# Wal-Mart Cares



## Bowden (Dec 21, 2013)




----------



## Little BamBam (Dec 21, 2013)

Lol sounds like walmart to me


----------



## Swiper (Dec 21, 2013)

Walmart profit 2012 = 17 billion

Walmart employees = 2.2 Million 

17 billion divided by 2.2 million = a raise of $7,727 per employee per year. 

Equals a raise of $3.71 per hour per employee.


That's with Walmart making NO PROFIT.


it's hilarious how people with no business ownership or experience are telling Walmart how to operate.   they are clueless....


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 21, 2013)

Swiper said:


> Walmart profit 2012 = 17 billion
> 
> Walmart employees = 2.2 Million
> 
> ...



Scamming the government and the people is not a business model.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 21, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Scamming the government and the people is not a business model.



you're delusional. it's a shame you've been brainwashed by your democrat party.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 21, 2013)

Swiper said:


> you're delusional. it's a shame you've been brainwashed by your democrat party.



Who is delusional?  I don't subscribe to either major party, which happen to be the same party once you think about it.  I've stated that many times here.  Talk about being brainwashed, you believe running a scam is a business model.


----------



## charley (Dec 21, 2013)




----------



## Swiper (Dec 21, 2013)

thanks for making my point.  completely two different business models. apples, oranges


----------



## Swiper (Dec 21, 2013)

you're also forgetting most of the people who shop at Walmart can't afford to shop at Costco.  their business model discriminates against the poor.  

and just look at all the products Walmart offers compared to Costco. They have so many different kinds of products, there's no comparison.  

you should be praising Walmart for supplying cheap goods and jobs to people who can't get a jobs anywhere else.  
when Walmart puts an ad out for a new store to hire they get thousands of applications for just a few hundred positions. applications from people who can't get work anywhere else.  so you can say their actually over paid, according to the market.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 21, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Scamming the government and the people is not a business model.



enough of the democrat talking  points.  
what would be a fair wage per hour for a Walmart worker? I'm waiting....


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> enough of the democrat/republican talking  points.
> what would be a fair wage per hour for a Walmart worker? I'm waiting....



Fixed it for you.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 22, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Fixed it for you.



while completely ignoring my question. still waiting....


----------



## Bowden (Dec 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> enough of the democrat talking  points.
> what would be a fair wage per hour for a Walmart worker? I'm waiting....



One that would keep me from paying higher taxes to support Wal-Mart employees on welfare.
The ones that Wal-Mart directs to welfare offices to get welfare due to Wal-Mart low wage and benefit compensations.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 22, 2013)

Bowden said:


> One that would keep me from paying higher taxes to support Wal-Mart employees on welfare.
> The ones that Wal-Mart directs to welfare offices to get welfare due to Wal-Mart low wage and benefit compensations.




 you people keep talking about fair wages and refuse to say what a fair wage per hour is.   I'm STILL waiting.....


----------



## Bowden (Dec 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> you people keep talking about fair wages and refuse to say what a fair wage per hour is.   I'm STILL waiting.....



This has nothing to do with fair wages.
It has everything to do with taxpayer subsidized Wal-Mart corporate welfare.

I could care less what Wal-Mart pays their employees.
I care a great deal when they direct their employees to welfare offices and intentionally have me subsidize through increased taxes and increased government debt and deficits that fund welfare programs  related to their low wage and benefits compensation model.

That is the point to all of this that you are intentionally ignoring.

Some conservatives detest welfare when it directly benefits low wage people.
They support it like in this case when it allows low wage and benefit compensations that increase corporate profits and benefits the rich, wealthy and investor classes through capital flows related to passive income that is taxed at 15% capital gains and dividend tax rates.

What these conservatives fail to realize or intentionally ignore is that the corporate profits and increased capital gained by the upper economic class from low wage and benefit employees is being off-set by increased taxes on them and higher government deficits and debt to fund welfare programs due to low wage and benefit employee compensation models.

They blame the employees for being on welfare, instead of being critical of the corrupt capitalism and free market forces that put them on welfare and maintain them there in the first place.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 22, 2013)

Bowden said:


> This has nothing to do with fair wages.
> It has everything to do with taxpayer subsidized Wal-Mart corporate welfare.
> 
> I could care less what Wal-Mart pays their employees.
> ...



thanks for your honesty for clarifying you have no problem with the wages paid at Walmart and that they're fair.


----------



## Bowden (Dec 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> thanks for your honesty for clarifying you have no problem with the wages paid at Walmart and that they're fair.



There is no such thing as "fair".
Nothing is "Fair"
"Fair" depends on the perspective of the individual.

However as to the answer to your question, Wal-Mart employees should be compensated at a level that keeps them ineligible for public welfare .

I see no reason why the taxpayers should have to subsidize through a type of corporate welfare Wal-Marts  low wage and benefits compensation business model in-order to allow them maintain/increase their profit margins and ROI to their owners, executives and shareholders.

That is my problem with the wages paid at Wal-Mart.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 22, 2013)

Bowden said:


> There is no such thing as "fair".
> Nothing is "Fair"
> "Fair" depends on the perspective of the individual.
> 
> ...



you're contradicting yourself on every post.  

what's that compensation level?


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> while completely ignoring my question. still waiting....



Bowden answered it for you.  



> One that would keep me from paying higher taxes to support Wal-Mart employees on welfare.
> The ones that Wal-Mart directs to welfare offices to get welfare due to Wal-Mart low wage and benefit compensations.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 22, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Bowden answered it for you.



again, what hourly rate is that?  it's not a trick question.  lol.


----------



## Big Puppy (Dec 22, 2013)

Bowden said:


> There is no such thing as "fair".
> Nothing is "Fair"
> "Fair" depends on the perspective of the individual.
> 
> ...



There's no such thing as fair?  How do you figure?


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> again, what hourly rate is that?  it's not a trick question.  lol.



Take the answer Bowden gave you and figure it out.


----------



## Bowden (Dec 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> again, what hourly rate is that?  it's not a trick question.  lol.



There is no set hourly rate.
It depends on the state / city that someone lives in and the size of their household'.

The income levels to qualify for food stamps are indicated on the SNAP site:

Eligibility | Food and Nutrition Service

The income requirements for section 8 housing vouchers are indicated here:

Income Limits | HUD USER


----------



## Bowden (Dec 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> you're contradicting yourself on every post.
> 
> what's that compensation level?



I am not contradicting myself.
Your problem is that you are looking at a complex issue like this from a political conservative perspective, rather than looking at it from a complex socioeconomic perspective which it is.


----------



## bmw (Dec 22, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> you believe running a scam is a business model.



several so called sources do it!!!


----------



## bmw (Dec 22, 2013)

So if walmart had to raise wages to help employees get off welfare, and pay them in line with Costco, they might have to lay off say, 500,000 people.

Now you've got 1.6M people employed by Walmart, and 500,000 newly unemployed people.  

Which situation would be better for the employees and taxpayers alike?

I get the numbers by using the figures posted earlier for costco vs. walmart.

If they were more relative in scope.  I mean, the money has to come from somewhere, right?


----------



## Big Puppy (Dec 22, 2013)

Bowden said:


> There is no set hourly rate.
> It depends on the state / city that someone lives in and the size of their household'.
> 
> The income levels to qualify for food stamps are indicated on the SNAP site:
> ...



Wow. It depends on the size of their household? So if Bob (20yo, single, no kids) gets a job as a checker, he should be paid less than Bill (50yo, married, 8 kids), doing the same job?
So apparently job performance should not be an important criteria anymore, being quickly knocked off by the size of your household.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 23, 2013)

Bowden said:


> I am not contradicting myself.
> Your problem is that you are looking at a complex issue like this from a political conservative perspective, rather than looking at it from a complex socioeconomic perspective which it is.



I'm looking at it by the numbers.  if you take the average pay per store employee and give everyone $3.71 raise Walmart be out of business.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 23, 2013)

bmw said:


> several so called sources do it!!!



Doesn't make it right.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 23, 2013)

bmw said:


> So if walmart had to raise wages to help employees get off welfare, and pay them in line with Costco, they might have to lay off say, 500,000 people.
> 
> Now you've got 1.6M people employed by Walmart, and 500,000 newly unemployed people.
> 
> ...



They won't have to lay-off anyone.  Walmart already stated they could easily raise wages without hurting themselves.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 23, 2013)

Swiper said:


> I'm looking at it by the numbers.  if you take the average pay per store employee and give everyone $3.71 raise Walmart be out of business.



Then you aren't looking at the numbers correctly.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 23, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Then you aren't looking at the numbers correctly.



He took the net profit, divided it by the number of employees,  and came up with a number far below the $15 mark. I'm pro-wage increase and was going to make a case for it by doing those numbers, but then I realized that the numbers don't work. The only way it's going to happen is if Walmart increases its prices.


----------



## LAM (Dec 23, 2013)

Swiper said:


> Walmart profit 2012 = 17 billion
> 
> Walmart employees = 2.2 Million
> 
> ...



like yourself.

Why don't you explain in detail how paying people as little as possible aids in sustainability with constantly increasing prices for goods and services and the loss of purchasing power over time due to the effects of cumulative inflation on the USD.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 23, 2013)

LAM said:


> Why don't you explain in detail how paying people as little as possible aids in sustainability with constantly increasing prices for goods and services and the loss of purchasing power over time due to the effects of cumulative inflation on the USD.




The people who work at Walmart are working there because that's the best paying job someone is will to hire them for. The market sets the price of labor.


----------



## bmw (Dec 23, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> They won't have to lay-off anyone.  Walmart already stated they could easily raise wages without hurting themselves.



If they paid their employees in line with what Costco pays their employees, and didn't want to lose profits, they would have to lay off some employees.


----------



## bmw (Dec 23, 2013)

DOMS said:


> He took the net profit, divided it by the number of employees,  and came up with a number far below the $15 mark. I'm pro-wage increase and was going to make a case for it by doing those numbers, but then I realized that the numbers don't work. The only way it's going to happen is if Walmart increases its prices.



