PDA

View Full Version : That Maine college girl's welfare column



badger
12/16/2011, 03:03 PM
A fun read for anyone who has ever been in retail hell (me!). Many customers treat you like the trashy wage that you make. The experience means that I will never treat a minimum wager like trash ever in my lifetime, nor tolerate anyone else that does.


During the 2010 and 2011 summers, I was a cashier at Wal-Mart #1788 in Scarborough, Maine. I spent hours upon hours toiling away at a register, scanning, bagging, and dealing with questionable clientele. These were all expected parts of the job, and I was okay with it. What I didn’t expect to be part of my job at Wal-Mart was to witness massive amounts of welfare fraud and abuse.

I understand that sometimes, people are destitute. They need help, and they accept help from the state in order to feed their families. This is fine. It happens. I’m not against temporary aid helping those who truly need it. What I saw at Wal-Mart, however, was not temporary aid. I witnessed generations of families all relying on the state to buy food and other items. I literally witnessed small children asking their mothers if they could borrow their EBT cards. I once had a man show me his welfare card for an ID to buy alcohol. The man was from Massachusetts. Governor Michael Dukakis’ signature was on his welfare card. Dukakis’ last gubernatorial term ended in January of 1991. I was born in June of 1991. The man had been on welfare my entire life. That’s not how welfare was intended, but sadly, it is what it has become.

Other things witnessed while working as a cashier included:

a) People ignoring me on their iPhones while the state paid for their food. (For those of you keeping score at home, an iPhone is at least $200, and requires a data package of at least $25 a month. If a person can spend $25+ a month so they can watch YouTube 24/7, I don’t see why they can’t spend that money on food.)

b) People using TANF (EBT Cash) money to buy such necessities such as earrings, kitkat bars, beer, WWE figurines, and, my personal favorite, a slip n’ slide. TANF money does not have restrictions like food stamps on what can be bought with it.

c) Extravagant purchases made with food stamps; including, but not limited to: steaks, lobsters, and giant birthday cakes.

d) A man who ran a hotdog stand on the pier in Portland, Maine used to come through my line. He would always discuss his hotdog stand and encourage me to “come visit him for lunch some day.” What would he buy? Hotdogs, buns, mustard, ketchup, etc. How would he pay for it? Food stamps. Either that man really likes hotdogs, or the state is paying for his business. Not okay.

The thing that disturbed me more than simple cases of fraud/abuse was the entitled nature of many of my customers. One time, a package of bell peppers did not ring up as food in the computer. After the woman swiped her EBT card, it showed a balance that equaled the cost of the peppers. The woman asked what the charge was, and a quick glance at the register screen showed that the peppers did not ring up as food. (Food items had the letter ‘F’ next to their description.) The woman immediately began yelling at me, saying that, “It’s food! You eat it!”

This wasn’t the only time things like this happened: if a person’s EBT balance was less than they thought it would be, or if their cards were declined, it was somehow my fault. I understand the situation is stressful, but a person should be knowledgeable about how much money is in their account prior to going grocery shopping. EBT totals are printed on receipts, and every cell phone has a calculator function. There’s no excuse, and there’s no reason to yell at the cashier for it.

The worst thing I ever saw at Wal-Mart Scarborough was two women and their children. These women each had multiple carts full of items, and each began loading them at the same time (this should have been a tip-off to their intelligence levels). The first woman, henceforth known as Welfare Queen #1, paid for about $400 worth of food with food stamps. The majority of her food was void of any nutritional value. She then pulled out an entire month’s worth of WIC (Women, Infants, and Children program) checks. I do not mind people paying with WIC, but the woman had virtually none of the correct items. WIC gives each participating mother a book containing actual images of items for which a person can and cannot redeem the voucher. This woman literally failed at image comprehension.

After redeeming 10+ WIC checks, Welfare Queen #1 had me adjust the prices of several items she was buying (Wal-Mart’s policy is to just adjust the price of the item without question if it’s within a dollar or two). She then pulled out a vacuum cleaner, and informed me that the cost of the vacuum was $3.48 because, “that’s what it’s labeled as.” The vacuum cleaner was next to a stack of crates that were $3.48. Somehow, every other customer was able to discern that the vacuum cleaner was not $3.48, but Welfare Queen #1 and her friend Welfare Queen #2 were fooled. Welfare Queen #2 informed me that she used to work for Wal-Mart, and that the “laws of Wal-Mart legally said” that I would have to sell her the vacuum for $3.48. After contacting my manager, who went off to find the proper vacuum price, Welfare Queen #1 remarked that it must be tough to stand on a mat all day and be a cashier. I looked at her, smiled, shrugged, and said, “Well, it’s a job.” She was speechless. After they finally admitted defeat, (not before Welfare Queen #2 realizing she didn’t have enough money to buy all of the food she had picked out, resulting in the waste of about $200 worth of products) the two women left about an hour and a half after they arrived at my register. The next man in line said that the two women reminded him of buying steel drums and cement. I said I was reminded why I vote Republican.

Maine has a problem with welfare spending. Maine has some of the highest rates in the nation for food stamp enrollment, Medicaid, and TANF. Nearly 30% of the state is on some form of welfare. Maine is the only state in the nation to rank in the top two for all three categories. This is peculiar, as Maine’s poverty rate isn’t even close to being the highest in the nation. The system in Maine is far easier to get into than in other states, and it encourages dependency. When a person makes over the limit for benefits, they lose all benefits completely. There is no time limit and no motivation to actually get back to work. Furthermore, spending on welfare has increased dramatically, but there has been no reduction of the poverty rate. Something is going terribly wrong, and the things I saw at work were indicators of a much larger problem. Something must change before the state runs out of money funding welfare programs.

This is currently making its rounds on the intraweb. Thoughts?

SoonerTerry
12/16/2011, 03:40 PM
It bothers me when people treat those food stamps like it's their money and they earned it. I just cant imagine where their high self esteem comes from.

Whet
12/16/2011, 04:10 PM
here is the link:

Welfare What? (http://thecollegeconservative.com/2011/12/13/my-time-at-walmart-why-we-need-serious-welfare-reform/)

TheHumanAlphabet
12/16/2011, 04:14 PM
I grew up with the feeling that food stamps meant you were a FAILURE... silly me...

badger
12/16/2011, 05:11 PM
here is the link:

Welfare What? (http://thecollegeconservative.com/2011/12/13/my-time-at-walmart-why-we-need-serious-welfare-reform/)

The comments are also a fun read. A lot of you-go-girl comments, but also a lot of people that speak from their own welfare experiences --- the mom that wanted a fancy cake for the cancer-stricken daughter that was about to have her last birthday that was on food stamps, the naysayers that call her a privileged little white girl Republican, the "walk in my shoes" crowd, you name it, a good mix of responses.

I'm didn't post this to make judgments on the merits and abuse of welfare, WIC, food stamps, etc., but rather, just because I have totally been there when I'm standing at a computer register where the customer is telling me one thing, the computer is telling me another, and my $7 an hour seasonal self is powerless to bring the two authorities together.

Shouting at the cashier does not make the computer suddenly think "Oh, I better do what the customer tells me to."

Shouting at the cashier does not suddenly empower the cashier to tell the computer what to do without a manager override.

Shouting at the cashier does not make them work faster, work harder or make them care about your problem any more than they previously did.

Shouting at the cashier makes them despise you a little bit more than before, when you were just a customer with a discrepancy with that stupid computer they are chained to for the next eight hours on their feet, standing on this hard, cement floor.

So please, retail haters of the world:

1- When a cashier asks you for a donation, a telephone number, if you want a free magazine subscription or if you want to put the purchase on a store-sponsored credit card, a simple "No thank you" will suffice. Try to say it with a smile. They are under orders (and their supervisor is probably in a back room with a camera watching to make sure they say that company line every d@mn ring-up) and your life's story about how stupid you think store credit cards are or a schpiel about how identity theft is caused by companies getting phone numbers is pointless.

2- When there's a price discrepancy, be polite. The computer is likely the dumb one, not the human standing in front of you. The cashier wants you happy and outta the store as fast as possible, just like you do. Work with them, be patient with them.

3- The cashier can't give you a discount, a free item, a coupon, or a job, so please don't ask. Speak to a manager for any of those, not your minimum wagin' misery-filled cashier. If they empowered every $7 an hour to sell a $100 item for $10, they'd be outta business.

4- The cashier likely cannot answer your questions about items in the store, either. If the sales associates appear to all be hiding and the only person for help you can find is the one taking money, by all means ask them if they can find someone to help them. They will be more than happy to get on the intercom and yell "HEY! Am I the only one working here?!"

5- Don't cut the line, don't interrupt if they're talking to another customer and do NOT tell them how to do their job. You'll get an airline customer service response if you do: Even slower service and getting ignored en masse.

6- Don't steal. You're not fooling anyone when you don't make eye contact. I get that you think $25 is too much to pay for a diamond drill bit. I think so too, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to stop you from stealing. Why am I watching you so closely? Because you steal. Why are these items in locked cases now? Because you keep stealing them. Why can't you carry it with you around the store and it has to stay at the register till I check out? Because you keep stealing them. Why is there a manager following me around the store until I leave? Because you steal. Why can't I return items to the store for store credit anymore? Because we all know that you've stolen those items and that's why you have no receipt.

Sooner5030
12/16/2011, 05:17 PM
46 million receive food stamps. (http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/29SNAPcurrPP.htm)

the war on poverty is about as successful as the war on drugs. The problem is with 46 million people using SNAP other folks (WALMART/Grocery stores) are also indirectly dependent on SNAP. It's not going away.......46 million plus all the folks that benefit from use of SNAP out number every one else.

we're f'ed. The reliance on gubment is only growing.

One day we will get to the point where taxing the productive class wont provide enough revenue to cover government services..........ah nevermind....we passed that point.

diverdog
12/16/2011, 05:40 PM
46 million receive food stamps. (http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/29SNAPcurrPP.htm)

the war on poverty is about as successful as the war on drugs. The problem is with 46 million people using SNAP other folks (WALMART/Grocery stores) are also indirectly dependent on SNAP. It's not going away.......46 million plus all the folks that benefit from use of SNAP out number every one else.

we're f'ed. The reliance on gubment is only growing.

One day we will get to the point where taxing the productive class wont provide enough revenue to cover government services..........ah nevermind....we passed that point.

How come it is always the poors fault? You guys keep screaming class warfare well now you are seeing that a good chunk of this country has lost the war and it ain't the rich who lost.

badger
12/16/2011, 06:38 PM
One day we will get to the point where taxing the productive class wont provide enough revenue to cover government services..........ah nevermind....we passed that point.

The point that we're getting to that you were probably thinking that we'll one day reach is when we no longer have an alternative means of paying for it... you know, like loans from China, government bonds... um... what other tricks could we use.... think... think... inflation so that our debts aren't as bad as we think... um... shoot. I dunno. :)

soonercruiser
12/16/2011, 07:36 PM
The author has a right to his/her own opinions.
Walmart = Spandex World!
(I try not to stare!)
I know.....I go there for some good buys....like 5 qt bottles of Mobile 1.
(Best price in town)

diverdog
12/16/2011, 08:39 PM
The point that we're getting to that you were probably thinking that we'll one day reach is when we no longer have an alternative means of paying for it... you know, like loans from China, government bonds... um... what other tricks could we use.... think... think... inflation so that our debts aren't as bad as we think... um... shoot. I dunno. :)

Raise taxes and cut defense spending by 50%.

cleller
12/16/2011, 10:24 PM
Anything someone gets without working for it, they do not comprehend how to appreciate it. Their offspring will be the same numb brained leeches as the welfare queens. If you really want to help a human, you must put the human in a position where it must provide for itself. Giving money to people is what started this problem ala Lyndon Johnson's Great Society BS.

This condescending left wing snobbery created so many problems. Help the poor by not requiring them to work, think, or provide for themselves. Brilliant idea.

diverdog
12/16/2011, 11:00 PM
Anything someone gets without working for it, they do not comprehend how to appreciate it. Their offspring will be the same numb brained leeches as the welfare queens. If you really want to help a human, you must put the human in a position where it must provide for itself. Giving money to people is what started this problem ala Lyndon Johnson's Great Society BS.

This condescending left wing snobbery created so many problems. Help the poor by not requiring them to work, think, or provide for themselves. Brilliant idea.

Actually....your post is pretty inaccurate.

