart as well. If you think you can raise a family of 6 on a Walmart job then you are the problem, not Walmart.
Well for one you could stop subsidizing stupidity.
Your plan apparently is to force Walmart to subsidize them (through over-valuing their labor) instead of the taxpayer. But the fact is that Walmart is going to pass those costs onto its customers.
It seems like you just want to rant about these businesses hiring these poor people who are trying to raise a family of 6 on a job that isn't able to do so. I'm not calling anybody stupid I'm saying that they are living beyond their means by having families that they can't afford on their own. The government has convinced them through goodies that they can work these low paying jobs and still be able to feed a family.Are you really this inept at debate? I asked a question. How do you think it's going to affect the 80% of Walmart workers, if they lost all their government assistance?
Responsibility is irrelevant.
It seems like you just want to rant about how stupid these dumb poor people are. We get it. Now answer the question or admit I am right :twisted:
I mean really, the idea is absurd if you understand anything about economics. You are suggesting that Walmart could raise prices without suffering a loss of customers, why wouldn't they do that right now, today? They can't. Their prices are as high as they can be without losing more business to the competition.
Incidentally, I mentioned Costco because they have lower prices than Walmart on most of the items that overlap, yet Costco pays employees extremely well in comparison.
And if the minimum wage was raised their competition(such as Target) would also raise their prices. Not sure why this is rocket science to you?
So by your previous argument how does Walmart have customers? Shouldn't they all be at Costco?:hmm:
LMAO!!!! How can you compare Costco and Walmart? It clearly apparent you've never been in a Costco as they have no items that overlap. Nor have you paid a $55 annual fee to shop at Walmart.
The answer to your question is that they will suffer if they stopped receiving support. Pretty obvious question and answer, isn't it? Whats your point?
Yeah that $55 fee is a real killer, LOL. Works out to about $5/month, and if you go shopping twice a month you only need to save $3 per trip to make it worthwhile. I guess it's a big scary fee for those who can't do math.
>they have no items that overlap
I'm sorry, that statement is a complete lie.
Walmart doesn't sell food anymore? Are you seriously trying to claim that you can't buy appliances, furniture, clothing, toys, books, computers, other electronics, jewelry, food, alcohol, soda, water, jewelry, or luggage at both stores? There is plenty of overlap, some more common general items you can even buy the exact same brand at both stores.
Walmart does not sell food in bulk, Costco does. Costco does not sell food in smaller consumer sizes, Walmart does.
Prices are comparable between Sam's Club and Costco, I know as I belong to both.
LOL. The progressive rallying cry.Responsibility is irrelevant.
LOL. The progressive rallying cry.
Why can't you grasp that Costco also competes with Walmart, and pays it's employees more than double the current min wage, on average. No price change needed.
All of your so-called arguments are below the level of a five year old, that's exactly the problem. But you are good for a few laughs, I'll give you that much.
Explicitly state your point so we all know what we are talking about then."Suffer" puts it lightly. The point, which seems to constantly elude you, is that they won't make it on a min wage Walmart salary. Walmart will lose it's workforce.
Explicitly state your point so we all know what we are talking about then.
Where are these employees going to go? Why would they throw away their only income if they can't buy lobster with their food stamps anymore? Also what level of subsistence is owed to an unskilled worker? Should this worker be able to afford to care for 3 kids?
I never said they sell all the exact same products, I said they *overlap*.
And no, not everything at Costco is bulk. From my post-
appliances, furniture, clothing, toys, books, computers, other electronics, jewelry, food, alcohol, soda, water, jewelry, or luggage
All the stuff in bold is sold as singular items at Costco. About the only thing they do sell mostly as bulk is food products, but even then certain things are really only slightly larger than normal supermarket large size. I'm fairly certain walmart even sells a fair number of food items in "bulk" sizes.
All in all, you are wrong.
"The no price change needed" for Costco is false. There are many cost savings for Costco because they pay about 50% more than market rates for labor (average pay for retail and Walmart is ~$12/hr and Costco is $18-19/hr). Turnover is really low for Costco and correspondingly labor search, and training cost are very low. Worker productivity of its worker are higher because they have more on-job experience on average, and Costco can demand higher standards on the job and during hiring. If minimum wage was raised to say $15/hr and Costco didn't raise their wages, all those advantages would decrease/disappear because those advantages are dependent on relative wages and not on absolute wages. Then Costco's cost of doing business would go up, which would lead to higher prices. People really underestimate how much of a cost turnover is to a business(read as tens of thousands of dollars per employee, between wasted labor during the hiring process, training, and the lower productivity of a new employee)
There is no more argument. Food deserts exist. Your response was that the food desert, as defined, isn't a bad thing.
You think walking 4 or 8 miles to go to the store and back is fine and okay because you did it once.
I'm just pointing out that while cheap housing exists, it's in the worst parts of the country.
My argument has always been this: min wage workers are a drain on society. They are living off our tax dollars. The min wage jobs they hold are not enough to sustain normal life, so they resort to food stamps medicare and government housing.
Bureau of Labor Statistics data which shows that the vast majority of minimum wage restaurant employees are young. Forty-six percent of federal minimum wage restaurant employees are teenagers, while 70 percent are under the age of 25 –most of them, 80 percent, working part-time. The majority of restaurant employees who earn the federal minimum wage are also not the heads of their households.
Yet it's tit for tat on the prices on what few items you list above. In fact Walmart/Sam's, Costco, Best Buy, Target, K-Mart, and other similar stores are very close in prices on all the items you show above.
LMAO!!!! How can you compare Costco and Walmart? It clearly apparent you've never been in a Costco as they have no items that overlap.
This number is tiny compared to those using food stamps, medicare, govt housing etc so raising the minimum wage isn't going to relive pressure for welfare services
First it was 4 miles - now its 4 to 8?
Oh, I'm sorry.
I said min wage jobs are government subsidized.
If they are subsidized because the earner has made terrible life decision, then my argument is proven correct.
If they are subsidized for an earner that hasn't made those same terrible life decisions, then my argument is proven correct.
Thus the responsibility, in this case, is irrelevant to the ends of my argument.
(I didn't realize I had to explain it to a five year old.)