Bingo.  The money has to come from somewhere.  They aren't going to become a non-profit either.

"Always moderate Prices. Always."

Just doesn't sound as good.


----------



## Bowden (Dec 23, 2013)

Big Puppy said:


> Wow. It depends on the size of their household? So if Bob (20yo, single, no kids) gets a job as a checker, he should be paid less than Bill (50yo, married, 8 kids), doing the same job?
> So apparently job performance should not be an important criteria anymore, being quickly knocked off by the size of your household.



Welfare benefits are based in part on income and household size related to federal guidelines as to poverty levels.
Check the links I provided and look at the data.


----------



## LAM (Dec 23, 2013)

bmw said:


> If they paid their employees in line with what Costco pays their employees, and didn't want to lose profits, they would have to lay off some employees.



it's not even an option.  Costco has 190K employees and Wal-Mart has over 2 million.

the fact is that there are a lot of people that work at Wal-Mart that deserve and should be payed more.  I've worked in every type of facility that Wal-Mart has and I've seen what they all do with my own eyes and have talked to hundreds of employees and know that they get paid.  And the vast majority of them that work hard, and I mean the people in shipping and receiving at the stores are all under paid for the work that they perform.  The people that work at the big distribution centers are much better paid but there is also less of them and the labor is higher skilled.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 23, 2013)

DOMS said:


> He took the net profit, divided it by the number of employees,  and came up with a number far below the $15 mark. I'm pro-wage increase and was going to make a case for it by doing those numbers, but then I realized that the numbers don't work. The only way it's going to happen is if Walmart increases its prices.



You missed the part where Walmart said they could increase wages without affecting themselves.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 23, 2013)

bmw said:


> If they paid their employees in line with what Costco pays their employees, and didn't want to lose profits, they would have to lay off some employees.



Not at all.  They can forgo their stock buyback.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 23, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> You missed the part where Walmart said they could increase wages without affecting themselves.



Do you have a link?


----------



## LAM (Dec 23, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Do you have a link?



I don't have a link but many top large firms across the US are doing the same thing.  They forgo real investment back into human capital for stock share buybacks which then increase market dominance, its nothing more than a form of economic rent seeking.  it's an illusion of increased productivity in US firms by using cheaper and cheaper global supply chains which then artificially inflate the domestic "value added".

So many economic indicators in use today are no longer accurate and it's why the OECD asked Jospeh Stiglitz to come up with new indicators as seen in the OECD social justice report.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 23, 2013)

DOMS said:


> He took the net profit, divided it by the number of employees,  and came up with a number far below the $15 mark. I'm pro-wage increase and was going to make a case for it by doing those numbers, but then I realized that the numbers don't work. The only way it's going to happen is if Walmart increases its prices.



take that net profit and tax it by 35% then start from there. even less.


----------



## Big Puppy (Dec 23, 2013)

Bowden said:


> Welfare benefits are based in part on income and household size related to federal guidelines as to poverty levels.
> Check the links I provided and look at the data.



I'm aware of that.  But that still doesn't answer my question or solve the problem.


----------



## Bowden (Dec 24, 2013)

Big Puppy said:


> I'm aware of that.  But that still doesn't answer my question or solve the problem.



The issue is not compensation for performance, its that the base level salary of the employees below management level is below the federal poverty level.
Many of these employees are not granted by their employers 40 hour work weeks, they are working below 30 hours a week at under 9 an hour and that will place someone in the working poor economic class and qualify them for welfare benefits.

Wal-Mart is the largest employer in the U.S. and it has the greatest percentage of corporate employees in the working poor economic class that qualify for welfare.
It's not just Wal-Mart, it's also any employer that pays employees below the federal poverty line that is adding to the problem.

The question is, do taxpayers want to pay more for a product at a price that would allow a corporation to stay in business and also pay a wage at a level that would keep employees from qualifying from welfare, or do they want to pay taxes and fund welfare for those low wage and benefit employees?

When you see a condition in which the largest employer in the United States employs the largest number of employees in the working poor economic class that qualify for welfare, it is easy to see why the level of income inequality in the U.S. is accelerating, as well as why the number of people on food stamps and other forms of welfare is accelerating as well.

This is a huge socioeconomic problem.
It is also a great way to increase the appeal of big government socialism as all of those people are going to vote in their own best self interests.
If capitalists will not provide for them a living wage then they will vote for politicians that will.


----------



## Bowden (Dec 24, 2013)

Swiper said:


> take that net profit and tax it by 35% then start from there. even less.



Walmart Blames Sluggish Sales On Taxes, Enjoys Lower Effective Tax Rate - Forbes

The effective tax rate for the retail giant for the  year was 31.0%, down nearly two points from last year. Walmart saw its  biggest drop in the effective tax rate in fourth quarter, a nearly three  point drop to 27.7% as compared to 30.9% last year. The company touted a number of discrete tax items, including positive impact from fiscal  2013 legislative changes, most notably the American Taxpayer Relief Act  of 2012″ for the dip in tax rates.

Always Low Wages? Wal-Mart's Other Choices - Bloomberg

Always Low Wages? Wal-Mart's Other Choices
By Barry Ritholtz 


"Can Wal-Mart afford to increase employee salaries? Let's crunch the  numbers. The retail giant does $474.88 billion a year in sales; across  their 2,200,000 employees, that nets out to $213,255 sales per employee.  Given a 5.93 percent operating margin, that nets out to $12,646.02  profit margin per employee. Adding $3 per hour per full-time employee  would consume almost half of that profit."


----------



## Big Puppy (Dec 24, 2013)

Bowden said:


> The issue is not compensation for performance, its that the base level salary of the employees below management level is below the federal poverty level.
> Many of these employees are not granted by their employers 40 hour work weeks, they are working below 30 hours a week at under 9 an hour and that will place someone in the working poor economic class and qualify them for welfare benefits.
> 
> Wal-Mart is the largest employer in the U.S. and it has the greatest percentage of corporate employees in the working poor economic class that qualify for welfare.
> ...



I agree it's a huge problem.  And I also think that is why the political tides are going the way they are.  I think the real questions should be:

Should ALL employees in the US be able to be completely financially independent?  If so, then we are a socialist society.  If not, why not?  Should skills, education, and experience play a part in this?  Are there no "entry level" jobs?

I believe there are entry level jobs not intended to sustain a family. I also believe, anecdotally, that the majority of people are not financially smart.  

I know a dude that was imprisoned from age 16-24.  He got out, was favored into a job, and moved in with his gf.  She was on all forms of welfare.  They had no transportation.  3 months out of the joint, she and her parents gave him a 65" TV, xbox whatever, and some games for his bday.  Spent about 3 grand.  For the next few months that I knew him, he still had no transportation cause he couldn't afford it.  Why didn't they buy him a car, pay rent, food, etc?  That money could've gone a LOT farther at sustaining himself as an unskilled, uneducated, non-existent experienced worker and provider for his unemployed gf and 1 yr old.(conjugal visit). 

Unfortunately, although this is an extreme case, look around at all the "wants" that people have while struggling to pay for the "needs".


----------



## bmw (Dec 24, 2013)

Bowden said:


> "Can Wal-Mart afford to increase employee salaries? Let's crunch the  numbers. The retail giant does $474.88 billion a year in sales; across  their 2,200,000 employees, that nets out to $213,255 sales per employee.  Given a 5.93 percent operating margin, that nets out to $12,646.02  profit margin per employee. Adding $3 per hour per full-time employee  would consume almost half of that profit."



How will that help those poor, poor, poor motherfucking part time employees who depend on that part time job and welfare to support their families?


----------



## bmw (Dec 24, 2013)

They should just eliminate the part time positions and move everyone to full time.  Would that work?  I guess high school and college kids don't work at walmart?  I wasn't aware their employees were all people with dependents.  Seems discriminatory.


----------



## Little Wing (Apr 7, 2014)

http://twentytwowords.com/walmart-paid-living-wage-cost-almost-nothing-save-taxpayers-300m-year/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAcaeLmybCY


----------



## Swiper (Apr 7, 2014)

I'm glad I chose not to work at Walmart.  I wonder why someone would subject themselves to such low wages.  I guess because that's the best job they can get with the skills they have, otherwise they wouldn't be working there.


----------



## Little Wing (Apr 8, 2014)

maybe because there are 3 unemployed workers for every job opening. the same people that say a determined person would take any job they can get are the ones asking why people work shit jobs. somehow, sometime, somewhere....  it needs to stop being just words with no meaning.


----------



## maniclion (Apr 8, 2014)

Walmart was my first official on the books job, started my Junior year as a Cart Retriever and that shit built me up more than any weight training.  I was barely 140 and by the end of JR year I was a solid 165-170.  By the time Two-a-Days came in August all my team mates were soft and struggling and I was running circles around them.  After practice I would hit the gym like Lassiter the maniac in that movie the program, then go to work from 2pm to 10pm pushing up to 80 carts at a time in 100+ Texas heat.....  What I'm trying to say is consistent hard work does a body good...just like the gym its hard to get in that groove again especially after you milk unemployment for months.  People just gotta get their ass in gear and start peddling this tandem bike we call the economy...


----------



## Big Smoothy (Apr 9, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> Scamming the government and the people is not a business model.



Sadly, in America, it is.


----------



## Swiper (Apr 9, 2014)

Big Smoothy said:


> Sadly, in America, it is.



and that's the consequence of the big govt welfare state you voted for.


----------



## devildogusmc (Apr 9, 2014)

Anyone voting for democrats these days is basically voting for the ultimate salve master. Today's democrat is about big government, which is completely broken, as well as taking away our freedom.


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 9, 2014)

devildogusmc said:


> Anyone voting for democrats these days is basically voting for the ultimate salve master. Today's democrat is about big government, which is completely broken, as well as taking away our freedom.