A lot of the people in Maine work jobs that are far harder than most people will ever experience. Lots of Maine's fisherman live on unemployment and food stamps when their season collapses or the government bans fishing in certain areas. They also go unemployed during the winter. The same holds true for folks who work in the timber industry. Maine is an extremely tough place to live and I know people who work two and three jobs just to eek by. To say they do not work or are lazy is not true.

Few people live on welfare for their entire lives. Only 20% are on welfare beyond 5 years and most of those are elderly. Welfare also does not give people a disincentive to work. A large percentage of welfare recipients are women and children. The budget for welfare is about $496 billion with almost half going to mothers, children, elderly and the unemployed. The budget for welfare will be cut by roughly $110 billion over the next 4 years and most of that will be from a decrease in unemployment benefits and reduction in housing subsidies (HUD).

Sooner74
12/16/2011, 11:26 PM
Welfare is a joke nowadays. The relatively thin vail keeping welfare recipients out that don't deserve them is the real issue. Welfare serves a just purpose and most can see that, but to the extent we have people living off welfare with no intention of stopping is wrong, plain wrong.

I have had the satisfaction of knowing two stories that make me realize how screwed up welfare really is. One in which my grandpa lived in extreme poverty and ate rice and beans every night and most nights their were maggots in them. He didn't take welfare and he worked his tail off to own his own business which he still proudly owns today. My mother was a single parent household member who was so poor that we moved all our possessions into one room of my aunts house. She went on to run her own business and create a valuable name for herself. Not one time did either of my family members take welfare. They are both now prosperous and one is a 1%'er and the other is high middle class.

It irritates me because the socio-economic status is in such a state that people don't care and have feelings that they are basically using other peoples money. They don't care to make a life for themselves. That is the issue. What do you do though? You are damned if you do damned if you don't.

My opinion, people on Welfare need rules to follow and if they don't they stop getting welfare. If they want a job I think the government should give them one building a wall on the border solving two social issues. Also they could build prisons, and help run prisons thereby alleviating prison overcrowding and giving jobs to people. The sad fact is corporations pry on welfare because they know in most cases that the people on welfare will be regular customers. It a crying shame that we can't be an accountable society.

Welfare needs to end to some extent and if their is clear fraud going on I think it is time to start seeing people pay for their injustice.

SCOUT
12/17/2011, 01:05 AM
Actually....your post is pretty inaccurate.

A lot of the people in Maine work jobs that are far harder than most people will ever experience. Lots of Maine's fisherman live on unemployment and food stamps when their season collapses or the government bans fishing in certain areas. They also go unemployed during the winter. The same holds true for folks who work in the timber industry. Maine is an extremely tough place to live and I know people who work two and three jobs just to eek by. To say they do not work or are lazy is not true.

I have spent some time (sporadically) in Maine and have worked directly/remotely with people working in Maine. They don't relay the same story you tell here. There are two points where their experiences differ from your summary. First, they made very good money. In fact, one lobsterman joked that he made close to $100K a year and he was always done working by 2:30. Don't get me wrong, he started early, but that isn't a bad wage for a trade skill.

Second, many of them left those hard jobs because they had to work through the hard winters.

As is usually the case, the truth is in the middle. I just wanted to chime in because you painted an overly contrasted view to the previous one.

oudavid1
12/17/2011, 04:09 AM
It all starts with how people are raised. That is my opinion, that is why I vote republican.

diverdog
12/17/2011, 05:36 AM
I have spent some time (sporadically) in Maine and have worked directly/remotely with people working in Maine. They don't relay the same story you tell here. There are two points where their experiences differ from your summary. First, they made very good money. In fact, one lobsterman joked that he made close to $100K a year and he was always done working by 2:30. Don't get me wrong, he started early, but that isn't a bad wage for a trade skill.

Second, many of them left those hard jobs because they had to work through the hard winters.

As is usually the case, the truth is in the middle. I just wanted to chime in because you painted an overly contrasted view to the previous one.

Scout:

I won't completely disagree with your opinion. However, I worked a couple of summers fishing and it really depends on the pricing and the allowable quotas. Last year the prices for lobster were depressed and the two boat owners that I know were not making expenses. They told me at the end of the year they may not make a dime. Like a lot of Mainer's they have a few other businesses to keep them afloat (selling/shipping christmas wreaths, making blue berry deserts, canning wrinkles etc).

Secondly, and this is point that has to be made is that some of them do go on unemployment after making $100,000 in a year. The guys who really take it on the chin and this is the group that I should have referenced are the ground fisherman. They face severe fishing regulations on cod, hake and turbot. Our ground fishing industry has over the years received a lot of taxpayer support. Also, I should point out that it is not necessarily the boat captain that gets unemployment but the crews who are often working at the fringe of society. Fisherman as a lot are hardworking people but they are also really tough characters.

I should also point out that I believe the people who are on food stamps and welfare mostly live in Maine's interior. It is far different than the popular coastal towns that see lots of tourist dollars.

Finally, Maine is like most states where the vast majority of people who are on welfare are moms, kids and the elderly. From what I understand if you are an abled bodied man then you cannot get onto the welfare rolls. I am sure there are some that do but for the vast majority they live in poverty.

diverdog
12/17/2011, 06:00 AM
Something else I would like to add. I am not trying to defend the status quo on welfare. Something that deeply distresses me is the number of single moms on welfare. We need to break the cycle of woman having babies outside of wedlock and the cycle of men not supporting their families. The law needs to be changed to force more men to pay for the child they brought into the world.

The other problem as I see it is that we have a nation that is so focused on the short term that in the long term we are killing ourselves. NAFTA, GATT and the WTO has not been a good thing for American workers. Bringing down tariffs, bad trade deals and the caving to Chinese economic interest is also hurting us. We are not creating good paying jobs and that is causing a lot of our problems with people living on assistance from the government. The other problem is that corporate America has killed off the pension system and have forced most people to save for retirement when many cannot afford to do so. I am also upset that CEO's are making 400 times more than the average workers salary. That is insane and we need to stop it through an aggressive tax. The amount of money some of these CEO's are robbing from these companies could be used to modernize plants, pay for pensions and return more to the shareholder. Back in the day when tax rates were much higher the money was reinvested into the business to avoid paying sums in income tax. We created good jobs and people bought American. Now we outsource and ship raw materials overseas and import them as goods. If you want to see something dramatic look at the trade gaps created since was in office.

http://recession.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/TradeDeficitGDP.jpg


We may be stuck with a lot of people on assistance and I do not think it is a case of people not wanting to work. Someone posted a study on this board of the number of military members who are on food stamps because their deployments force their wives to give up their jobs to take care of their families. A lot of good hardworking people receive assistance because they do not make enough money to make ends meet. We need economic policies that help companies create good jobs and we need an economic system that works for most Americans. I blame both parties for abandoning the middle class in this country and I hope people realize this and start voting for what is best for them.

cleller
12/17/2011, 08:04 AM
Actually....your post is pretty inaccurate.

A lot of the people in Maine work jobs that are far harder than most people will ever experience. Lots of Maine's fisherman live on unemployment and food stamps when their season collapses or the government bans fishing in certain areas. They also go unemployed during the winter. The same holds true for folks who work in the timber industry. Maine is an extremely tough place to live and I know people who work two and three jobs just to eek by. To say they do not work or are lazy is not true.

Few people live on welfare for their entire lives. Only 20% are on welfare beyond 5 years and most of those are elderly. Welfare also does not give people a disincentive to work. A large percentage of welfare recipients are women and children. The budget for welfare is about $496 billion with almost half going to mothers, children, elderly and the unemployed. The budget for welfare will be cut by roughly $110 billion over the next 4 years and most of that will be from a decrease in unemployment benefits and reduction in housing subsidies (HUD).

Inaccurate in what way? Or was that more condescension?(half-wink) Firstly, I was never talking specifically about Maine.

I was pointing out that the model we have employed, to give people money vs allowing nature to force them to provide for themselves is an illogical approach to produce a self reliant citizenry.

I've been unlucky enough to spend my working life in areas where I saw how the welfare model worked. Kind of a welfare communism. Housing projects where girls would get apartments, all their cousins, their kids, boyfriends, etc would come and go. Traded, shared, sold food stamps or access cards. Sickening. All coming out of our pockets.

To put it into simple terms, its like feeding a stray cat. If you fix him up a nice warm place on the porch and feed him, that's where he'll stay. Catching mice is for dummies. (the mice analogy represents work and self reliance)

Oh, and we a very much together on the single mom issue. I'm sure I go further, as I feel a lot of these kids would be better off in orphanages than with the mothers. No man, no family support? Orphanage. Its very tough and unpleasant, but preferable to allowing women that cannot afford the children they bear to bankrupt out country.

cleller
12/17/2011, 08:31 AM
It all starts with how people are raised. That is my opinion, that is why I vote republican.

Isn't OUDavid just like Underdog? Humble and Lovable. He must be Scout's son.

http://i701.photobucket.com/albums/ww14/cs6000/SHOESHINEBOYSHININGCOLORCROP.jpg

East Coast Bias
12/17/2011, 08:57 AM
I have some perspective on this as well. I live in New Hampshire and work in Maine(in the retail industry). I consider myself to be a supporter of the welfare system in its basic form and would be considered by most to be an "on-fire liberal" but Maine has a serious welfare problem. In New Hampshire the welfare system is very restrictive yet right across the border the contrast is stark. In Maine if you are pregnant and low-income the state will pay for all costs associated with the pregnancy. In New Hampshire you are on your own. Many low-income people move across the border to have these sort of things paid for. I work in South Portland which is right next to Scarborough and see these state vouchers everyday. The state has a horrendous problem with the budget(shocker) while New Hampshire is one of the most solvent states in the nation. Maine reminds me a lot of Oklahoma as there are only a couple of semi-large cities and everyone else lives in the woods. The mentality is vastly different...

East Coast Bias
12/17/2011, 09:04 AM
I also have to pay Maine state taxes as I work there, even though I live in New Hampshire which has no state income tax. When I first started paying Maine State taxes I got most of that back, now I always owe them money at the end of the year...It rankles me to think I am paying for this sort of thing..

ictsooner7
12/17/2011, 12:54 PM
It all starts with how people are raised. That is my opinion, that is why I vote republican.

So are you saying democrats don't raise there kids right?

ictsooner7
12/17/2011, 12:57 PM
Raise taxes and cut defense spending by 50%.

Raise taxes on the WEALTHY and cut defense spending by half. there goes the deficit.

Breadburner
12/17/2011, 01:44 PM
Stop the war on poverty and cut out welfare altogether......

diverdog
12/17/2011, 01:50 PM
Inaccurate in what way? Or was that more condescension?(half-wink) Firstly, I was never talking specifically about Maine.

I was pointing out that the model we have employed, to give people money vs allowing nature to force them to provide for themselves is an illogical approach to produce a self reliant citizenry.

I've been unlucky enough to spend my working life in areas where I saw how the welfare model worked. Kind of a welfare communism. Housing projects where girls would get apartments, all their cousins, their kids, boyfriends, etc would come and go. Traded, shared, sold food stamps or access cards. Sickening. All coming out of our pockets.

To put it into simple terms, its like feeding a stray cat. If you fix him up a nice warm place on the porch and feed him, that's where he'll stay. Catching mice is for dummies. (the mice analogy represents work and self reliance)

Oh, and we a very much together on the single mom issue. I'm sure I go further, as I feel a lot of these kids would be better off in orphanages than with the mothers. No man, no family support? Orphanage. Its very tough and unpleasant, but preferable to allowing women that cannot afford the children they bear to bankrupt out country.

Are you saying that everyone who receives government benefits is not working and completely reliant on those benefits?

I would really like to know who do you think would pick up the tab for the working poor. The churches? Corporations? Charity? Or is your solution to let them live on the streets and go hungry. Tell me how you would address fixing welfare paid to an elderly disabled person who lives off $650 a month in SS income? How about the single family mother who makes 35% below what is considered a poverty level wage? Do we punish the children?

And I would be curious to know how much you think your taxes are paying for all of this?

Most people who get food stamps are the elderly and the working poor. I have a woman who I work with whose husband left her with two kids, paid no alimony and has caused her to get government assistance. She is not lazy and I assure you she is not comfortable on what she makes plus what she gets from the government. Both her kids are about to finish community college. Why is not a good idea to help her?

diverdog
12/17/2011, 01:54 PM
I also have to pay Maine state taxes as I work there, even though I live in New Hampshire which has no state income tax. When I first started paying Maine State taxes I got most of that back, now I always owe them money at the end of the year...It rankles me to think I am paying for this sort of thing..