I must disagree.  Voting either republican or democrat is voting for big government.


----------



## devildogusmc (Apr 9, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> I must disagree.  Voting either republican or democrat is voting for big government.



Im Libertarian. I don't like either, but it's well known to anyone with two brain cells that the dems are about massive government, and pure control over the sheep. And yes, both parties have sadly forgotten that they serve us, not visa versa. None the less, the dems are the worst for America. I'll be voting Libertarian, and for republicans in November. I wouldn't be caught dead voting for today's nazi democrat!


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 9, 2014)

devildogusmc said:


> Im Libertarian. I don't like either, but it's well known to anyone with two brain cells that the dems are about massive government, and pure control over the sheep. And yes, both parties have sadly forgotten that they serve us, not visa versa. None the less, the dems are the worst for America. I'll be voting Libertarian, and for republicans in November. I wouldn't be caught dead voting for today's nazi democrat!



The largest concentration of big government money is in subsidies to large companies, SS, military, and Medicare/Medicaid.  Calling the crumbs the dems let fall to the bottom feeders massive government is a bit of a stretch.


----------



## oufinny (Apr 9, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> I must disagree.  Voting either republican or democrat is voting for big government.



This is the case. The abuses of power are perpetuated on both sides. Barry and George are equally shitty and in regards to freedoms, Barry shit on GW with all he has done with the NSA not to mention the things he's done to journalists and his use of the espionage act to stop all whistleblowers. All the presidents of late are more corrupt than the next; it's fucking disgusting. Party affiliation or blind following of some made up party guideline tells me a person's eyes are closed and they already drank the slave koolaid.


----------



## Lifter247 (Apr 16, 2014)

That comic for got to make all the employees obese other then that its spot on lol


----------



## LAM (Apr 17, 2014)

devildogusmc said:


> Im Libertarian. I don't like either, but it's well known to anyone with two brain cells that the dems are about massive government, and pure control over the sheep. And yes, both parties have sadly forgotten that they serve us, not visa versa. None the less, the dems are the worst for America. I'll be voting Libertarian, and for republicans in November. I wouldn't be caught dead voting for today's nazi democrat!



And how exactly is libertarian economic ideology (since it contains no actually mathematical models) any better if it does nothing to prevent the revolving door between the Hill and the private sector?  How does it prevent the oligarchy from forming when it already has?  the financializaiton of the the U.S economy 198's is proof positive of that so "some how" it would reverse the effects of this? Would it reverse the effects of decades of maximizing shareholder value and disinvestment in the country? Would it reverse Citizen's United?  Would it remove private capital from the public election cycle?

or not....


----------



## Swiper (Apr 17, 2014)

LAM said:


> And how exactly is libertarian economic ideology (since it contains no actually mathematical models) any better if it does nothing to prevent the revolving door between the Hill and the private sector?  How does it prevent the oligarchy from forming when it already has?  the financializaiton of the the U.S economy 198's is proof positive of that so "some how" it would reverse the effects of this? Would it reverse the effects of decades of maximizing shareholder value and disinvestment in the country? Would it reverse Citizen's United?  Would it remove private capital from the public election cycle?
> 
> or not....




it's called free market capitalism, something you know nothing about because you were taught keynesian economics your entire life and know nothing more.   
you need to get your head out of the sand and open your mind to other options as Keynesian economics has been a complete failure. why is it you think govt is the answer to all the countries problems? It's govt that's the problem, open your eyes it's not too hard to see......


----------



## Big Smoothy (Apr 17, 2014)

I rarely go to Wal-Mart, but yes I do about 1-2 times per year.

Do you ever notice most of the cashiers on these low wages, supplemented by Medicaid have accents?

They are from the Middle East and Latin America.

Immigration, legal and illegal is good for keeping wages down by having a large pool and oversupply of people who will do these low-paying jobs.

Keeps wages low.


----------



## Swiper (Apr 18, 2014)

Big Smoothy said:


> I rarely go to Wal-Mart, but yes I do about 1-2 times per year.
> 
> Do you ever notice most of the cashiers on these low wages, supplemented by Medicaid have accents?
> 
> ...




so anyone with an accent has only takes  low paying jobs?  don't you think that's kind of a racist comment?


----------



## Little Wing (May 12, 2014)

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101658424

traitor. speaking from that platform is a sickening move. it's like commending a rapist for being kind enough to use anal lube. no one needs _those_ fucking jobs you retard. even his fans are so disgusted with his choice of venue they don't give a fuck what he has to say this time.


----------



## heckler7 (May 13, 2014)

if you need or want a job a walmart is always hiring, you dont have to stay there. My daughter is working at jamba juice and understands that its not a career, its a job that pays for her phone and some gas money, but she will need to have a career to pay for rent and move out. When you interview for a job you except the task and pay, if you disagree you dont take the job and look elsewhere. its really that simple


----------



## Zaphod (May 13, 2014)

I'm happy to say I cannot remember the last time I set foot inside a Walmart.


----------



## Big Smoothy (May 14, 2014)

Swiper said:


> so anyone with an accent has only takes  low paying jobs?  don't you think that's kind of a racist comment?



I hope - and - assume - you are joking.

If you are not joking (which I think you are):

Accents are not related to race.  Accent is a linguistic term.


----------



## Swiper (May 14, 2014)

Big Smoothy said:


> I hope - and - assume - you are joking.
> 
> If you are not joking (which I think you are):
> 
> Accents are not related to race.  Accent is a linguistic term.



To clarify,  I mean people who are not white English speaking like yourself.


----------



## LAM (May 14, 2014)

Swiper said:


> it's called free market capitalism, something you know nothing about because you were taught keynesian economics your entire life and know nothing more.
> you need to get your head out of the sand and open your mind to other options as Keynesian economics has been a complete failure. why is it you think govt is the answer to all the countries problems? It's govt that's the problem, open your eyes it's not too hard to see......



There is no such thing as free markets and contrary to conservative ideology, there is no such thing as a free market that is wholly divorced from laws, regulation and government. The market, as it exists, is a function of those property rights that were modified to exclude communal rights. The legal infrastructure of capitalism is what separates ownership from labor, and turns the marketplace into an inherently "owner friendly" institution.

The rules that dictate the marketplace are in a constant state of flux, they are not static and never have been.  A perfect example would be Glass&#150;Steagall Act which created the separation of commercial and investment banking.  First it was legal, then made illegal then legalized again.

If you feel the need to debate this topic in more detail please post a link to the document that specifies the laws and rules which specify this mythological "free market" and who created them and the dates that this non-existent document was utilized.

Never in a single post have I championed for Keynesian economics its principles are however the most widely used in the U.S since the Great Depression. Keynesian economic principles were also utilized over the greatest economic expansion in U.S history during the progressive era.


----------



## Swiper (May 14, 2014)

LAM said:


> There is no such thing as free markets and contrary to conservative ideology, there is no such thing as a free market that is wholly divorced from laws, regulation and government. The market, as it exists, is a function of those property rights that were modified to exclude communal rights. The legal infrastructure of capitalism is what separates ownership from labor, and turns the marketplace into an inherently "owner friendly" institution.
> 
> The rules that dictate the marketplace are in a constant state of flux, they are not static and never have been.  A perfect example would be Glass&#150;Steagall Act which created the separation of commercial and investment banking.  First it was legal, then made illegal then legalized again.
> 
> ...



free markets were never divorced from law. not sure where you come up with that.  you obviously can't kill people or steal from them.  we have the court system for people who want to sue a company for whatever reason they choose

you have championed Keynesian econ. for example: you have always said the stimulus was not big enough. you think govt spending borrowed money can create a sustainable economy.  it never has worked and never will.  

the economic expansion you speak of was because we had less taxation, regulation, rules, inflation and a smaller govt.


----------



## LAM (May 14, 2014)

Swiper said:


> free markets were never divorced from law. not sure where you come up with that.  you obviously can't kill people or steal from them.  we have the court system for people who want to sue a company for whatever reason they choose
> 
> you have championed Keynesian econ. for example: you have always said the stimulus was not big enough. you think govt spending borrowed money can create a sustainable economy.  it never has worked and never will.
> 
> the economic expansion you speak of was because we had less taxation, regulation, rules, inflation and a smaller govt.



We also had the world's greatest manufacturing based economy and a population that was 60% smaller and a financial sector that actually worked for the people and not the inverse, the Brenton Woods system was still in use, US large firms invested plenty of capital back into the real economy place and infrastructure spending was seen as "good debt".

So pretty much an economy that was that functioned the exact opposite of the one today.

Stiglitz said time and time again that the original stimulus was too small..
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/18/nobel_economist_joseph_stiglitz_on_obamas

"the economic expansion you speak of was because we had less taxation"  

Well that's not what historical data shows when you look at the percentages and sources of taxation post WWII.

Table 2.3&#151;Receipts by Source as Percentages of GDP: 1934&#150;2019
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/hist02z3.xls

"a smaller govt. "

the size of government grows as the economy of a country becomes more open, this has been seen in every single country in the world.  So please explain how the U.S with a large open economy AND many large firms accomplishes this.  When large firms are dependent on big government, it's why there are no large firms or MNE's seen in any country in the world with a closed economy or small government.


----------



## Swiper (May 14, 2014)

LAM said:


> We also had the world's greatest manufacturing based economy and a population that was 60% smaller and a financial sector that actually worked for the people and not the inverse, the Brenton Woods system was still in use, US large firms invested plenty of capital back into the real economy place and infrastructure spending was seen as "good debt".
> 
> So pretty much an economy that was that functioned the exact opposite of the one today.
> 
> ...



that chart shows nothing of value. 
companies and people paid less in taxes then, than they do today.  you failed to address the less rules and regulations.  

the size of govt doesn't have to grow with the economy.  the govt has no authority to manage the economy. large firms need not to be dependent on govt. And if they need big govt to survive then they should fail.  we had a smaller govt. and great economy. From 1870-1910 was one of the best economic times the US has ever had. 

who cares what Stigliz says.  economists are wrong most of the time. the stimulus has been a failure and now they have to make up excuses for why it didn't work.