I love Portland. We go there every year. One of my friends sons use to cook at Fore Street. Have you ever been there?

http://www.forestreet.biz/

I have also dropped a small fortune at the Kittery Trading Post.

oudavid1
12/17/2011, 02:39 PM
So are you saying democrats don't raise there kids right?

No, they are just more morally based. I/E Anti-abortion, anti-stem cell.

diverdog
12/17/2011, 04:15 PM
No, they are just more morally based. I/E Anti-abortion, anti-stem cell.

I am anti abortion and pro stem cell. Where does that leave me?

soonervegas
12/17/2011, 05:35 PM
A few thoughts.....

When I was young and much more idealistic, I wrote a paper/presentation in college back in 93 or 94.....along the same lines of much of the original post. After the presentation, there were multiple, multiple people in class who were visibly upset that I would even question the validity of welfare. I mean pissed....

I know a "friend" of a "friend" whose wife lost her job about 3 years ago. Once this wife filed for unemployment she realized she made more money from the government staying home watching the kids than trying to find another job and paying day care. Guess how much motivation she had to find a job?

System is wayyy broken. Don't get me wrong I do think the government has a responsibility to assist in times of need.......but it shouldn't be at the level of long term sustainment.

ictsooner7
12/18/2011, 10:11 AM
Making more on unemployment than what you make working and paying day care is not a function of too high unemployment insurance, it is a function of too low paying jobs and too high of daycare costs. If the right is really worried about families they would do more to lower the cost of living and raise wages, instead of what they are doing now. Trying to crush unions and any attempt to raise wages of anybody lower than the CEO, while not restricting what wall street can speculate on, OIL, and artificially drive up the price of commodities or passing laws to make health care cheaper, single payer system and medications.



As for not taking jobs, niece just graduated from an Ivy League school with a degree in psychology and refused to take a job with a major investment firm because it was not a high enough offer, she is now back home with her range rover that was to be paid for with her new job. So are all Ivy League graduates spoiled and lazy? My daughter who just graduated with a degree in social work took a low paying job where she helps people on welfare find jobs, she finds 2 to 4 people jobs a week. Some don't want to work and are system suckers, the system didn't make them that way they were born that way. Stereotyping a group of people based on one anecdotal example that may or may not be true is just ignorant.

Midtowner
12/18/2011, 01:16 PM
No one is seriously in favor of ending welfare. I mean, what happens when you do that? Do the folks who are suddenly without income, shelter or food just going to go get or create jobs? Or is it more likely that those folks turn to crime on a massive scale, maybe even insurrection?

It would seem though that in our ever more interconnected society and with federal ID cards on the way, it wouldn't be all that hard to create internal system checks to tip off investigators towards folks who are truly abusing the system.

We also might talk about requiring employers to pay a living wage. That shocks the conscience of some, but if you think about it, it really would only force employers to pay for the real social cost of their workers' employment. For example, there are probably hundreds of thousands of parents working for Wal-Mart or fast food companies who have children in government subsidized daycare. Why should the taxpayer have to pay for that daycare? It's only subsidized because Wal-Mart, et al pay less in many cases than it actually costs for an employee to be employed. Many of those employees will also qualify for WIC, TANF, Medicaid, subsidized housing, etc. Companies like Wal-Mart make a mint by passing those costs on to the taxpayer while we pay for Wal Mart to have cheap labor.

East Coast Bias
12/18/2011, 08:40 PM
I love Portland. We go there every year. One of my friends sons use to cook at Fore Street. Have you ever been there?

http://www.forestreet.biz/

I have also dropped a small fortune at the Kittery Trading Post.

No, I haven't been to Fore street, but you are right Portland is a very nice town. I like where I live in New Hampshire better, it is less commercial. The Atlantic Ocean is 4 houses down at the end of the street I live on. Only 5K people in the town I live in, very sparsely populated. The problem here is that everyone has to commute to work. I drive 60 miles to work, 120 miles a day. I drive by the kittery Trading Post every day. Next time you are up, lets go have a beer. They don't really have good beer up here, but we can make something work.

East Coast Bias
12/18/2011, 08:45 PM
Also count me in on the Diver/IC budget that cuts 50% from the military and raises taxes on the wealthy. All the months of craziness in Congress and you guys solved the crisis in 5 minutes. And yes cons, it really is that easy. We can spread it out for 5-8years if the sudden change scares you............

oudavid1
12/18/2011, 09:23 PM
I am anti abortion and pro stem cell. Where does that leave me?

Out of luck.

oudavid1
12/18/2011, 11:02 PM
Whose fault is it? Is it my fault for busting my azz and being successful?

Most of the poor aren't there because someone screwed them over unless you count the democrat entitlement mentality that has kept generations from improving their lot in life.

Just because one generation is poor doesn't mean the next generation has to make the same decisions.

This.

cleller
12/19/2011, 09:40 AM
Whose fault is it? Is it my fault for busting my azz and being successful?

Most of the poor aren't there because someone screwed them over unless you count the democrat entitlement mentality that has kept generations from improving their lot in life.

Just because one generation is poor doesn't mean the next generation has to make the same decisions.

You'd think anyone of average intelligence could figure out it is in their best interest to take steps that will insure they are not trying to support spouses (sounds old fashioned today) or children until they have the financial means. It is not hard to do.

If a breadwinner were to suddenly die, I'd expect social security to step in. Hopefully, that breadwinner would have also had the foresight to provide life insurance. Too much to afford? Don't have the family.

Yet we continue to have this endless stream of single moms with illegitimate kids to take care of. Complain about it, and someone throws up the faces of those innocent kids. Their thoughtless, selfish, irresponsible parents just get a pass.

Midtowner
12/19/2011, 09:45 AM
Just because one generation is poor doesn't mean the next generation has to make the same decisions.

The statistical correlations would say otherwise.

dwarthog
12/19/2011, 10:14 AM
The statistical correlations would say otherwise.

So, congrats to the "Great Society" misguided programs?

Midtowner
12/19/2011, 02:45 PM
So, congrats to the "Great Society" misguided programs?

It may have seemed like a good idea at the time and may have been. It's impossible to know how society would have unfolded without it.

No doubt it's meant a lot of unintended consequences. Whether those have outweighed the cost of inaction would be impossible to say.

pphilfran
12/19/2011, 02:48 PM
It may have seemed like a good idea at the time and may have been. It's impossible to know how society would have unfolded without it.

No doubt it's meant a lot of unintended consequences. Whether those have outweighed the cost of inaction would be impossible to say.

You have been kind of quiet lately....where ya been?

Dale Ellis
12/19/2011, 03:19 PM
How come it is always the poors fault? You guys keep screaming class warfare well now you are seeing that a good chunk of this country has lost the war and it ain't the rich who lost.

You're right dog, if only the rich would just give their money to the poor all our problems would be solved.
The reality is this, with a lot of these people, you could give them 4k a month and they'd blow it on luxury items instead of the necessities.

Altering who funds them is not going to alter their spending habits.

Dale Ellis
12/19/2011, 03:24 PM
You'd think anyone of average intelligence could figure out it is in their best interest to take steps that will insure they are not trying to support spouses (sounds old fashioned today) or children until they have the financial means. It is not hard to do.

If a breadwinner were to suddenly die, I'd expect social security to step in. Hopefully, that breadwinner would have also had the foresight to provide life insurance. Too much to afford? Don't have the family.

Yet we continue to have this endless stream of single moms with illegitimate kids to take care of. Complain about it, and someone throws up the faces of those innocent kids. Their thoughtless, selfish, irresponsible parents just get a pass.

amen brother. I used to work in child support enforcement and I had a consent stream of women calling in with multiple children by different fathers, none of which were paying child support and the kicker...............the women were pregnant again. I told my wife "some of these people are like animals, they just breed with any male of female of the species they encounter.

But hey, don't worry, there are enough responsible, hard working folks to foot the bill I guess.

Dale Ellis
12/19/2011, 03:25 PM
Are you saying that everyone who receives government benefits is not working and completely reliant on those benefits?

I would really like to know who do you think would pick up the tab for the working poor. The churches? Corporations? Charity? Or is your solution to let them live on the streets and go hungry. Tell me how you would address fixing welfare paid to an elderly disabled person who lives off $650 a month in SS income? How about the single family mother who makes 35% below what is considered a poverty level wage? Do we punish the children?

And I would be curious to know how much you think your taxes are paying for all of this?

Most people who get food stamps are the elderly and the working poor. I have a woman who I work with whose husband left her with two kids, paid no alimony and has caused her to get government assistance. She is not lazy and I assure you she is not comfortable on what she makes plus what she gets from the government. Both her kids are about to finish community college. Why is not a good idea to help her?

again, you missed the entire point of this article, it's about those who abuse the system.

Midtowner
12/19/2011, 03:52 PM
You have been kind of quiet lately....where ya been?

The pron sites were more entertaining.

ictsooner7
12/19/2011, 04:10 PM
amen brother. I used to work in child support enforcement and I had a consent stream of women calling in with multiple children by different fathers, none of which were paying child support and the kicker...............the women were pregnant again. I told my wife "some of these people are like animals, they just breed with any male of female of the species they encounter.

But hey, don't worry, there are enough responsible, hard working folks to foot the bill I guess.

My wife works with kids taken into custody, birth control in the milk................from a liberal.........

Dale Ellis
12/19/2011, 04:20 PM
My wife works with kids taken into custody, birth control in the milk................from a liberal.........

Not sure what point you're attempting to make???

ictsooner7
12/19/2011, 04:28 PM
Not sure what point you're attempting to make???

Putting birth control in the milk, at home, so they won't have kids they can't and/or won't take care of.

It was a joke my mom use to say about "wild" girls.

Dale Ellis
12/19/2011, 04:39 PM
Putting birth control in the milk, at home, so they won't have kids they can't and/or won't take care of.

It was a joke my mom use to say about "wild" girls.

Had a lady call me one day complaining about not receiving her child support check " I needs my money fo groceries for my churdren"

I then here in the background "B-17", the damn lady was at a bingo hall at 2 in the afternoon playing bingo.

ictsooner7
12/19/2011, 04:56 PM
Had a lady call me one day complaining about not receiving her child support check " I needs my money fo groceries for my churdren"

I then here in the background "B-17", the damn lady was at a bingo hall at 2 in the afternoon playing bingo.

and then there are times when I think instead of fluoride in the water........................

SanJoaquinSooner
12/19/2011, 05:02 PM
Had a lady call me one day complaining about not receiving her child support check " I needs my money fo groceries for my churdren"

I then here in the background "B-17", the damn lady was at a bingo hall at 2 in the afternoon playing bingo.

Now Dale, you are making this up. The B's only go to 15.

Dale Ellis
12/19/2011, 05:05 PM
Now Dale, you are making this up. The B's only go to 15.

True story, I may have the number wrong, but it was "B" something. I also loved the ones that call, and I can hear them flushing the toilet in the background. Gee, could you not finish taking your $hit first, then call?

okie52
12/19/2011, 05:15 PM
Now Dale, you are making this up. The B's only go to 15.

B-17 was a great bomber though.

Dale Ellis
12/19/2011, 05:21 PM
B-17 was a great bomber though.
I'm a B-29 guy.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/19/2011, 05:32 PM
B-17 was a great bomber though.

Well there you have it. Dale was probably talking to a Boeing factory janitor lady. That explains all toilet flushing noise.

But seriously Dale, glad to hear you no longer work welfare. Are you in the private sector now?

Caboose
12/20/2011, 08:48 PM
No one is seriously in favor of ending welfare. I mean, what happens when you do that? Do the folks who are suddenly without income, shelter or food just going to go get or create jobs? Or is it more likely that those folks turn to crime on a massive scale, maybe even insurrection?

It would seem though that in our ever more interconnected society and with federal ID cards on the way, it wouldn't be all that hard to create internal system checks to tip off investigators towards folks who are truly abusing the system.