----------



## LAM (May 14, 2014)

Swiper said:


> that chart shows nothing of value.
> companies and people paid less in taxes then, than they do today.  you failed to address the less rules and regulations.
> 
> the size of govt doesn't have to grow with the economy.  the govt has no authority to manage the economy. large firms need not to be dependent on govt. And if they need big govt to survive then they should fail.  we had a smaller govt. and great economy. From 1870-1910 was one of the best economic times the US has ever had.
> ...



the chart has no value to you because you can't understand it which is pretty sad as it couldn't be any simpler.  It shows the sources of tax revenues as a percentage of GDP.  Current levels of taxation are in line with historic trends.  And if you would have read just one of the dozens of reports that I have posted you would know that the post 2001 economy in the US was unsustainable as all of the economic growth seen in the 2000-2010 period came from mortgage debt and not from real income growth.

And I did not say it had to I stated that it did.  The size of government grows in response to increased risk of external economic shocks from foreign trade and the globalization of supply chains.  A larger share of government purchases of goods and services in GDP also reduces reduces income volatility and then there is the social safety net as a % of GDP.

And yes the government most certainly does have the authority to manage the economy because it is the government that defines the markets via taxation, tariff, quotas, trade agreements, etc.  Regardless if a person views this as "right or wrong" doesn't matter, it's the way it is and the way it always will be.  World history clearly shows that the owners of the means of production have always dictated major policy in every non-communist country in the world and this goes back to the fact that money isn't value neutral.

Over-taxation nor regulation is what's hampering the economy (neither are factors that caused the economic downturns in 2008, 2001 or the 1980's) we are now feeling the long term effects of the financialization of the US economy which is the leading cause of off-shoring and disinvestment in the real economy and of course the extreme and growing level of inequality in the U.S. which then circles back to financialization and labors decline share of the national income.  The structural changes to both the demand and supply sides of the economy couldn't be any more obvious and why economic growth the past 3-4 decades is extremely unbalanced.  There are at least a dozen country's across the OECD feeling the effects of financialization.

And economic reports come in two basic flavors those that are quantitative or qualitative, the fact that you simply dismiss all of them in favor of political economic ideology (less taxes and regulation) combined with a rudimentary understanding of economic theory is why your your one&#150;dimensional solutions are not only irrelevant but are not even cited as known issues with the economy.  You have oversimplified an extremely complicated subject matter which spans many decades with far too much focus on economic theory vs practical application (applied economics).

"economists are wrong most of the time."

And you know this from not reading those same reports, that's got to be the most asinine statement you've made in a while.  There are thousands of economist around the world and tens of thousands of various reports and briefs and you come to this conclusion by not reading anything, that's just brilliant.

The political economy of the US disregards most of what is known to be sound economic policy in country's with similar structure since no two country's are exactly the same..


----------



## LAM (May 14, 2014)

Swiper said:


> From 1870-1910 was one of the best economic times the US has ever had.



Just name one way the US economy if today is similar to that of 1870-1910.


----------



## LAM (May 15, 2014)

LOL at your claim of "over-taxation" of US large firms.

Tax Avoidance in Silicon Valley,
and How America&#146;s Richest Company
Pays a Lower Tax Rate than You Do
http://www.cob.calpoly.edu/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2010/03/Tax-Avoidance-in-Silicon-Valley.pdf

US tech firms make eleventh-hour attempt to halt tax avoidance reforms
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/19/tech-firms-attempt-halt-tax-avoidance-reforms

Fighting tax evasion
http://www.oecd.org/ctp/fightingtaxevasion.htm

WP 2009-5 Financialization and the Dynamics of Offshoring in the U.S
http://www.economicpolicyresearch.o...nancial_crisis/SCEPA_Working_Paper_2009-5.pdf

"In sum, financialization and globalization have reinforced each other for U.S. corporations and, despite the corporate sector&#146;s contribution to national savings over the past decade, the offshoring-financialization linkage reduces the capacity of non-financial corporations to act as a driver of the recovery from the economic crisis that emerged in 2008. Having moved into core competence beginning in the early 1990s as part of the financialization process, U.S. corporations are today ill-equipped to serve as the driver of the recovery from the economic crisis that emerged in 2008."


----------



## LAM (May 15, 2014)

The effect of financialization on labor&#146;s share of income
http://www.ipe-berlin.org/fileadmin/downloads/working_paper/ipe_working_paper_17.pdf


ABSTRACT
Numerous studies have analyzed the decline in labor&#146;s share of income, but only few have linked it to the increase in
financialization. The process of financialization can roughly be described as an increasing importance of the financial sector which had an impact on the distribution between wages and profits on the one hand, and retained earnings and financial income in the form of dividends and interest s on the other hand. This paper seeks to explore the relationship between financialization and labor&#146;s share of income using a time-series cross-section data set of 13 countries over the time period from 1986 until 2007. The results suggest that there is indeed a relationship between increasing dividend and interest payments of non-financial corporations and the decline of the share of wages in national income. Other
factors that can be accounted for the decline relate to globalization and a decrease in the bargaining power of labor.


----------



## LAM (May 15, 2014)

Financialization and US Income Inequality, 1970-2008

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1954129

 Abstract:     

Focusing on U.S. non-finance industries, we examine the connection between the financialization of the US economy and rising income inequality. We argue that the increasing reliance by firms on earnings realized through financial channels decoupled the generation of surplus from production, strengthening owners' and elite workers' negotiating power relative to other workers. Moreover, the financial conception of the firm reduced capital and management commitment to production, further marginalizing labor&#146;s role in U.S. corporations. The result was an incremental exclusion of the general workforce from revenue generating and compensation setting processes. Using time-series cross-section data at the industry level, our analysis shows that increased dependence on financial income, in the long run, decreased labor's share of income, increased top executives' share of compensation, and increased earnings dispersion among workers. Net of conventional explanations, including declining unionization, globalization, technological change, and capital investment, the effects of financialization are substantial on all three dimensions of increased inequality. The counterfactual analysis suggests that financialization accounts for more than half of the decline in labor's share of income, 10 percent of the growth in officers' share of compensation, and 15 percent of the growth in earnings dispersion between 1970 and 2008.


----------



## LAM (May 15, 2014)

"economists are wrong most of the time."

Actually reading economic reports helps.

"I discuss the impact of financialisation on real capital accumulation in the US. Using data from a sample of non-financial corporations from 1973 to 2003, I find a negative relationship between real investment and financialisation. Two channels
can help explain this negative relationship: first, increased financial investment and increased financial profit opportunities may have crowded out real investment by changing the incentives of firm managers and directing funds away from real
investment. Second, increased payments to the financial markets may have impeded real investment by decreasing available internal funds, shortening the planning horizons of the firm management and increasing uncertainty."

Financialisation and capital accumulation in the non-financial corporate sector:
A theoretical and empirical investigation on the US economy: 1973&#150;2003

http://courses.umass.edu/econ711-rpollin/Orhangazi financialization in CJE.pdf


----------



## LAM (May 15, 2014)

OfficerFarva said:


> LAM: bong or joint?



Bong, joints are for road trips..LOL


----------



## LAM (May 15, 2014)

Conditions of Work and Employment Series No. 40
Conditions of Work and Employment Branch
Is aggregate demand wage-led or profit-led?

National and global effects 

"This paper estimates the effects of a change in the wage share on growth in the G20 countries using a post-Keynesian/post-Kaleckian model, analyses the interactions among different economies, and calculates the globa
l multiplier effects of a simultaneous decline in the wage share. At the national level, a decrease in the wage share leads to lower growth in the euro area, Germany, France, Italy, UK, US, Japan, Turkey, and Korea, i.e. these economies are wage-led, whereas it stimulates growth in Canada, Australia, Argentina, Mexico, China, India, and South Africa; thus the latter group of countries are profit-led. However, a simultaneous decline in the wage share in all these countries leads to a decline in global growth. Furthermore, Canada, Argentina, Mexico, and India also contract when they decrease their wage-share along with their trading partners. Thus the global economy in aggregate is wage-led. The policy conclusion
s of the paper shed light on the limits of strategies of international competitiveness based on wage competition in a highly integrated global economy, and point at the possibilities to correct global imbalances via coordinated macroecono
mic and wage policy, where domestic demand plays an important role. There is room for a wage-led recovery in the global economy based on a simultaneous increase in the wage shares, where global GDP as well as all individual
countries can grow."

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/pu...travail/documents/publication/wcms_192121.pdf


----------



## LAM (May 15, 2014)

Labor's Declining Share of Income and Rising Inequality
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2012/2012-13.cfm

Debt and the Consumption Response to Household Income Shocks
http://www.stanford.edu/~srbaker/Papers/Baker_DebtConsumption.pdf

 The Labor Market Consequences of Adverse Financial Shocks
http://www.imf.org/external/np/res/seminars/2012/arc/pdf/BGM.pdf

What Accounts for the Slow Growth of the Economy After the Recession?
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43707-SlowRecovery.pdf


I could site dozens more sources.  The causes of the 2008 economic downturn and the sluggish recovery are well known and not a "mystery" with declining wages and increasing household debt since the 80's being well known factors.  Not a single mention of excessive taxation or regulation in these or any others, because they are not the causes nor is the reduction of them ever mentioned as a solutions to restoring aggregate demand.


----------



## Swiper (May 15, 2014)

LAM said:


> LOL at your claim of "over-taxation" of US large firms.
> 
> Tax Avoidance in Silicon Valley,
> and How America&#146;s Richest Company
> ...



The United States has the worlds highest corporate tax rate.  I don't blame the companies one bit for trying to avoid paying the highest tax rates in the world.  They shouldn't even be taxed at all.