We also might talk about requiring employers to pay a living wage. That shocks the conscience of some, but if you think about it, it really would only force employers to pay for the real social cost of their workers' employment. For example, there are probably hundreds of thousands of parents working for Wal-Mart or fast food companies who have children in government subsidized daycare. Why should the taxpayer have to pay for that daycare? It's only subsidized because Wal-Mart, et al pay less in many cases than it actually costs for an employee to be employed. Many of those employees will also qualify for WIC, TANF, Medicaid, subsidized housing, etc. Companies like Wal-Mart make a mint by passing those costs on to the taxpayer while we pay for Wal Mart to have cheap labor.

Wonderful recipe for inflation and higher unemployment, not to mention the affront to individual liberty. The last thing I want is some Bureau of Jareds telling me I can't negotiate a lower wage than what they determined to be best for me. Oh but it would make you feel like you were righting some social injustice, wouldnt it? I guess thats all that matters.

Midtowner
12/20/2011, 09:53 PM
Wonderful recipe for inflation and higher unemployment, not to mention the affront to individual liberty. The last thing I want is some Bureau of Jareds telling me I can't negotiate a lower wage than what they determined to be best for me. Oh but it would make you feel like you were righting some social injustice, wouldnt it? I guess thats all that matters.

Wow.. you must hate the free market? Let employers pay what their employees actually cost society. What's the big problem?

Are you some kind of socialist? I guess as long as we're redistributing wealth to the benefit of the Fortune 500, you're fine with it?

Caboose
12/20/2011, 10:05 PM
Wow.. you must hate the free market? Let employers pay what their employees actually cost society. What's the big problem?

Are you some kind of socialist? I guess as long as we're redistributing wealth to the benefit of the Fortune 500, you're fine with it?

Yeah, I want individuals to be free to negotiate their wage with prospective employers so it somehow it means I hate the free market and am a socialist! Jeeze for a smart guy you sure are ****ing stupid A LOT of the time.

bigfatjerk
12/21/2011, 12:49 AM
I don't know if we need to get rid of welfare. But if we have a free market driven system we shouldn't have a need for that much welfare. We don't have a free market system because we have too many laws like the drug laws, like social security, like minimum wage and hour limits for some jobs which aren't all actually necessary and end up making the poor even poorer and the rich even richer.

Our system is made to benefit the rich. It's why we have a federal education system that doesn't educate our kids yet is allowed continue like it has. If welfare was such a great system we would actually not need more people on welfare each year because those on welfare would be getting richer. Instead we have more and more people getting poorer. We need to get rid of the racist, collectivist toward the rich driven system that both parties are going toward if we really want to see some real change.

East Coast Bias
12/21/2011, 06:30 AM
Here is a hypothetical case study to consider: In Maine a young single female has her baby delivered and cared for with a social program administered by the state. In this case the taxpayers of Maine pay for the care. In New Hampshire(across the border) the same female has the baby delivered with no insurance or state social program. Unpaid charges add to what we all pay for insurance, hospital care, etc. The claim in New Hampshire would probably also result in a Medicare claim of some sort. All of these programs was funded in different manners, which ones are the best? The New Hampshire system spreads the cost across a larger sector whereas the Maine approach narrows it down to state taxpayers.

Midtowner
12/21/2011, 06:46 AM
Yeah, I want individuals to be free to negotiate their wage with prospective employers so it somehow it means I hate the free market and am a socialist! Jeeze for a smart guy you sure are ****ing stupid A LOT of the time.

But you don't want employers to have to pay what their employees really cost the rest of us. That's dumfounding. You want socialism, but you want socialism which benefits only the wealthy.

okie52
12/21/2011, 07:35 AM
But you don't want employers to have to pay what their employees really cost the rest of us. That's dumfounding. You want socialism, but you want socialism which benefits only the wealthy.

Sounds like the costs of illegal immigration.

bigfatjerk
12/21/2011, 07:56 AM
But you don't want employers to have to pay what their employees really cost the rest of us. That's dumfounding. You want socialism, but you want socialism which benefits only the wealthy.

employees only cost the employers money not the rest of us. I see no problem with wanting the free market to dictate wages. It's the way it really should be and would lead to a lot better job situation in this country. What you want is what democrats and republicans want. And that's to pay off all their rich friends.

Caboose
12/21/2011, 09:05 AM
But you don't want employers to have to pay what their employees really cost the rest of us. That's dumfounding. You want socialism, but you want socialism which benefits only the wealthy.

What employees "really cost the rest of us"? People cost the rest of us via Liberal (socialistic) entitlement programs, not "employees". It is not Wal-Marts fault your government decided to remove a portion of your freedom and income to subsidize daycare costs for people. It is the governments fault, and ultimately the fault of people like you who willingly trade freedom for the illusion of the security. Further even though it is your own fault these people in question are costing the rest of us, your solution is yet MORE loss of individual freedom and effectively raising taxes on everyone in your misguided attempt to punish Wal-Mart for you own shortsighted failures. Guess what happens when you "make Wal-Mart pay" by making them pay some arbitrary "living wage" determined by a committee of Jareds? WE pay, not Wal-Mart. First Wal-Mart simply lays people off, or stops hiring, or cuts back on hours or benefits. Second, they raise prices to mitigate their losses from your "solution". Third you have removed those now unemployed peoples right to negotiate a wage with prospective employers so they cant get another job. So right off the bat you have triple-****ED the very people you were purporting to help. They are now unemployed AND it costs them more to buy groceries... AT WAL-MART. On top of that you have ****ED the rest of us because your grand idea caused everyone else to raise their prices too, effectively taxed via inflation. So in the end who pays these social costs you are talking about? Its not Wal Mart. Its us. And its not because Wal Mart is some big evil company, it is because **** ignorant do-gooders allow the government to trample individual liberty so they can feel like they are saving the world.


I want a free market and individual liberty. My aim isn't to benefit one group or another, it is to allow every individual to pursue their own interests with minimal interference from the government. Some will succeed in that model, others will fail. Either way it will be due to their own devices. That is not socialism under even the broadest imaginable definition of the term. What is dumfounding is how someone as smart as you can have such a poor grasp on such simple terms.

cleller
12/21/2011, 09:07 AM
Here is a hypothetical case study to consider: In Maine a young single female has her baby delivered and cared for with a social program administered by the state. In this case the taxpayers of Maine pay for the care. In New Hampshire(across the border) the same female has the baby delivered with no insurance or state social program. Unpaid charges add to what we all pay for insurance, hospital care, etc. The claim in New Hampshire would probably also result in a Medicare claim of some sort. All of these programs was funded in different manners, which ones are the best? The New Hampshire system spreads the cost across a larger sector whereas the Maine approach narrows it down to state taxpayers.

Can we end the story with:
Then the baby was adopted by a wonderful childless couple, the mother received a birth control implant, and they all lived happily ever after?

Midtowner
12/21/2011, 09:08 AM
employees only cost the employers money not the rest of us. I see no problem with wanting the free market to dictate wages. It's the way it really should be and would lead to a lot better job situation in this country. What you want is what democrats and republicans want. And that's to pay off all their rich friends.

Not true. When you refuse to give someone full time hours and pay them minimum wage or something around there, that employee is going to qualify for all kinds of public subsidies. In essence, the public is paying for the employer to have cheap labor--a government-sponsored redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest elite.

It's not even debatable that Wal Mart is able to attract cheap labor because its cheap labor can depend on income from public assistance to make ends meet. Take away the welfare and one of two things happen--Wal Mart's costs will go up and they'll pass 'em along to the rest of us, or they'll continue to pay low wages with awful benefits and the employees and their children will slide into an even worse sort of squalor or be forced to take multiple jobs, give their children up to the state, etc.

Dale Ellis
12/21/2011, 10:04 AM
Not true. When you refuse to give someone full time hours and pay them minimum wage or something around there, that employee is going to qualify for all kinds of public subsidies. In essence, the public is paying for the employer to have cheap labor--a government-sponsored redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest elite.

It's not even debatable that Wal Mart is able to attract cheap labor because its cheap labor can depend on income from public assistance to make ends meet. Take away the welfare and one of two things happen--Wal Mart's costs will go up and they'll pass 'em along to the rest of us, or they'll continue to pay low wages with awful benefits and the employees and their children will slide into an even worse sort of squalor or be forced to take multiple jobs, give their children up to the state, etc.

Very well put however you left out a couple of critical components. First of all, no one is forcing any of these people to work at Walmart, they have the option of seeking employment elsewhere. Also, Walmart is just like your law firm, they are in business to make money not to provide a living for their employees.

By your logic you should be providing healthcare for your two employees, yet by your own admission, you do not. That flies directly in the face of what you just said.

Midtowner
12/21/2011, 10:16 AM
Very well put however you left out a couple of critical components. First of all, no one is forcing any of these people to work at Walmart, they have the option of seeking employment elsewhere. Also, Walmart is just like your law firm, they are in business to make money not to provide a living for their employees.

By your logic you should be providing healthcare for your two employees, yet by your own admission, you do not. That flies directly in the face of what you just said.

It's because I'm in business to make money, and I can do so because the government has set up rules which favor me. As a small business person, I'd be an idiot not to take advantage of all of the opportunities I can.

But is it fair that I have the ability to have employees that you're helping me pay for? Nope. Will I continue to do it as long as it's legal to do so? Yep.

If all of my competitors and myself were forced to provide healthcare, a living wage, etc., I'd suck it up and pay it. I may or may not be able to raise my rates to pass those costs along to my clients (the market would decide that). But would the public be better off? Definitely. I'm not about to give up a competitive edge which will let my competitors pass me by.

Dale Ellis
12/21/2011, 10:25 AM
If all of my competitors and myself were forced to provide healthcare, a living wage, etc., I'd suck it up and pay it

Then stop bitching when other companies don't provide it.


But is it fair that I have the ability to have employees that you're helping me pay for? Nope. Will I continue to do it as long as it's legal to do so? Yep.

So, you're doing the same thing you're griping at Wal-Mart for doing, and your excuse is "as long as I can get away with it, I'll do it". Thanks for showing everyone on this board what a complete hypocrite you are.

Typical liberal, "do as I say and not as I do".

bigfatjerk
12/21/2011, 11:40 AM
We need to get companies and governments out of trying to provide health care for all and pretty much make health care a completely free market private driven system. But this will never happen because it would give the individuals the control instead of some centralized rich group.

But really midtown all the problems are rooted to this. It's what our current system wants to do all around. Even welfare ends up hurting the less fortunate in this country even more because it makes people stay on welfare because they get so much for free. If welfare really wanted to be a good thing it would basically only give it's users the bare minimum a person/family can live on. This would force people to want out of welfare real quick.

Midtowner
12/21/2011, 11:47 AM
Then stop bitching when other companies don't provide it.



So, you're doing the same thing you're griping at Wal-Mart for doing, and your excuse is "as long as I can get away with it, I'll do it". Thanks for showing everyone on this board what a complete hypocrite you are.

Typical liberal, "do as I say and not as I do".

Not at all. I'm saying that the government should either provide healthcare for all or require employers to provide it for their employees as otherwise, the cost will be passed on to the taxpayers anyhow. I want to be regulated. I want to be required to pay something. If I was required to pay for insurance for employees, I'm sure the options for myself and my competitors in the market would also be a hell of a lot better than they are right now as everyone would be paying and there'd be a lot more competition in the marketplace for those dollars, not to mention the fact that risk would be spread around much more evenly.

Midtowner
12/21/2011, 11:50 AM
We need to get companies and governments out of trying to provide health care for all and pretty much make health care a completely free market private driven system. But this will never happen because it would give the individuals the control instead of some centralized rich group.

But really midtown all the problems are rooted to this. It's what our current system wants to do all around. Even welfare ends up hurting the less fortunate in this country even more because it makes people stay on welfare because they get so much for free. If welfare really wanted to be a good thing it would basically only give it's users the bare minimum a person/family can live on. This would force people to want out of welfare real quick.

Generally, welfare is not a great way to live. Do some thrive on it by committing fraud? Yes. Will that change under any set of laws? No.

As far as ending it goes, I'm skeptical that you can do that at this point without seeing a massive spike in crime and violence. I'm not sure whether it's worth it.

Dale Ellis
12/21/2011, 12:04 PM
I'm saying that the government should either provide healthcare for all or require employers to provide it for their employees as otherwise

You don't believe that for a minute, you're just saying it because you think it excuses your CHOICE to NOT provide healthcare for your employers. "I'm not providing it because the government should. I would provide it if the government FORCED me to".

So you're not different from the big corps your rail against. You don't pay your employees enough for them to afford their own healthcare plan, and you don't provide coverage for them.