----------



## LAM (May 15, 2014)

Swiper said:


> The United States has the worlds highest corporate tax rate.  I don't blame the companies one bit for trying to avoid paying the highest tax rates in the world.  They shouldn't even be taxed at all.



Corporate Income Tax:
Effective Tax Rates Can Differ Significantly from the Statutory Rate
http://www.gao.gov/products/gao-13-520

Tax rates in the U.S may be higher then the OECD average but tax loopholes and havens have been expanded while they were closed in many OECD country's.  And the results of the 2004 tax holiday in the U.S are proof positive of what U.S large firms would do with lower tax rates, stock share buy-backs and more off-shoring because of the MSV ideology.


----------



## Zaphod (May 15, 2014)

Swiper said:


> The United States has the worlds highest corporate tax rate.  I don't blame the companies one bit for trying to avoid paying the highest tax rates in the world.  They shouldn't even be taxed at all.



With all the campaign donations by the wealthy and corporations that tax rate is clearly what they want it to be.  They could be paying zero taxes, which some already do, if they really wanted it.


----------



## MI1972 (May 15, 2014)

Corporations just have many lawyers to find the tax loopholes, like having a headquarters in the Cayman Islands, or some BS.  They also take advantage of tax benefits like accelerated depreciation (approved by Congress paid for by corporate lobbyists).  Want all of this to change, ban all lobbyists from Washington DC.  Make it a capital offense to accept a bribe, not just a slap on the wrist...  public executions of government officials on the take.

It would be nice to see all that offshore money come back some day.  I have heard it is as high as 3 trillion dollars that can be repatriated if the taxes were lower.


----------



## LAM (May 15, 2014)

MI1972 said:


> Corporations just have many lawyers to find the tax loopholes, like having a headquarters in the Cayman Islands, or some BS.  They also take advantage of tax benefits like accelerated depreciation (approved by Congress paid for by corporate lobbyists).  Want all of this to change, ban all lobbyists from Washington DC.  Make it a capital offense to accept a bribe, not just a slap on the wrist...  public executions of government officials on the take.
> 
> It would be nice to see all that offshore money come back some day.  I have heard it is as high as 3 trillion dollars that can be repatriated if the taxes were lower.



The 2004 Tax Holiday along with the past 30+ years tells us what would happen, more stock share buy-backs and jobs off-shored.  Maximizing shareholder value takes precedence over long term investments, it's a viscous downward spiral.  

Even now profits are up but capital spending is down, large companies are eager to spend cash on immediate IRR opportunities such as dividends, stock buybacks, and to a lesser extent M&A, than on longer-term, higher IRR, but less immediate bang for the buck opportunities, such as capital reinvestment.

Small firms can't afford to invest due to weak demand which stems from the loss of home wealth (home equity) the extraction of which fueled economic growth the last decade.  US household are still deleveraging from record levels of debt but via defaults not by repayment.  Households are going to take on pre-recession levels of debt again since housing price dynamics have changed.


http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/HDTGPDUSQ163N


----------



## Swiper (May 15, 2014)

the US treasury is taking in the highest tax revenues in history in 2014 under the bush tax cuts.


----------



## MI1972 (May 15, 2014)

LAM said:


> The 2004 Tax Holiday along with the past 30+ years tells us what would happen, more stock share buy-backs and jobs off-shored.  Maximizing shareholder value takes precedence over long term investments, it's a viscous downward spiral.
> 
> Even now profits are up but capital spending is down, large companies are eager to spend cash on immediate IRR opportunities such as dividends, stock buybacks, and to a lesser extent M&A, than on longer-term, higher IRR, but less immediate bang for the buck opportunities, such as capital reinvestment.
> 
> ...



This time, they should put stipulations on the tax holiday so it is worthwhile...   i.e. To be used for capital improvements, personnel, R & D in the US.  Instead, these corporations are just going to hoard their cash or spend it outside of the country.

Like it or not, this is a capitalist country....  or was.  It was also full of opportunity for those who reached for it.  Its survival of the fittest, that is all.  Not everyone can be a first baseman for the Yankees, so some people are billionaires and some are broke.  

But since it is becoming a nanny state, maybe we should just all send our money to the Feds, because they know what is best for us.  After all, Communism works...right?   Besides, if you look at history, almost all countries fail when the government is corrupted by money and the citizens finally wake up.  Also, it happens when the currency becomes so deflated that the citizens cannot pay for anything or over reach the borders and become "occupiers"...  i.e. Rome.


----------



## KelJu (May 15, 2014)

Swiper said:


> so anyone with an accent has only takes  low paying jobs?  don't you think that's kind of a racist comment?



I think it is a fair observation. Having a Latin American accent in the US usually means you are poor and work a job that doesn't pay much. I don't recall ever hearing a German, Swedish, English, ect type accent from a person checking out my groceries. 

Also, a woman wearing a garb is probably poor, uneducated, and stupid.


----------



## LAM (May 15, 2014)

MI1972 said:


> Like it or not, this is a capitalist country....  or was.  It was also full of opportunity for those who reached for it.  Its survival of the fittest, that is all.  Not everyone can be a first baseman for the Yankees, so some people are billionaires and some are broke.
> 
> But since it is becoming a nanny state, maybe we should just all send our money to the Feds, because they know what is best for us.  After all, Communism works...right?   Besides, if you look at history, almost all countries fail when the government is corrupted by money and the citizens finally wake up.  Also, it happens when the currency becomes so deflated that the citizens cannot pay for anything or over reach the borders and become "occupiers"...  i.e. Rome.



Your speaking of the old US economy the pre-1960's economy.  The structural changes made to the US economy in the 70's and 80's have permanently changed economic mobility in the US and that's why it has stagnated.  The roots are in financialization which in reality (along with the deregulation of labor) amounts to not much more then state sponsored forgery and social engineering to essential create a permanent class structure.


----------



## MI1972 (May 15, 2014)

LAM said:


> Your speaking of the old US economy the pre-1960's economy.  The structural changes made to the US economy in the 70's and 80's have permanently changed economic mobility in the US and that's why it has stagnated.  The roots are in financialization which in reality (along with the deregulation of labor) amounts to not much more then state sponsored forgery and social engineering to essential create a permanent class structure.



Agree 100 percent. Thats why I think there will be a revolution in the next 50 to 100 years.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Zaphod (May 16, 2014)

MI1972 said:


> Agree 100 percent. Thats why I think there will be a revolution in the next 50 to 100 years.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Less time than that.  I'm thinking low single digits.


----------



## Swiper (Oct 9, 2014)

Wal-Mart is eliminating health benefits for about 30,000 employees to control its rising health care costs.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/07/news/economy/walmart-health-benefits/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

thanks to obamacare.


----------



## heckler7 (Oct 9, 2014)

Swiper said:


> Wal-Mart is eliminating health benefits for about 30,000 employees to control its rising health care costs.
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/07/news/economy/walmart-health-benefits/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
> 
> thanks to obamacare.


thats BS, they already have most their staff on part time basis to avoid paying benifits. I dont know why people work there, the must have zero options


----------



## Swiper (Oct 9, 2014)

heckler7 said:


> thats BS, they already have most their staff on part time basis to avoid paying benifits. I dont know why people work there, the must have zero options



yeah that's the best job they can get with the skills they have.  luckily Walmart can employee them or else they'd be unemployed.  Walmart should be praised for hiring non skilled workers.


----------



## heckler7 (Oct 9, 2014)

Swiper said:


> yeah that's the best job they can get with the skills they have.  luckily Walmart can employee them or else they'd be unemployed.  Walmart should be praised for hiring non skilled workers.


to be honest pretty much every job that falls under $20 an hour is unskilled


----------



## Big Puppy (Oct 9, 2014)

Oh bullshit.  There are plenty of skilled jobs less than $20.


----------



## Big Puppy (Oct 9, 2014)

Doesn't  matter what sector you're looking at. HVAC, automotive, any manual labor skilled job.


----------



## LAM (Oct 9, 2014)

Swiper said:


> Wal-Mart is eliminating health benefits for about 30,000 employees to control its rising health care costs.
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/07/news/economy/walmart-health-benefits/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
> 
> thanks to obamacare.



And thanks to Nixon for taking the USD completely fiat to inflate away Vietnam debts the U.S economy is totally screwed.  You really don't want to go gown the road of playing the blame game because there is a whole lot more legislation proposed and passed with people with an (R) after there name then a (D).  

Because I can post every piece of financial deregulation since the 60's because you sure know you haven't looked at a single one of them but I've looked at them all.


----------



## Bowden (Oct 10, 2014)

Swiper said:


> Wal-Mart is eliminating health benefits for about 30,000 employees to control its rising health care costs.
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/07/news/economy/walmart-health-benefits/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
> 
> thanks to obamacare.



Obamacare has nothing to do with this.

It's all about where a company decides to allocate it's free cash flow.
Wal-Mart is probably doing this so that they can maintain their free cash percentage that is allocated to buying back their stock.
Something that the Walton family and their investors benefit from.

In Wal-Marts case, they made a decision in 2013 to allociate 15 billion dollars of free cash to buying back stock.

Reports are that Wal-Mart is having trouble meeting their estimates.
So they decided to reduce health care benefit costs and divert the cash to maintain the 15 Billion dollar stock buyback program.


----------



## Bowden (Oct 10, 2014)

Stock buybacks are a common way that retail companies having sales target misses, revenue projection negative variances and issues meeting EPS estimates ect. prop up the stock price.
They divert cash from their largest expense, employees, by modifying regular full time /part time no benefit employee ratios, reducing employee benefits and then allocate the cash to maintaining stock buy-backs.

Ever read a Wal-Mart  SEC filing?
That will indicate as to where Wal-Mart is allocating its cash.


----------



## Bowden (Oct 10, 2014)

heckler7 said:


> to be honest pretty much every job that falls under $20 an hour is unskilled



So what you are saying is that these jobs under $20 an hour are ones that anyone that can walk off of the street and do without any education, experience in and no training what so ever that develops skills specific to that job?

No skills jobs require no education, training or experience?
I disagree with anyone that argues that point based on what happens in the real world.
Jobs that require skills, require education, training and experience for an employee to be productive.

Take as an example a grocery store worker making a bit above minimum wage.
Is that a non skilled or a skilled job?
Grocery store workers working in food prep, meat and produce departments utilize skills in the performance of their jobs that could be compared to the skill sets of workers on an assembly line.

Grocery store workers are required to know as part of their jobs health department regulations related to food safety, have to take training and pass tests on food safety and to perform their jobs in a way that complies with those regulations or risk the grocery store getting a food safety violation during a health inspection.
That violation would reduce the inspection/sanitation rating that is posted where the customers can see it.

Are grocery workers making under $20 an hour skilled or not?


----------



## Bowden (Oct 10, 2014)

Another point.

The level of someones education and how much they make an hour has nothing to do with factors like customer service and customer satisfaction that are crucial to Business Customer Management Relationship.

A good example of this is a retail service employee that interacts daily with the public during their job.
Good customer service is a skill and it is critical related to any employee that falls within customer service areas.

A computer programmer associate with a college degree making well over 20 an hour is not as critical to a retail business respective to the daily customer service levels provided by a line worker making well under 20 an hour.


----------



## Swiper (Oct 10, 2014)

LAM said:


> And thanks to Nixon for taking the USD completely fiat to inflate away Vietnam debts the U.S economy is totally screwed.  You really don't want to go gown the road of playing the blame game because there is a whole lot more legislation proposed and passed with people with an (R) after there name then a (D).
> .



we're in complete agreement here.


----------



## Swiper (Oct 10, 2014)

Bowden said:


> Obamacare has nothing to do with this.
> 
> It's all about where a company decides to allocate it's free cash flow.
> Wal-Mart is probably doing this so that they can maintain their free cash percentage that is allocated to buying back their stock.
> ...



due to Obamacare health insurance rates have gone up. that's my point.


----------



## LAM (Oct 10, 2014)

Bowden said:


> Stock buybacks are a common way that retail companies having sales target misses, revenue projection negative variances and issues meeting EPS estimates ect. prop up the stock price.
> They divert cash from their largest expense, employees, by modifying regular full time /part time no benefit employee ratios, reducing employee benefits and then allocate the cash to maintaining stock buy-backs.
> 
> Ever read a Wal-Mart  SEC filing?
> That will indicate as to where Wal-Mart is allocating its cash.



Apple does the same thing with almost 50% of it's workforce in China their wage share annually is about 45million a year to 800-900million in the U.S.  That is obviously a a huge savings in cost from utilizing global supply chain 
management then once the federal statisticians calculate the nation?s economic output, what they are actually measuring is domestic ?value added? the dollar value of all sales minus the dollar value of all imports. ?Productivity? is then calculated by dividing the quantity of value added by the number of American workers. American workers, however, often have little to do with the gains in productivity attributed to them. 

It's one of many ways that "American" productivity is greatly overstated unless you look at the details.


----------



## Zaphod (Oct 11, 2014)

Swiper said:


> due to Obamacare health insurance rates have gone up. that's my point.



How so?  Insurance rates have been rising anyway.


----------



## Swiper (Oct 11, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> How so?  Insurance rates have been rising anyway.



not even close to the rate they are now.  And Obama and all the other rats told us it would reduce rates by $2500 a year. lying pos.  my policy is set to go up 24.9% January 1st.


----------



## heckler7 (Oct 11, 2014)

Swiper said:


> due to Obamacare health insurance rates have gone up. that's my point.


medical was on the rise before Obamacare, I paid $135 dollars for insulin ( that was 5 pens that last about 1 1/2 months) 10 years ago now its $380 for the same exact thing


----------



## heckler7 (Oct 11, 2014)

Bowden said:


> Another point.
> 
> The level of someones education and how much they make an hour has nothing to do with factors like customer service and customer satisfaction that are crucial to Business Customer Management Relationship.
> 
> ...


if you can get a job at wal-mart stocking shelves without a high school diploma making $12 an hour your saying thats a skill? or mowing lawns you can be a high school dropout, and you require some training but is that skilled labor? just saying Its not in my opinion.


----------



## Zaphod (Oct 11, 2014)

Swiper said:


> not even close to the rate they are now.  And Obama and all the other rats told us it would reduce rates by $2500 a year. lying pos.  my policy is set to go up 24.9% January 1st.



Blame your employer, the healthcare coverage provider and the healthcare providers.  Rates are going up because they no longer have to sell it to you, you have to buy from them.  Remember from the start the the healthcare industry was against it?  They quickly changed their tune when they found out they were being given guaranteed customers on a silver platter.


----------



## Bowden (Oct 11, 2014)

heckler7 said:


> if you can get a job at wal-mart stocking shelves without a high school diploma making $12 an hour your saying thats a skill? or mowing lawns you can be a high school dropout, and you require some training but is that skilled labor? just saying Its not in my opinion.



If I read your original post correctly, your statement was that jobs paying under $20 an hour are mostly unskilled.
My point was there are jobs out there that require skills, education and training that pay well under 20 an hour.
I gave you a good example of one type (grocery store clerk).

Some of these jobs depending on the company and industry ( mostly retail)  pay less than one dollar an hour above Federal minimum wage.


----------



## Big Puppy (Oct 11, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> Blame your employer, the healthcare coverage provider and the healthcare providers.  Rates are going up because they no longer have to sell it to you, you have to buy from them.  Remember from the start the the healthcare industry was against it?  They quickly changed their tune when they found out they were being given guaranteed customers on a silver platter.



And they no longer have to sell it to us because of obamacare. So how is his employer at fault for the rising rates again?


----------



## heckler7 (Oct 11, 2014)

Bowden said:


> If I read your original post correctly, your statement was that jobs paying under $20 an hour are mostly unskilled.
> My point was there are jobs out there that require skills, education and training that pay well under 20 an hour.
> I gave you a good example of one type (grocery store clerk).
> 
> Some of these jobs depending on the company and industry ( mostly retail)  pay less than one dollar an hour above Federal minimum wage.


you think a grocery store clerk is skilled labor, the person that scan a barcode and the register does all the math, yes that takes no skill at all, or maybe I'm not understanding what you said.


----------



## Zaphod (Oct 11, 2014)

Big Puppy said:


> And they no longer have to sell it to us because of obamacare. So how is his employer at fault for the rising rates again?



For passing the increased costs on to the employee.  And for not telling the company that administrates the policy they need to control their rates.


----------



## Swiper (Oct 11, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> Blame your employer, the healthcare coverage provider and the healthcare providers.  Rates are going up because they no longer have to sell it to you, you have to buy from them.  Remember from the start the the healthcare industry was against it?  They quickly changed their tune when they found out they were being given guaranteed customers on a silver platter.



yeah it's all because of Obamacare they are guaranteed customers.  
btw I am my own employer.  it's not my fault.


----------



## Zaphod (Oct 11, 2014)

Swiper said:


> yeah it's all because of Obamacare they we guaranteed customers.
> btw I am my own employer.  it's not my fault.



Shop around.


----------



## Swiper (Oct 11, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> Shop around.



for you to vote for Gary Johnson and your support for big govt programs like obamacare has me saying wtf?  do you even understand what Johnson represents? I don't think so.


----------



## charley (Oct 11, 2014)

*How incomes have changed for the rich and the rest*
THE  recovery belongs to the rich. It seemed ominous in 2007 when the share  of national income flowing to America's top 1% of earners reached 18.3%:  the highest since just before the crash of 1929. But whereas the  Depression kicked off a long era of even income growth the rich have  done much better this time round. New data  assembled by Emmanuel Saez, of the University of California, Berkeley,  and Thomas Piketty, of the Paris School of Economics, reveal that the  top 1% enjoyed real income growth of 31% between 2009 and 2012, compared  with growth of less than 1% for the bottom 99%. Income actually shrank  for the bottom 90% of earners. After the Depression households across  the income spectrum enjoyed income growth roughly commensurate with  losses during the downturn. As a result the top 1% only captured about  28% of total income growth from 1933 to 1936. This time around 95% of  the increase in American income since 2009 has gone to the top 1%. No  wonder, then, that the share of national income flowing to the rich is  at a record high of 19.3%, ahead of both 2007 and 1929.


----------



## charley (Oct 12, 2014)

[h=1]Meet the Family[/h] 		 				 			The  Walton family is the richest family in the United States and one of the  richest in the world. They are heirs to the Walmart fortune and the  company?s largest shareholders, with over fifty percent ownership of  stock in the retail giant.
 Sam Walton and his brother Bud opened their first Walmart discount store in 1962. Today three family members serve on Walmart?s board of directors; Rob is the chair, and sits on the board with his brother Jim and his son-in-law, Greg Penner.
 The six Waltons on Forbes? list  of wealthiest Americans have a net worth of $144.7 billion. This fiscal  year three Waltons?Rob, Jim, and Alice (and the various entities that  they control)?will receive an estimated $3.1 billion in Walmart  dividends from their majority stake in the company.
 The Waltons aren?t just the face of the 1%; they?re the face of the 0.000001%. The Waltons have more wealth than 42% of American families combined.
 Why does all of this matter? While the Waltons are building billion-dollar museums, driving  million-dollar cars, and jumping between vacation homes, Walmart, the  country?s largest private employer, is paying its associates an average  of $8.81 an hour.  The Waltons make billions a year off of a company most of them don?t  even work for, while Walmart associates struggle for respect on the job  and enough pay to make ends meet.
 Through their family legacy, places on Walmart?s board of directors,  and their majority stake in the company, the Waltons have the power to  turn 1.4 million Walmart jobs into good jobs.