You're in here demanding that others do what you will not do. You've already stated you would only do it if the government FORCED you to. You are a hypocrite, no way around it.

diverdog
12/21/2011, 12:35 PM
What employees "really cost the rest of us"? People cost the rest of us via Liberal (socialistic) entitlement programs, not "employees". It is not Wal-Marts fault your government decided to remove a portion of your freedom and income to subsidize daycare costs for people. It is the governments fault, and ultimately the fault of people like you who willingly trade freedom for the illusion of the security. Further even though it is your own fault these people in question are costing the rest of us, your solution is yet MORE loss of individual freedom and effectively raising taxes on everyone in your misguided attempt to punish Wal-Mart for you own shortsighted failures. Guess what happens when you "make Wal-Mart pay" by making them pay some arbitrary "living wage" determined by a committee of Jareds? WE pay, not Wal-Mart. First Wal-Mart simply lays people off, or stops hiring, or cuts back on hours or benefits. Second, they raise prices to mitigate their losses from your "solution". Third you have removed those now unemployed peoples right to negotiate a wage with prospective employers so they cant get another job. So right off the bat you have triple-****ED the very people you were purporting to help. They are now unemployed AND it costs them more to buy groceries... AT WAL-MART. On top of that you have ****ED the rest of us because your grand idea caused everyone else to raise their prices too, effectively taxed via inflation. So in the end who pays these social costs you are talking about? Its not Wal Mart. Its us. And its not because Wal Mart is some big evil company, it is because **** ignorant do-gooders allow the government to trample individual liberty so they can feel like they are saving the world.


I want a free market and individual liberty. My aim isn't to benefit one group or another, it is to allow every individual to pursue their own interests with minimal interference from the government. Some will succeed in that model, others will fail. Either way it will be due to their own devices. That is not socialism under even the broadest imaginable definition of the term. What is dumfounding is how someone as smart as you can have such a poor grasp on such simple terms.

Wow do you have it all wrong. Keep living in your Ayn Rand utopia.

Midtowner
12/21/2011, 01:19 PM
You don't believe that for a minute, you're just saying it because you think it excuses your CHOICE to NOT provide healthcare for your employers. "I'm not providing it because the government should. I would provide it if the government FORCED me to".

So you're not different from the big corps your rail against. You don't pay your employees enough for them to afford their own healthcare plan, and you don't provide coverage for them.

You're in here demanding that others do what you will not do. You've already stated you would only do it if the government FORCED you to. You are a hypocrite, no way around it.

Not at all. I'm saying that I should do it and that I want to do it, but everyone else should too. I don't want to lose a competitive advantage by being the only guy out there offering full health benefits to part time employees who spend a large portion of their day reading books or surfing the net.

And as I said, if everyone is forced to do it, prices and services available will both improve dramatically.

East Coast Bias
12/21/2011, 01:26 PM
Not sure how you will ever get the health-care system to a "free market". Then are people free to join or opt-out of the market? The insurance companies, Doctors and drug companies have created the current market. They negotiate the pricing among themselves, most of us don't even know what we pay for many of these services.Allowing only those that want coverage to buy from an open market will end up costing those individuals more, unless... You put some regulation in place. A better answer in my opinion is to get a contribution from everyone and allow some basic regulation. You can keep the insurance companies if we can find a way to make them play fairly. I would start with regulating drug prices and a ban on drug advertising. That alone would start to save us all money....

SCOUT
12/21/2011, 01:33 PM
Not at all. I'm saying that I should do it and that I want to do it, but everyone else should too. I don't want to lose a competitive advantage by being the only guy out there offering full health benefits to part time employees who spend a large portion of their day reading books or surfing the net.

And as I said, if everyone is forced to do it, prices and services available will both improve dramatically.

If you paid for benefits and a good wage, you could hire employees who were productive. Wouldn't that be a competitive advantage?

Midtowner
12/21/2011, 01:33 PM
Not sure how you will ever get the health-care system to a "free market". Then are people free to join or opt-out of the market? The insurance companies, Doctors and drug companies have created the current market. They negotiate the pricing among themselves, most of us don't even know what we pay for many of these services.Allowing only those that want coverage to buy from an open market will end up costing those individuals more, unless... You put some regulation in place. A better answer in my opinion is to get a contribution from everyone and allow some basic regulation. You can keep the insurance companies if we can find a way to make them play fairly. I would start with regulating drug prices and a ban on drug advertising. That alone would start to save us all money....

I'm fine with all of that. By "free market," I mean a regulated free market with mandated participation by everyone. Sort of like we have under the Affordable Care Act, but much more. The ACA is really a huge step in the right direction, but it doesn't go far enough.

Midtowner
12/21/2011, 01:35 PM
If you paid for benefits and a good wage, you could hire employees who were productive. Wouldn't that be a competitive advantage?

I just need folks to run to the courthouse for me, do filing and answer phones. If I need anything more complex than that done, I contract it out. So no, I don't think that'd help.

My approach is this--if I choose to do something my competitors don't do cost-wise, I am intentionally placing myself at a disadvantage. It'd be like paying in extra money to the federal government because I thought my marginal rate should be higher. It'll be an ineffectual gesture which will accomplish nothing.

On the other hand, if all employers had to pay for employee healthcare, I'd be happy to do it and would even favor such a regime. Also, if the feds raised my marginal income tax rate along with everyone else's, we might be further along in balancing the budget.

And let's not get hung up on healthcare. Let's talk about wages as well. Employers should be required to pay a minimum wage of whatever it takes to keep an employee from being able to afford ANY public money. Let employers pay the true cost of employing folks, end corporate welfare before touching the weakest and least able to fend for themselves in our country.

Dale Ellis
12/21/2011, 02:27 PM
I just need folks to run to the courthouse for me, do filing and answer phones. If I need anything more complex than that done, I contract it out. So no, I don't think that'd help.

My approach is this--if I choose to do something my competitors don't do cost-wise, I am intentionally placing myself at a disadvantage. It'd be like paying in extra money to the federal government because I thought my marginal rate should be higher. It'll be an ineffectual gesture which will accomplish nothing.

On the other hand, if all employers had to pay for employee healthcare, I'd be happy to do it and would even favor such a regime. Also, if the feds raised my marginal income tax rate along with everyone else's, we might be further along in balancing the budget.

In other words you're doing the same thing that the big corps you hate and rail against do. You're being a hypocrite. Just admit it dude.

Midtowner
12/21/2011, 02:29 PM
Nope. Read my post. It directly answered your question.

Dale Ellis
12/21/2011, 03:07 PM
Nope. Read my post. It directly answered your question.

You're a hypocrite, you've already been exposed via your own words. Dead in the water my friend.

ictsooner7
12/21/2011, 05:51 PM
We need to get companies and governments out of trying to provide health care for all and pretty much make health care a completely free market private driven system. But this will never happen because it would give the individuals the control instead of some centralized rich group.

But really midtown all the problems are rooted to this. It's what our current system wants to do all around. Even welfare ends up hurting the less fortunate in this country even more because it makes people stay on welfare because they get so much for free. If welfare really wanted to be a good thing it would basically only give it's users the bare minimum a person/family can live on. This would force people to want out of welfare real quick.

You don't understand how medical insurance works. Wichita Kansas, where I live, has the top 3 (this was a couple years back) in cost of health insurance in the country. Two smaller cities outside of San Francisco have the highest two. I have two friends in medical insurance sales and what they tell me is that these insurance companies sign doctors to exclusive agreements or they raise the rates they pay to doctors so high doctors won’t sign on with other insurance companies. Other insurance companies are shut out because they cannot get enough doctors to provide services to the number of clients they get when they sell to a big company. How the amount paid to doctors is raised is by having the very doctors (actually the groups of doctors) on the board of the insurance company and determines how much payout to doctors there is. So there is no competition in reality, it is a fixed system.

diverdog
12/21/2011, 07:34 PM
You're a hypocrite, you've already been exposed via your own words. Dead in the water my friend.

How so? To compare a one man operation to a huge multinational corporation is unfair.

Caboose
12/21/2011, 08:26 PM
Wow do you have it all wrong. Keep living in your Ayn Rand utopia.

What specifically is wrong about any part of my post?

diverdog
12/21/2011, 10:13 PM
What specifically is wrong about any part of my post?

A lot. Your model is far to simple and it does not even begin to address the myriad of ways huge modern day multi nationals both f*** the taxpayer and their workers. It has very little to do with liberalism and a whole lot to do with greed.

Dale Ellis
12/21/2011, 11:12 PM
How so? To compare a one man operation to a huge multinational corporation is unfair.

To ask others to do what you are not willing to do is unfair.

Caboose
12/21/2011, 11:23 PM
A lot. Your model is far to simple and it does not even begin to address the myriad of ways huge modern day multi nationals both f*** the taxpayer and their workers. It has very little to do with liberalism and a whole lot to do with greed.


Well? Which part was wrong?

diverdog
12/21/2011, 11:34 PM
Well? Which part was wrong?

You said you wanted the least amount of interference from the government. How would that apply to pollution, work place safety, wages etc?

Caboose
12/21/2011, 11:46 PM
You said you wanted the least amount of interference from the government. How would that apply to pollution, work place safety, wages etc?

So you are saying I was wrong and that I dont actually want the least amount of government interference possible? Are you saying what I must have meant was that I want the most amount of government interference possible?

Midtowner
12/22/2011, 12:24 AM
To ask others to do what you are not willing to do is unfair.

I said I'm willing to do it if everyone else does also. Basic reading comp stuff there bucko.

okie52
12/22/2011, 12:37 AM
Something else I would like to add. I am not trying to defend the status quo on welfare. Something that deeply distresses me is the number of single moms on welfare. We need to break the cycle of woman having babies outside of wedlock and the cycle of men not supporting their families. The law needs to be changed to force more men to pay for the child they brought into the world.

The other problem as I see it is that we have a nation that is so focused on the short term that in the long term we are killing ourselves. NAFTA, GATT and the WTO has not been a good thing for American workers. Bringing down tariffs, bad trade deals and the caving to Chinese economic interest is also hurting us. We are not creating good paying jobs and that is causing a lot of our problems with people living on assistance from the government. The other problem is that corporate America has killed off the pension system and have forced most people to save for retirement when many cannot afford to do so. I am also upset that CEO's are making 400 times more than the average workers salary. That is insane and we need to stop it through an aggressive tax. The amount of money some of these CEO's are robbing from these companies could be used to modernize plants, pay for pensions and return more to the shareholder. Back in the day when tax rates were much higher the money was reinvested into the business to avoid paying sums in income tax. We created good jobs and people bought American. Now we outsource and ship raw materials overseas and import them as goods. If you want to see something dramatic look at the trade gaps created since was in office.

http://recession.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/TradeDeficitGDP.jpg


We may be stuck with a lot of people on assistance and I do not think it is a case of people not wanting to work. Someone posted a study on this board of the number of military members who are on food stamps because their deployments force their wives to give up their jobs to take care of their families. A lot of good hardworking people receive assistance because they do not make enough money to make ends meet. We need economic policies that help companies create good jobs and we need an economic system that works for most Americans. I blame both parties for abandoning the middle class in this country and I hope people realize this and start voting for what is best for them.

Good chart diver. Did you notice that we started having a trade deficit around 1973....the same time as the first Arab oil embargo? Do you know over 50% of our trade deficit is due to imported oil? Yet we continue to self inflict ourselves with senseless energy policies that harm us economically and strategically.

Midtowner
12/22/2011, 12:52 AM
Correlation =/= causation.

diverdog
12/22/2011, 07:19 AM
So you are saying I was wrong and that I dont actually want the least amount of government interference possible? Are you saying what I must have meant was that I want the most amount of government interference possible?

No not at all. However, what you are missing is that when a corporation externalizes its cost they receive an unrealized gain and the cost are passed on to society. Libertarians fail to understand these cost especially when it comes to pollution. Corporate welfare is almost as large in this country as actual welfare. Reagan and Stockman were once quoted about hogs feeding at the trough.

The other area where I thought you were wrong is that additional regulatory burden cause businesses to layoff or raise cost. That is not necessarily true. In the regulatory enviroment there are winners and loser. However regulation rarely put companies out of business.