----------



## Zaphod (Oct 12, 2014)

Swiper said:


> for you to vote for Gary Johnson and your support for big govt programs like obamacare has me saying wtf?  do you even understand what Johnson represents? I don't think so.



You proclaim the advantages of a free market and how it will solve the ills of the world.  Use the free market and shop around.

I don't support Obamacare.  It's poorly implemented as it was meant to be, being patterned off Romney's program from when he was governor of Massachusetts.  You got your republican solution.  Live with it.


----------



## Swiper (Oct 12, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> You proclaim the advantages of a free market and how it will solve the ills of the world.  Use the free market and shop around.
> 
> I don't support Obamacare.  It's poorly implemented as it was meant to be, being patterned off Romney's program from when he was governor of Massachusetts.  You got your republican solution.  Live with it.



the govt won't allow a free market in healthcare never has never will.  if you think the U.S. has anything close to free market capitalism you're badly misguided.  

lol I voted Johnson too and Ron Paul in the primaries as he wasn't on the national ballot for potus.


----------



## Bowden (Oct 12, 2014)

Swiper said:


> the govt won't allow a free market in healthcare never has never will.  if you think the U.S. has anything close to free market capitalism you're badly misguided.
> 
> lol I voted Johnson too and Ron Paul in the primaries as he wasn't on the national ballot for potus.



I don't know about the area that you live in but in my area there are a large number of health care providers i.e. physicians, hospitals and other types of private for profit providers of health care services competing in a free market for consumers of health care.

That type of competition falls under free market capitalism.

However due to its nature, health care services delivery is not the same as consumer services delivery in other industries and it has to be very well regulated.
People may die if health care delivery by private for profit corporations are not regulated as private for profit health care industry corporations sometimes consider profit motivation to be the primary factor as to their business models.


----------



## Swiper (Oct 12, 2014)

Bowden said:


> I don't know about the area that you live in but in my area there are a large number of health care providers i.e. physicians, hospitals and other types of private for profit providers of health care services competing in a free market for consumers of health care.
> 
> That type of competition falls under free market capitalism.



no it does not. not when you have govt forcing people to buy a product (health insurance) from a private company.


----------



## Zaphod (Oct 12, 2014)

Swiper said:


> the govt won't allow a free market in healthcare never has never will.  if you think the U.S. has anything close to free market capitalism you're badly misguided.
> 
> lol I voted Johnson too and Ron Paul in the primaries as he wasn't on the national ballot for potus.



I had to do a write-in for Johnson here in Michigan.  Lack of funding kept him off the ballot, except as a write-in.


----------



## Bowden (Oct 12, 2014)

Swiper said:


> no it does not. not when you have govt forcing people to buy a product (health insurance) from a private company.



One reason government forced it is due to the lack of the ability or desire of free market capitalism to deliver a solution to the problem of the millions of people in the working poor economic class who are not provided with health care insurance they can afford on their wages paid by their employers.

People in that economic class cannot afford health care unless they receive government assistance.
Government assistance provided by funding that assistance within a model of forcing everyone to buy health insurance to fund health care insurance provision for people that cannot afford it
These people usually fall within the working poor economic class.

A good example of how private for profit capitalism 'solves' this problem and transfers it to the taxpayers is that the largest employer in the United States, Wal-Mart, has the highest number of employees on government socialist welfare programs like medicare.
Wal-mart does this so that it can allocate its cash to funding 500 billion dollars on stock buybacks.
Instead of funding employee compensation and benefits like health care insurance at a level that would keep its employees off of government socialist benefit programs.

Private for profit insurance companies are not beating down the doors of people that make near minimum wage that cannot afford to buy health care insurance on the free market to sell them health care insurance policies.

Some may argue that health care should only be provided to those that can afford it on their own.
Others disagree with that argument.


----------



## Bowden (Oct 12, 2014)

The libertarian model of rugged individualism and self reliance works for people that make enough money to afford rugged individualism and self reliance.
That is why most libertarians are people that make good incomes.

For some reason people with families that make good money and suffer a layoff and then need government assistance seem to change their perspectives.

I wonder why that is?

Maybe now they are in the shoes of those that they thought were too lazy to work for a good living?
I know several people that once they suffered a layoff in the last recession and they got a taste of what all of 'those lazy people' go through day to day to survive had a 180 change in their perspectives.


----------



## Swiper (Oct 12, 2014)

Bowden said:


> One reason government forced it is due to the lack of the ability or desire of free market capitalism to deliver a solution to the problem of the millions of people in the working poor economic class who are not provided with health care insurance they can afford on their wages paid by their employers.
> 
> People in that economic class cannot afford health care unless they receive government assistance.
> Government assistance provided by funding that assistance within a model of forcing everyone to buy health insurance to fund health care insurance provision for people that cannot afford it
> ...




  it was only before wages and price controls is when we had an almost free market in health care. Never had a free market after that. so your argument the free market is flawed is misguided.  in the past before the govt dictated wages and price controls which intern companies had to compensate their employees with health insurance instead of raising wages.  before all of that govt for the most part wasn't involved in the healthcare industry, people paid out of pocket for their health care needs. and almost no one got turned away. its only when govt got involved is when prices skyrocketed. when govt mandates insurance companies what they need to cover, how much they need to cover, what rx they need to cover, can't buy across state lines (which distorts competition) and  ect... is when the prices get out of control.


----------



## Swiper (Oct 12, 2014)

Bowden;3313121[COLOR=#b22222 said:
			
		

> ][/COLOR]The libertarian model of rugged individualism and self reliance works for people that make enough money to afford rugged individualism and self reliance.
> That is why most libertarians are people that make good incomes.
> 
> For some reason people with families that make good money and suffer a layoff and then need government assistance seem to change their perspectives.
> ...



that model is what this country was built on, the constitution was written for and the founding father envisioned. It's too bad you don't like what this country is all about, or at least was......

And the income thing is total BS, where is your evidence to support that? i say just the opposite. it's probably the lower and middle class who have the most libertarians in it.


----------



## Big Puppy (Oct 12, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> For passing the increased costs on to the employee.  And for not telling the company that administrates the policy they need to control their rates.



Oh i forgot, the employer has to take all these rising costs up the ass.

I can see it now..."um insurance company, please lower your rates. Thank you". Im sure telling them they need to control their rates would solve the problem.  

Maybe some day youll be lucky enough to run your own business and see what its really like


----------



## Bowden (Oct 13, 2014)

Swiper said:


> that model is what this country was built on, the constitution was written for and the founding father envisioned. It's too bad you don't like what this country is all about, or at least was......
> 
> And the income thing is total BS, where is your evidence to support that? i say just the opposite. it's probably the lower and middle class who have the most libertarians in it.



The rugged individualist and totally self sufficient concept needs to be evaluated again what happens in the real world.
No one is an island that has no dependencies in some sort on other people.

Look up the numbers yourself as to who in the middle class/ working poor economic classes actually would fit the definition of a Libertarian rugged individualist and is totally self sufficient that totally rejects and does not take some sort of government benefit what so ever.

For most people, the entire concept of being a Libertarian that is defined as a rugged individualist and thus totally self sufficient in today's society and especially today's economy is laughable.

A Libertarian and a receiver of any Government entitlement benefit program is a contradiction in terms.
Any individual that receives any Government entitlement benefit cannot be a Libertarian.
Most people in the middle and working poor economic classes receive some sort of Government entitlement benefits during their lifetimes.

Thus they cannot be a Libertarian.


----------



## Bowden (Oct 13, 2014)

Big Puppy said:


> Oh i forgot, the employer has to take all these rising costs up the ass.
> 
> I can see it now..."um insurance company, please lower your rates. Thank you". Im sure telling them they need to control their rates would solve the problem.
> 
> Maybe some day youll be lucky enough to run your own business and see what its really like



Social problems like huge numbers of workers that work for an employer that does not pay a living wage and health care benefits can very quickly become business issues.
As those workers are consumers of business products and services.
Level of worker disposable income = rate of worker consumption of business products and services.


----------



## heckler7 (Oct 13, 2014)

I'm forced to buy home insurance and now because fema did some bougus study from some computer model I have to have flood insurance, as well as auto insurance. just saying I dont hear people complain that these things are unconstitutional and government is going to kill small business and middle class


----------



## malfeasance (Oct 13, 2014)

charley said:


> [h=1]Meet the Family[/h] 		 				 			The  Walton family is the richest family in the United States and one of the  richest in the world. They are heirs to the Walmart fortune and the  company?s largest shareholders, with over fifty percent ownership of  stock in the retail giant.
> Sam Walton and his brother Bud opened their first Walmart discount store in 1962. Today three family members serve on Walmart?s board of directors; Rob is the chair, and sits on the board with his brother Jim and his son-in-law, Greg Penner.
> The six Waltons on Forbes? list  of wealthiest Americans have a net worth of $144.7 billion. This fiscal  year three Waltons?Rob, Jim, and Alice (and the various entities that  they control)?will receive an estimated $3.1 billion in Walmart  dividends from their majority stake in the company.
> The Waltons aren?t just the face of the 1%; they?re the face of the 0.000001%. The Waltons have more wealth than 42% of American families combined.
> ...


Swiper already ran the calculation.  A little over $3 per hour if they poured ALL of the profits into employee raises, leaving nothing for shareholders of this publicly traded company.

So how are they going to turn 1.4 million jobs into "good jobs?"

Have the numbers changed this year?

Magic money bucket?


----------



## malfeasance (Oct 13, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> You proclaim the advantages of a free market and how it will solve the ills of the world.  Use the free market and shop around.


I am self employed.  I have had problem after problem with my current insurer.

Two years ago, I would just call my broker, buy a policy from a competitor, and fire the troublesome insurer all in one day.  NOW, however, thanks to Obamacare, I am stuck with the current insurer until some stupid "enrollment window."  They know it, too, and therefore they have no incentive whatsoever to keep me happy.  I am a captive customer, and they are fully aware of it.