If Walmart were forced to pay for health care for their workers I seriously doubt there would be mass layoffs. They run very lean staffing and they could not afford to lose a lot of their work force. Prices would not change that much because they are in a very competitive market.

diverdog
12/22/2011, 07:21 AM
Good chart diver. Did you notice that we started having a trade deficit around 1973....the same time as the first Arab oil embargo? Do you know over 50% of our trade deficit is due to imported oil? Yet we continue to self inflict ourselves with senseless energy policies that harm us economically and strategically.

Yep. We need to change that inbalance.

bigfatjerk
12/22/2011, 08:43 AM
You don't understand how medical insurance works. Wichita Kansas, where I live, has the top 3 (this was a couple years back) in cost of health insurance in the country. Two smaller cities outside of San Francisco have the highest two. I have two friends in medical insurance sales and what they tell me is that these insurance companies sign doctors to exclusive agreements or they raise the rates they pay to doctors so high doctors won’t sign on with other insurance companies. Other insurance companies are shut out because they cannot get enough doctors to provide services to the number of clients they get when they sell to a big company. How the amount paid to doctors is raised is by having the very doctors (actually the groups of doctors) on the board of the insurance company and determines how much payout to doctors there is. So there is no competition in reality, it is a fixed system.

We don't really disagree here, I said as long as the system goes like it is the costs to the consumers will continue to go up because it's set up for the rich and those in control to keep rigging in the system

Caboose
12/22/2011, 08:49 AM
No not at all. However, what you are missing is that when a corporation externalizes its cost they receive an unrealized gain and the cost are passed on to society. Libertarians fail to understand these cost especially when it comes to pollution. Corporate welfare is almost as large in this country as actual welfare. Reagan and Stockman were once quoted about hogs feeding at the trough.

You think I am missing it after I directly addressed it? Wal-Mart. Government subsidized healthcare. Midtowners "solution" of making Wal-Mart pay higher wages to punish them for the actions of the government and people like himself. Yeah I get it, but you have it backwards. The problem is you and Midtowner have it backwards. End the subsidies and let the market take care of itself. Nowhere in any post on ANY have I ever supported corporate welfare of any kind. That is something you and Midtowner are dreaming up.



The other area where I thought you were wrong is that additional regulatory burden cause businesses to layoff or raise cost.
You are wrong. Any new mandated cost associated with having/hiring a new employee is either mitigated by hiring less employees, laying off current employees, or raising the cost of the companies product. What you are Midtowner arent getting is that the company doesn't pay taxes or pay for regulatory costs... their employees do (more work responsibilities due to loss of staff, less benefits, getting laid off, etc) and society at large does (inflation tax). You and Midtowner seem have this fantasy that if you force Wal-Mart to pay their employees 20 dollars an hour instead of 8 dollars an hour that Wal-Mart is just going to say "OK, I guess we will just leave everything else the same and make less profit." That is not how big business works. They will mitigate the effect of government mandated raises by slowing/freezing hiring, laying off workers, outsourcing anything they can, investing in automation, removing employee benefits, and raising prices along with their competitors. In the end, Wal-Mart's profits stay the same and the cost of Midtowners short sighted idea is paid for by society at large and especially the poor.


That is not necessarily true. In the regulatory enviroment there are winners and loser. However regulation rarely put companies out of business.

I didnt say it puts any of them out of business, I said they transfer the cost of regulation back to the employees and customers.


If Walmart were forced to pay for health care for their workers I seriously doubt there would be mass layoffs. They run very lean staffing and they could not afford to lose a lot of their work force. Prices would not change that much because they are in a very competitive market.

First I didnt say anything about Wal-Mart being forced to pay for healthcare. Second, WalMart may not be as affected as others, but there would be some layoffs. They would invest more into automation and other benefits would be eliminated. Prices would increase despite the fact that they are in a very competitive market because their competitors would have to raise prices too.



So again where was I wrong? You are basically took an entire post I made, claimed the whole thing was wrong, then when asked repeatedly which part was wrong you claim I didnt address a topic that happened to be the entire point of my post and then you bring up stuff I didnt say anything about at all, and claim I was wrong about it. Baffling. And of course you fail to address my main point, which was the most egregious effect of the policies of people like you... that it is an affront to individual liberty. You aren't doing me any favors by making it illegal for me to negotiate my wage with a prospective employer. You are just fist-****ing the bottom third of society, especially minorities. U.S. Minimum wage laws are arguably racist, not in their intent, but in their results because t is the poor minorities that have been the most negatively affected by them.

And I am still waiting for you to explain how Wall Street forced the government to spend more money than it had in revenue from the other thread you ran away from.

Midtowner
12/22/2011, 09:13 AM
So end all welfare?

Health insurance for the children of the poor? Housing assistance for poor folks with children? Free public education? Food stamps so that the poorest among us can feed their families? WIC? TANF? Where to start?

As far as transferring the cost of regulation to employees, if the mandate is that they have to pay employees more, assuming Wal-Mart is already operating at a pretty high level of efficiency labor wise, there is only so much they can cut before they are no longer a viable retail force, so that's not totally realistic, and if they raise their prices very much, they won't be competitive and the little guys can get back into the game en masse. Will prices go up? Maybe a little, but you overstate your case.

We don't hire folks as a charity function, we hire them because it makes us more efficient. I can't operate without someone to answer my phones and organize my files. I'd get no work done if I had to do that. I'll pay as little as I can get away with for that help, but I'll pay.

Dale Ellis
12/22/2011, 09:55 AM
I said I'm willing to do it if everyone else does also. Basic reading comp stuff there bucko.

No, you are railing against Walmart etc. for under paying their employees so they (walmart) can make more profit, yet you've already admitted on this thread, that you do the same thing. You can't him haw your way out of it pal. You've already said if given the choice (which you have been given) you will under pay your employees and provide no type of benefit package for them). You're a hypocrite, you demand that others do what you have not will not or can not do, unless you are "FORCED" to.

diverdog
12/22/2011, 11:16 AM
You think I am missing it after I directly addressed it? Wal-Mart. Government subsidized healthcare. Midtowners "solution" of making Wal-Mart pay higher wages to punish them for the actions of the government and people like himself. Yeah I get it, but you have it backwards. The problem is you and Midtowner have it backwards. End the subsidies and let the market take care of itself. Nowhere in any post on ANY have I ever supported corporate welfare of any kind. That is something you and Midtowner are dreaming up.

Okay, I misunderstood you. Sorry. So what is your solution for the uninsured?
.



You are wrong. Any new mandated cost associated with having/hiring a new employee is either mitigated by hiring less employees, laying off current employees, or raising the cost of the companies product. What you are Midtowner arent getting is that the company doesn't pay taxes or pay for regulatory costs... their employees do (more work responsibilities due to loss of staff, less benefits, getting laid off, etc) and society at large does (inflation tax). You and Midtowner seem have this fantasy that if you force Wal-Mart to pay their employees 20 dollars an hour instead of 8 dollars an hour that Wal-Mart is just going to say "OK, I guess we will just leave everything else the same and make less profit." That is not how big business works. They will mitigate the effect of government mandated raises by slowing/freezing hiring, laying off workers, outsourcing anything they can, investing in automation, removing employee benefits, and raising prices along with their competitors. In the end, Wal-Mart's profits stay the same and the cost of Midtowners short sighted idea is paid for by society at large and especially the poor.

This is where I have issues with blanket statements. Not all mandates cost consumers or employees and sure doesn't cause ( in a lot of cases) less hiring. For instance here in Delaware one of DuPonts plants was told to stop dumping a pollutant into the environment. Well they found a way to capture the pollutant and make a new product that has made them millions. In my industry we have had to comply with new regulatory requirements and we hired more people. No one got laid off and no fees were raised. Most hiring decisions are based on demand.

I never said Walmart should pay $20/hr. what I want Walmart to do is quit shifting cost to the taxpayer.


I didnt say it puts any of them out of business, I said they transfer the cost of regulation back to the employees and customers.



First I didnt say anything about Wal-Mart being forced to pay for healthcare. Second, WalMart may not be as affected as others, but there would be some layoffs. They would invest more into automation and other benefits would be eliminated. Prices would increase despite the fact that they are in a very competitive market because their competitors would have to raise prices too.



So again where was I wrong? You are basically took an entire post I made, claimed the whole thing was wrong, then when asked repeatedly which part was wrong you claim I didnt address a topic that happened to be the entire point of my post and then you bring up stuff I didnt say anything about at all, and claim I was wrong about it. Baffling. And of course you fail to address my main point, which was the most egregious effect of the policies of people like you... that it is an affront to individual liberty. You aren't doing me any favors by making it illegal for me to negotiate my wage with a prospective employer. You are just fist-****ing the bottom third of society, especially minorities. U.S. Minimum wage laws are arguably racist, not in their intent, but in their results because t is the poor minorities that have been the most negatively affected by them.

You should read the lawsuits that are being brought against Walmart warehouses to understand why we have labor laws in this country. There are companies who bring in illegals and pay them $10 a day or less. Minimum wage are not racist and to say as much is a joke. How is an 18 year old kid going to negotiate their wage? Do you negotiate your wage every year? I bet not.


And I am still waiting for you to explain how Wall Street forced the government to spend more money than it had in revenue from the other thread you ran away from.

They had a gun to the head of the entire nation. If we did not bail them out the entire economy would have collapsed from a lack of credit. Is that so hard to understand?



DD

Dale Ellis
12/22/2011, 11:26 AM
You think I am missing it after I directly addressed it? Wal-Mart. Government subsidized healthcare. Midtowners "solution" of making Wal-Mart pay higher wages to punish them for the actions of the government and people like himself. Yeah I get it, but you have it backwards. The problem is you and Midtowner have it backwards. End the subsidies and let the market take care of itself. Nowhere in any post on ANY have I ever supported corporate welfare of any kind. That is something you and Midtowner are dreaming up.



You are wrong. Any new mandated cost associated with having/hiring a new employee is either mitigated by hiring less employees, laying off current employees, or raising the cost of the companies product. What you are Midtowner arent getting is that the company doesn't pay taxes or pay for regulatory costs... their employees do (more work responsibilities due to loss of staff, less benefits, getting laid off, etc) and society at large does (inflation tax). You and Midtowner seem have this fantasy that if you force Wal-Mart to pay their employees 20 dollars an hour instead of 8 dollars an hour that Wal-Mart is just going to say "OK, I guess we will just leave everything else the same and make less profit." That is not how big business works. They will mitigate the effect of government mandated raises by slowing/freezing hiring, laying off workers, outsourcing anything they can, investing in automation, removing employee benefits, and raising prices along with their competitors. In the end, Wal-Mart's profits stay the same and the cost of Midtowners short sighted idea is paid for by society at large and especially the poor.



I didnt say it puts any of them out of business, I said they transfer the cost of regulation back to the employees and customers.



First I didnt say anything about Wal-Mart being forced to pay for healthcare. Second, WalMart may not be as affected as others, but there would be some layoffs. They would invest more into automation and other benefits would be eliminated. Prices would increase despite the fact that they are in a very competitive market because their competitors would have to raise prices too.



So again where was I wrong? You are basically took an entire post I made, claimed the whole thing was wrong, then when asked repeatedly which part was wrong you claim I didnt address a topic that happened to be the entire point of my post and then you bring up stuff I didnt say anything about at all, and claim I was wrong about it. Baffling. And of course you fail to address my main point, which was the most egregious effect of the policies of people like you... that it is an affront to individual liberty. You aren't doing me any favors by making it illegal for me to negotiate my wage with a prospective employer. You are just fist-****ing the bottom third of society, especially minorities. U.S. Minimum wage laws are arguably racist, not in their intent, but in their results because t is the poor minorities that have been the most negatively affected by them.

And I am still waiting for you to explain how Wall Street forced the government to spend more money than it had in revenue from the other thread you ran away from.

welcome to the wonderful world of debating Mid. Any valid point you make will simply be dismissed or ignored.
He'll accuse you of "cherry picking", cutting and pasting, or he'll simply say " doubt the validity of ******).

Oh or he'll make some comment about your reading comprehension skills.

49r
12/22/2011, 02:14 PM
Jesus...

pphilfran
12/22/2011, 02:46 PM
No not at all. However, what you are missing is that when a corporation externalizes its cost they receive an unrealized gain and the cost are passed on to society. Libertarians fail to understand these cost especially when it comes to pollution. Corporate welfare is almost as large in this country as actual welfare. Reagan and Stockman were once quoted about hogs feeding at the trough.

The other area where I thought you were wrong is that additional regulatory burden cause businesses to layoff or raise cost. That is not necessarily true. In the regulatory enviroment there are winners and loser. However regulation rarely put companies out of business.

If Walmart were forced to pay for health care for their workers I seriously doubt there would be mass layoffs. They run very lean staffing and they could not afford to lose a lot of their work force. Prices would not change that much because they are in a very competitive market.

Wal Mart employes 1.4 million in the US...

If each employee was given a 5 dollar an hour raise...200 bucks a week....10 k a year...

10 k times 1.4 million (not all of the 1.4 mill would need the raise, mid managers and up get nada)

14 billion in added US wage costs...

Net sales (worldwide) of 358 billion...US 258 billion...and then another 50 billion out of Sams...

They ended up making 5 billion...

So 14 billion in added wages is a little over 3% of worldwide sales and almost 5% of US sales...

http://walmartstores.com/sites/annualreport/2010/financials.aspx

badger
12/22/2011, 03:08 PM
Wal Mart employes 1.4 million in the US...

If each employee was given a 5 dollar an hour raise...200 bucks a week....10 k a year...

10 k times 1.4 million (not all of the 1.4 mill would need the raise, mid managers and up get nada)

14 billion in added US wage costs...

Net sales (worldwide) of 358 billion...US 258 billion...and then another 50 billion out of Sams...

They ended up making 5 billion...

So 14 billion in added wages is a little over 3% of worldwide sales and almost 5% of US sales...

http://walmartstores.com/sites/annualreport/2010/financials.aspx

Ah walmart... I wonder how many generations will be allowed to stay billionaires before the estate tax finally kicks in. They were able to forego that after Sam's death, but I wonder if they will succeed in getting even more heirs and heiresses on the Forbes wealthiest in the world list.

So anyways, eff Walmart. Use em only if I need to, because their stores are crowded, dirty and their merchandise is crap.

pphilfran
12/22/2011, 03:13 PM
I love Wal Mart...they are sorry sob's to deal with...they expect miracles...but they do buy nearly a half million a year from me...at 25% profit...so I love Wal Mart...

Midtowner
12/22/2011, 03:14 PM
Ah walmart... I wonder how many generations will be allowed to stay billionaires before the estate tax finally kicks in. They were able to forego that after Sam's death, but I wonder if they will succeed in getting even more heirs and heiresses on the Forbes wealthiest in the world list.

So anyways, eff Walmart. Use em only if I need to, because their stores are crowded, dirty and their merchandise is crap.

According to the LA Times, just six of the Wal Mart heirs are worth more than the bottom 30% of Americans combined.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/12/six-walmart-heirs-wealthier-than-bottom-30-percent.html

pphilfran
12/22/2011, 03:18 PM
According to the LA Times, just six of the Wal Mart heirs are worth more than the bottom 30% of Americans combined.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/12/six-walmart-heirs-wealthier-than-bottom-30-percent.html

No matter what we try to do to stop it they will find ways around it...

It damn sure is an obscene amount of money but their is no one with more right to the money than the legal heirs...

Sooner_Bob
12/22/2011, 04:14 PM
Maine reminds me a lot of Oklahoma as there are only a couple of semi-large cities and everyone else lives in the woods.

Everyone else lives in the woods? When was the last time you were through Oklahoma? :texan:

Midtowner
12/22/2011, 04:30 PM
No matter what we try to do to stop it they will find ways around it...

It damn sure is an obscene amount of money but their is no one with more right to the money than the legal heirs...

The estate tax we used to have would say otherwise.

--and no, if the tax is written broadly enough, the only way around it becomes fraud.

pphilfran
12/22/2011, 04:58 PM
If+Washington=Fail

Dale Ellis
12/22/2011, 06:41 PM
According to the LA Times, just six of the Wal Mart heirs are worth more than the bottom 30% of Americans combined.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/12/six-walmart-heirs-wealthier-than-bottom-30-percent.html

So fing what? You'd take that wealth in a heartbeat if you had the opportunity, you'd then utilize every tax loophole you could in order to pay as little as possible. You're a lawyer, your just above ring worms on the food chain.

East Coast Bias
12/22/2011, 06:49 PM
Everyone else lives in the woods? When was the last time you were through Oklahoma? :texan:

Maybe I overcooked my generalization a little bit, now that i think about it OKC and Tulsa really aren't big cities.....

East Coast Bias
12/22/2011, 07:10 PM
Payroll is where the biggest cost in retail resides.Profit margins are thin and these guys are very good at squeezing more out of less and putting the competition out of business. They are not looking to lower wages in the long-run, they are working to eliminate jobs.In the future the business model shifts to on-line marketing out of giant warehouses. You will go to a "display store" with products under glass then order products from a kiosk using your credit card. When the shipment times get to less than a day this will happen. You order in the morning, it is delivered to your house in the afternoon. No need for employees, only one to refill the paper in the kiosk, a few warehouse grunts. Think how close this is right now.

East Coast Bias
12/22/2011, 08:26 PM
Wal Mart employes 1.4 million in the US...

If each employee was given a 5 dollar an hour raise...200 bucks a week....10 k a year...

10 k times 1.4 million (not all of the 1.4 mill would need the raise, mid managers and up get nada)

14 billion in added US wage costs...

Net sales (worldwide) of 358 billion...US 258 billion...and then another 50 billion out of Sams...

They ended up making 5 billion...

So 14 billion in added wages is a little over 3% of worldwide sales and almost 5% of US sales...

http://walmartstores.com/sites/annualreport/2010/financials.aspx

Phil:
I respect your opinions and your math, see if i am translating the above correctly: With worldwide sales of 358 billion, Wal-mart netted out 5 billion in profit? That would make their net profit margin somewhere between 1 and 2 percent of sales? Doesn't that mean they would have to generate 2-1/2 times the business they are currently doing to finance the added wage and make the same profit? This would be how they would evaluate something like this. 5 billion seems understated for their yearly profit.

soonercruiser
12/22/2011, 08:44 PM
Maybe I overcooked my generalization a little bit, now that i think about it OKC and Tulsa really aren't big cities.....

Thank GOD, they are not!
:very_drunk:

(even though mayor Mick would love to be the....)

SCOUT
12/22/2011, 08:57 PM
Payroll is where the biggest cost in retail resides.Profit margins are thin and these guys are very good at squeezing more out of less and putting the competition out of business. They are not looking to lower wages in the long-run, they are working to eliminate jobs.In the future the business model shifts to on-line marketing out of giant warehouses. You will go to a "display store" with products under glass then order products from a kiosk using your credit card. When the shipment times get to less than a day this will happen. You order in the morning, it is delivered to your house in the afternoon. No need for employees, only one to refill the paper in the kiosk, a few warehouse grunts. Think how close this is right now.
Yikes, the past is present..or are you saying future?

Best did that exact thing 30 years ago!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Products

pphilfran
12/23/2011, 05:24 AM
Phil:
I respect your opinions and your math, see if i am translating the above correctly: With worldwide sales of 358 billion, Wal-mart netted out 5 billion in profit? That would make their net profit margin somewhere between 1 and 2 percent of sales? Doesn't that mean they would have to generate 2-1/2 times the business they are currently doing to finance the added wage and make the same profit? This would be how they would evaluate something like this. 5 billion seems understated for their yearly profit.

Damn dogs went crazy and woke my butt up...now I can't go back to sleep...


I am not sure where I pulled the 5 billion from....might have been a quarterly number....whatever, it was inaccurate...net income for the year was just over 16 billion...around 4 bucks per share in earnings...3.5 billion shares outstanding (1.06 in div)....a P/E around 13 with a stock price of 59...it all works out pretty damn close so I will go with the 16 billion...still, razor thin margins...

There is a lot to look at to figure out what it would take to finance the added costs...I will just look at a few...

1. It will add to long term entitlements...pensions and payroll taxes would also increase...so this adds to the cost...and I ain't even going to try to get into that area...
2. Their entire operation cost base will not rise by 5%...most everything else would stay a previous cost levels..no new trucks or warehouses or stores needed if they could just jack up prices....
3. If the competition matches the price increases to cover the added expense things are golden...if the competition is not playing on the same level field (higher wages) the competition could hold steady on labor costs and possibly undercut Wm and gain market share at WMs expense...

In a nutshell:

If they were unable to get price increases into the marketplace they would have to grow significantly to make up the shortfall, much like you said...
If a 5% price increase would not cause a revenue slump then it would come close to covering a five buck an hour raise....

I am looking at it in the simplest of terms and the numbers could be off significantly..but I do think I am reasonably close...

This bout put me to sleep so back to the sack...

East Coast Bias
12/23/2011, 08:14 AM
Damn dogs went crazy and woke my butt up...now I can't go back to sleep...


I am not sure where I pulled the 5 billion from....might have been a quarterly number....whatever, it was inaccurate...net income for the year was just over 16 billion...around 4 bucks per share in earnings...3.5 billion shares outstanding (1.06 in div)....a P/E around 13 with a stock price of 59...it all works out pretty damn close so I will go with the 16 billion...still, razor thin margins...

There is a lot to look at to figure out what it would take to finance the added costs...I will just look at a few...

1. It will add to long term entitlements...pensions and payroll taxes would also increase...so this adds to the cost...and I ain't even going to try to get into that area...
2. Their entire operation cost base will not rise by 5%...most everything else would stay a previous cost levels..no new trucks or warehouses or stores needed if they could just jack up prices....
3. If the competition matches the price increases to cover the added expense things are golden...if the competition is not playing on the same level field (higher wages) the competition could hold steady on labor costs and possibly undercut Wm and gain market share at WMs expense...

In a nutshell:

If they were unable to get price increases into the marketplace they would have to grow significantly to make up the shortfall, much like you said...
If a 5% price increase would not cause a revenue slump then it would come close to covering a five buck an hour raise....

I am looking at it in the simplest of terms and the numbers could be off significantly..but I do think I am reasonably close...

This bout put me to sleep so back to the sack...

Okay sleepy man, here is my take on that: If Walmart made 17 Billion in profits last year, the 14 Billion the $5 costs essentially says they would have to almost double their volume from the previous year to finance something like this out of their current business model. My 35 years in retail management tells me that this will not happen even at Wal-mart.I know this is how they would look at something like this. They will not consider raising prices because the perception that they are the cheapest on everything is what has established them as the sales leader. I am pretty confident they rely on two things to keep the monster fed. Up holding the perception that they are the cheapest on everything and establishing efficiencies that reduce labor as that is their largest cost.

diverdog
12/23/2011, 01:53 PM
The $17 billion in profit is probably low because of all the write offs they take.

pphilfran
12/23/2011, 02:30 PM
Okay sleepy man, here is my take on that: If Walmart made 17 Billion in profits last year, the 14 Billion the $5 costs essentially says they would have to almost double their volume from the previous year to finance something like this out of their current business model. My 35 years in retail management tells me that this will not happen even at Wal-mart.I know this is how they would look at something like this. They will not consider raising prices because the perception that they are the cheapest on everything is what has established them as the sales leader. I am pretty confident they rely on two things to keep the monster fed. Up holding the perception that they are the cheapest on everything and establishing efficiencies that reduce labor as that is their largest cost.

I don't disagree...this gets back to Midtowner talking about a level playing field...if nobody else does it then Wally World won't...

badger
12/23/2011, 02:44 PM
The funny thing about retail... they will always need people to operate.

Back when Walmart had a hiring freeze in the mid-to-early aughts, they had long lines at registers, merchandise flung everywhere, you name it. The self-checkouts were ornery at the time, so they'd exclaim repeatedly "the weight is not correct on the item!" until an associate would tell the machine to stfu.

I have read numerous stories on self-checkout making theft tons earlier. You might think security tags will allow retail to catch shoplifters no matter what... but if you don't have associates watching customers everywhere all of the time, open a box, rip off the security tag, free Blu Ray disc, voila.

Even customers that are honest and don't want to shoplift... expecting them to be able to accurately scan and bag all of their merchandise all of the time is silly, especially people that are techno-adverse to begin with.

This is one reason that I think online shopping will never fully replace retail, ever. However, there's a bigger reason: The costs to ship are rising to very high levels. It is better to massively ship huge orders to a big box store than to individually deliver customer's purchases regularly.

So, go ahead and force Walmart to pay higher wages. They are going to have to do it.

And if prices go up? Well, their merchandise sucks quality-wise anyway.

East Coast Bias
12/24/2011, 06:41 AM
I don't disagree...this gets back to Midtowner talking about a level playing field...if nobody else does it then Wally World won't...
That is correct. My liberal leanings also suggest another path in this. If Walmart made 17 Billion in profit they could give 14 of that to their employees(as an investment in a strong future workforce) rather than the stockholders. Some of that would come back in savings on reduced turnover and stronger customer loyalty. What company (other than the oil companies, drug companies ,insurance and banking) wouldn't be thrilled with 3 billion in net profit each year? Corporate greed and success of the current path suggests this will not happen.

East Coast Bias
12/24/2011, 07:10 AM
The funny thing about retail... they will always need people to operate.

Back when Walmart had a hiring freeze in the mid-to-early aughts, they had long lines at registers, merchandise flung everywhere, you name it. The self-checkouts were ornery at the time, so they'd exclaim repeatedly "the weight is not correct on the item!" until an associate would tell the machine to stfu.

I have read numerous stories on self-checkout making theft tons earlier. You might think security tags will allow retail to catch shoplifters no matter what... but if you don't have associates watching customers everywhere all of the time, open a box, rip off the security tag, free Blu Ray disc, voila.

Even customers that are honest and don't want to shoplift... expecting them to be able to accurately scan and bag all of their merchandise all of the time is silly, especially people that are techno-adverse to begin with.

This is one reason that I think online shopping will never fully replace retail, ever. However, there's a bigger reason: The costs to ship are rising to very high levels. It is better to massively ship huge orders to a big box store than to individually deliver customer's purchases regularly.

So, go ahead and force Walmart to pay higher wages. They are going to have to do it.

And if prices go up? Well, their merchandise sucks quality-wise anyway.

Hope all that makes you feel better? Here are the reasons why I think you and I will be replaced at some point in all of this. You are wrong to assume shipping to stores gives them an advantage. Internet warehouses enjoy the same advantage and can save money by locating in low-rent locations(as opposed to prime retail locations$$$). While shipping costs are high they will always be cheaper than hourly associates. Payroll is the highest cost in retail business(like all business) and all of these retailers are looking to place more product in homes at a smaller cost. Your participation in this process is not required, resistance is futile. What is holding them back now? Customers opposition to this new buying pattern? No, as we age the younger segment of society is pushing this forward. What is limiting this right now is not shipping costs, but shipping time. When they shorten that(and they will) this will happen as a natural process. I have been in retail management for 35 years and am waist-deep in all of this. Again its not about paying $8 an hour associates less, its about needing less of those associates.

Midtowner
12/24/2011, 08:59 AM
I don't disagree...this gets back to Midtowner talking about a level playing field...if nobody else does it then Wally World won't...

Or if Wally World did, then the rest of us low-paying employers would have a lot harder time paying the low wages we get away with now.

pphilfran
12/24/2011, 10:50 AM
That is correct. My liberal leanings also suggest another path in this. If Walmart made 17 Billion in profit they could give 14 of that to their employees(as an investment in a strong future workforce) rather than the stockholders. Some of that would come back in savings on reduced turnover and stronger customer loyalty. What company (other than the oil companies, drug companies ,insurance and banking) wouldn't be thrilled with 3 billion in net profit each year? Corporate greed and success of the current path suggests this will not happen.

They had over 350 billion in sales for the year...nearly 200 billion in assets...and you think 16 billion is too much profit?

1890MilesToNorman
12/24/2011, 11:04 AM
I've been in Maine most of the time since 1987, Maine has the heartiest workers I have seen in the 7 states I have lived in. These people don't care if it's 95 degrees outside or 30 below, they do what needs to be done. On the other hand there are few opportunities in this state. The 30% on assistance is an accurate number but this number can be laid at the feet of the legislature, they seem to think the state should be a National Park and do not encourage business. We have some very wealthy people up here who are stonewalled by rules and regulation when trying to create jobs. The legislature has created a generational welfare problem. That's just the way it is here.

badger
12/24/2011, 03:41 PM
Hope all that makes you feel better? Here are the reasons why I think you and I will be replaced at some point in all of this.

for what it's worth, I no longer work in retail :)

here's another reason I don't think retail will go the way of the online-click-and-ship model: Because the primary sales point of retail is still big box stores, not their online sites.

It's not that buyers don't like the convenience of online, it's that more of them still turn up in person to buy stuff than online overall... and businesses are not as well managed online. Look at Best Buy's recent holiday snafu (although I think they have one of these every year) for an example.

It might be cheaper for businesses to go online-only and that might make some thing that businesses will force its buyers to go online-only, but remember when Netflix tried to push all of its customers to do what it wanted them to do, rather than what customers wanted in their service. Mass exodus. Plunging stock prices. I think the CEO just took a $1.5 mil paycut for the "Qwikster" crap as well.

So... no worries. I think retail jobs are safe for now.

East Coast Bias
12/24/2011, 08:36 PM
They had over 350 billion in sales for the year...nearly 200 billion in assets...and you think 16 billion is too much profit?
I don't think anyone familiar with profit ratio's would think the percent of profit to sales is high here. However using your numbers I have made a pretty solid case to show that most of their success on the bottom line comes on the back of $8 and under labor.In fact given their pricing structure it is the foundation of their business model. Would you disagree with that? All I am saying is that if they pay $10-$12 an hour they must raise their prices and hope for the best or they can take less profit and grow the business over time with better qualified workers. The numbers(your numbers) clearly show this. I do agree with Midtowner that sadly we as taxpayers are subsidizing what they pay as a wage because the majority of these workers receive assistance.I have daily personal experience with these scenarios.Nothing is likely to change with Walmart as the model is wildly successful. They are also very ripe for union activity...

East Coast Bias
12/24/2011, 08:51 PM
for what it's worth, I no longer work in retail :)

here's another reason I don't think retail will go the way of the online-click-and-ship model: Because the primary sales point of retail is still big box stores, not their online sites.

It's not that buyers don't like the convenience of online, it's that more of them still turn up in person to buy stuff than online overall... and businesses are not as well managed online. Look at Best Buy's recent holiday snafu (although I think they have one of these every year) for an example.

It might be cheaper for businesses to go online-only and that might make some thing that businesses will force its buyers to go online-only, but remember when Netflix tried to push all of its customers to do what it wanted them to do, rather than what customers wanted in their service. Mass exodus. Plunging stock prices. I think the CEO just took a $1.5 mil paycut for the "Qwikster" crap as well.

So... no worries. I think retail jobs are safe for now.

Almost all retailers have a huge internet presence and you would be surprised to learn what percent of the business currently comes from there. I would make an overall generalization you can check out. Same store sales(big box or otherwise) are down and internet sales are up.This applies to almost any retailer you want to look at. The internet is a big opportunity for those that know how to run an enterprise to succeed, it is also a place where malfeasance can ruin a business. This is what you are seeing with Best-Buy. I am referring to something in the future here, but I think it will happen in the next 20 years.

soonerloyal
12/25/2011, 09:01 AM
It all starts with how people are raised. That is my opinion, that is why I vote republican.

It all starts with how people are raised, and whether or not they use the brains God gave them and the compassion God demands of them. That is my opinion, and that's why I generally vote Democrat.

ictsooner7
12/25/2011, 12:55 PM
It all starts with how people are raised. That is my opinion, that is why I vote republican.

It amazes me how republicans think they are the only ones who were raised with morals and/or values. We on the left were raised with morals and values like you. We are just not so self pious and conceited to think that only we have morals and values. I love when right wing morals and values when applied to their own like McCain and Newt. Tell me again about those values and morals,for two cheaters, I remember the total complete self righteous melt down you folks had when Clinton cheated and now newt has been forgiven for his multiple affairs and mccain for dumping his wife for a younger, richer model.

soonercoop1
12/25/2011, 01:34 PM
It all starts with how people are raised, and whether or not they use the brains God gave them and the compassion God demands of them. That is my opinion, and that's why I generally vote Democrat.

Compassion with other peoples money is not really "compassion"...

ictsooner7
12/25/2011, 01:38 PM
Compassion with other peoples money is not really "compassion"...

How is it other peoples money? Do you really think that if your taxes were cut you will become wealthy?

soonercoop1
12/25/2011, 01:42 PM
How is it other peoples money? Do you really think that if your taxes were cut you will become wealthy?

No but I do think we would be more independent if we were to cut taxes and drastically reduce the size and scope of the federal government...wealth is always better in the American peoples control than the governments...

ictsooner7
12/26/2011, 01:22 AM
No but I do think we would be more independent if we were to cut taxes and drastically reduce the size and scope of the federal government...wealth is always better in the American peoples control than the governments...

Who exactly is we? Why is it that you are fighting for tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent while admitting that it would not improve your life. How is the government controlling your money? It amazes me how you have bought the Koch's bu!!**** about how the government controlling your life through taxes. Look at your tax cut from bush...you probably had your taxes cut by 1/2 of one percent, while you will fight to the death for tax cut that benefits the wealthy.



What services do you want cut when you say you want to drastically reduce the size and scope of government?

Midtowner
12/27/2011, 09:22 AM
What services do you want cut when you say you want to drastically reduce the size and scope of government?

That's the thing with most folks who think they're right wingers--they are excellent at spouting the kid tested/mother approved platitude and pablum of their talking points, but it's really pretty hard to nail 'em down on specifics. For example, take the recent Republican debates. Two words we have heard a lot of have been "entitlement" and "opportunities," as in we need to be providing opportunities, not entitlements. Sounds great. It's probably been favorably responded to by various focus groups.

But what the hell does it mean? Answer: Absolutely nothing. It's pablum. It's a phrase (or really a couple of words) which are designed so candidates can move their mouths and make noises without actually conveying anything other than warm fuzzies to their base.

And that all entitlements are bad is just silly, and many, if not most actually create opportunities. How about head start? Yikes, does that entitlement fly in the face of the pablum. Getting preschoolers from disadvantaged families ready for kindergarten. What a waste. How about rural electrification?

And before anyone accuses me of building a straw man, just Google any candidate with the words entitlement and opportunity. It's a bigtime campaign theme. All the candidates are fighting over just how much they are representative of the pablum as compared to the other candidates. It's a silly exercise which would only be practiced by a bunch of campaigns who know for a fact that their voters are not interested in specifics, just warm fuzzies.

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS383US383&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=romney+entiltement+opportunity

SCOUT
12/27/2011, 03:49 PM
Hope and Change

Turd_Ferguson
12/27/2011, 04:08 PM
Hope and ChangeLMMFAO!!! I HOPE we get some CHANGE...lol

soonercoop1
12/28/2011, 08:06 PM
Who exactly is we? Why is it that you are fighting for tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent while admitting that it would not improve your life. How is the government controlling your money? It amazes me how you have bought the Koch's bu!!**** about how the government controlling your life through taxes. Look at your tax cut from bush...you probably had your taxes cut by 1/2 of one percent, while you will fight to the death for tax cut that benefits the wealthy.




What services do you want cut when you say you want to drastically reduce the size and scope of government?


All of them except what is actually in the constitution...remainder returned to the states to decide...hope and change...

Midtowner
12/28/2011, 10:13 PM
All of them except what is actually in the constitution...remainder returned to the states to decide...hope and change...

Good thing they're all constitutional...

ictsooner7
12/28/2011, 10:26 PM
All of them except what is actually in the constitution...remainder returned to the states to decide...hope and change...

So, we do away with the FDA? The transportation dept? How about the national weather service? FEMA? The only dept that is mentioned in the constitution is defense.

cleller
12/28/2011, 10:30 PM
That is correct. My liberal leanings also suggest another path in this. If Walmart made 17 Billion in profit they could give 14 of that to their employees(as an investment in a strong future workforce) rather than the stockholders. Some of that would come back in savings on reduced turnover and stronger customer loyalty. What company (other than the oil companies, drug companies ,insurance and banking) wouldn't be thrilled with 3 billion in net profit each year? Corporate greed and success of the current path suggests this will not happen.

The problem is that while Walmart does sell stuff at an incredible pace, its profit margin last year was just 3.7%. That's not exactly a Goldman Sachs cash cow margin. If a substantial amount of that is not returned to shareholders, the stock price will crater. The company will then be robbed of capital, forced to borrow money to continue or grow operations, and employees would suffer more.
The current yield on Walmart stock is 2.5%, the price of the stock is about the same as it was in 2009. Holding those profits from the shareholders is just impossible. The only way they can pay employees more is to raise prices.