My choice is to either keep them until the next enrollment window or go uninsured . . . wait!  No, it is illegal now to go uninsured, so tell me again about how I can use the free market and shop around?

I want to hear all about it.

What sort of twisted incentives does this government regulation set up?

I have no doubt that some of you on the left of this issue mean well, that is, that you have good intentions, but I seriously question whether you have ever spent more than 30 seconds trying to think through the real world consequences of enacting your pet policies.  You have certainly never given the downsides any serious consideration, even for a mere 30 seconds.


----------



## malfeasance (Oct 13, 2014)

Swiper said:


> Walmart profit 2012 = 17 billion
> 
> Walmart employees = 2.2 Million
> 
> ...



I have had minimum wage jobs.  I have been unemployed.  

I did not like either.

I developed some skills that are marketable, because I did not like the way the future looked otherwise.

The math above shows something, and that is, you cannot be paid more than you produce.  Even a $3.71 raise would not be what the less economically literate among you call a "living wage," and yet even that amount would mean no profit at all for shareholders, some of whom work at Wal-Mart.

You cannot pay a worker more than he produces.  Doing so means operating at a loss, and eventually that worker will have no job at all, living wage or otherwise.


----------



## malfeasance (Oct 13, 2014)

Bowden said:


> For some reason people with families that make good money and suffer a layoff and then need government assistance seem to change their perspectives.
> 
> I wonder why that is?


Because they can use the word "need" to justify their robbery?  Because if they admitted what they were doing, that is, surviving off the efforts of others, then they would loath themselves and what they have become?  Changing one's perspective makes one feel better about oneself, especially when that person clouds his thoughts and language with euphemisms like "government assistance."

Not everybody "changes their perspectives."  I have been unemployed, as I posted above, and know many others who have as well, without using the government to take money from others and feed it to me, like a parasite.

But you are correct, for most people it is easier to "change perspectives" than to admit with clear language what they are doing.

I would still love to hear from you a business plan - What "living wage" can Wal-Mart pay its employees and still stay in business?  Does a living wage matter if 1.4 million low skilled workers become unemployed because economic illiterates force a company to pay its workers more than they produce?


----------



## Zaphod (Oct 13, 2014)

Swiper said:


> it was only before wages and price controls is when we had an almost free market in health care. Never had a free market after that. so your argument the free market is flawed is misguided.  in the past before the govt dictated wages and price controls which intern companies had to compensate their employees with health insurance instead of raising wages.  before all of that govt for the most part wasn't involved in the healthcare industry, people paid out of pocket for their health care needs. and almost no one got turned away. its only when govt got involved is when prices skyrocketed. when govt mandates insurance companies what they need to cover, how much they need to cover, what rx they need to cover, can't buy across state lines (which distorts competition) and  ect... is when the prices get out of control.



Prices started getting out of control when the majority of insurance companies became for-profit.  At that point everything went to hell.


----------



## Zaphod (Oct 13, 2014)

malfeasance said:


> I am self employed.  I have had problem after problem with my current insurer.
> 
> Two years ago, I would just call my broker, buy a policy from a competitor, and fire the troublesome insurer all in one day.  NOW, however, thanks to Obamacare, I am stuck with the current insurer until some stupid "enrollment window."  They know it, too, and therefore they have no incentive whatsoever to keep me happy.  I am a captive customer, and they are fully aware of it.
> 
> ...



The downside was obvious.  Just check with Taxachussets.  You have companies that no longer have to sell you anything, you MUST buy.  What does anyone think would happen?  The healthcare law, which healthcare people were vehemently against at the start, gave the healthcare industry guaranteed customers, which promptly made the healthcare industry do a 180 and now you hear NOTHING from them about it.  They are happier than pigs in shit.  

You can shop around.  Just during the enrollment window.  Next time don't vote for one moron because you like the other moron less.  Vote third party.  Want to change the status quo?  Then quit voting to keep it.


----------



## Swiper (Oct 13, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> Prices started getting out of control when the majority of insurance companies became for-profit.  At that point everything went to hell.



so u don't like for  profit companies?


----------



## Swiper (Oct 13, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> The downside was obvious.  Just check with Taxachussets.  You have companies that no longer have to sell you anything, you MUST buy.  What does anyone think would happen?  The healthcare law, which healthcare people were vehemently against at the start, gave the healthcare industry guaranteed customers, which promptly made the healthcare industry do a 180 and now you hear NOTHING from them about it.  They are happier than pigs in shit.
> 
> You can shop around.  Just during the enrollment window.  Next time don't vote for one moron because you like the other moron less.  Vote third party.  Want to change the status quo?  Then quit voting to keep it.



dude u vote for people u have no clue what they stand for.  lol.


----------



## Zaphod (Oct 13, 2014)

Swiper said:


> so u don't like for  profit companies?



So you don't equate those for-profit companies with the rising cost of healthcare?  They are making a profit in the healthcare business and you are complaining at how they do it.  Do you punch yourself in the balls and wonder why they ache?


----------



## Zaphod (Oct 13, 2014)

Swiper said:


> dude u vote for people u have no clue what they stand for.  lol.



Believe what you want.


----------



## Big Puppy (Oct 13, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> Prices started getting out of control when the majority of insurance companies became for-profit.  At that point everything went to hell.



Yeah like the non-profit organizations keep it cheap. If youre naive enough to think that non-profit organizations exist i got a bridge to sell you


----------



## Swiper (Oct 13, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> So you don't equate those for-profit companies with the rising cost of healthcare?
> 
> They are making a profit in the healthcare business and you are complaining at how they do it.
> 
> Do you punch yourself in the balls and wonder why they ache?



nice dodge of my question.   

no I do not.  they are making nice profits now that the Obama admin is in bed with big business with the health care industry.   as you said Obama gave them customers on a silver platter.  

my balls are so small I'd probably would even feel it.  lol


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 14, 2014)

With the implementation of Obamacare, there was no choice but for rates to go up for 2 reasons.  One, allowing people with pre-existing conditions, which is universally agreed that it needed to happen.  The second...The health insurance industry had a very inventive way of turning a profit.  They would let you pay premiums for years, but once you became more of a liability by using your insurance and were less profitable, they would cut you.  While these 2 things are likely the cause of most of the increase, I think most people agree that they these things needed to be implemented.  So, in essence, insurance rates went up because companies had to start providing actual insurance.  

Obamacare is a piece of shit, but the way it was before was far worse.  Your rates are going up, but they are going up because you have the assurance that they can't fuck you as bad as they could before.  Honestly, even though I am libertarian, I would love to see the health insurance industry die a quick, painful death and have it replaced with single payer.  Optimally, we'd just have health savings accounts that accumulated over time depending on how much you used the system, which is ideal, but will never happen.


----------



## LAM (Oct 19, 2014)

Swiper said:


> it was only before wages and price controls is when we had an almost free market in health care. Never had a free market after that. so your argument the free market is flawed is misguided.  in the past before the govt dictated wages and price controls which intern companies had to compensate their employees with health insurance instead of raising wages.  before all of that govt for the most part wasn't involved in the healthcare industry, people paid out of pocket for their health care needs. and almost no one got turned away. its only when govt got involved is when prices skyrocketed. when govt mandates insurance companies what they need to cover, how much they need to cover, what rx they need to cover, can't buy across state lines (which distorts competition) and  ect... is when the prices get out of control.



Price controls went into effect during WWII health care rates didn't start to drastically increase at double the CPI until the 1980's, explain the 4 decade long lag if price controls and "gubment" interfering with the markets was the main cause of increasing health care costs.

Data collected across the OECD once again shows your wrong.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/09/business/econgraphic3.jpg


----------



## Swiper (Oct 20, 2014)

LAM said:


> Price controls went into effect during WWII health care rates didn't start to drastically increase at double the CPI until the 1980's, explain the 4 decade long lag if price controls and "gubment" interfering with the markets was the main cause of increasing health care costs.
> 
> Data collected across the OECD once again shows your wrong.
> 
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/09/business/econgraphic3.jpg





I'm not wrong at all. prices have gone up.  you can read right? 
what was wrong with the health care system when govt didn't distort it with wages and price controls? yea thats what i thought.


----------



## LAM (Oct 20, 2014)

Swiper said:


> I'm not wrong at all. prices have gone up.  you can read right?
> what was wrong with the health care system when govt didn't distort it with wages and price controls? yea thats what i thought.



When was the period when prices remained flat?  What years were those again exactly?


----------



## Swiper (Feb 19, 2015)

*Walmart ups pay well above minimum wage*


The company said 500,000 full-time and part-time associates, more than a third of its work force atWalmart(WMT) U.S. stores and Sam's Clubs, will receive pay raises in April to at least $9 an hour. That will be $1.75 above the federal minimum wage.

By next February 1, their pay will go to at least $10 an hour.
The company said workers will also have more control over their schedules, but it declined to give details of those changes. And it said it would invest more in training to give entry-level workers greater chance for promotion and other career advancement.
The wage scale and other improvement in work conditions will cost the company about $1 billion in this fiscal year.
Walmart's pay and employment policies have been the focus of protest by some workers and outside labor groups seeking to organize Walmart employees. Black Friday protesters last year were demanding a $15 an hour pay minimum across the company.


Currently, only about 6,000 Walmart employees out of more than 1.2 million nationwide are paid at the $7.25 an hour federal minimum wage, according to the company. It employs more U.S. workers than any other business.
Once the company's starting pay becomes $9 an hour in April, the average pay for full-time retail workers there will be about $13 an hour. Walmart has previously said that average already stands at $12.94 an hour.
The average part-time wage will be about $10 an hour, according to Carol Schumacher, vice president of investor relations for the company. Roughly half of its employees are part-time workers.
President Obama has proposed raising the federal minimum to $10.10 an hour, but Republicans in Congress have so far blocked those efforts. But many states have gone ahead and raised their ownstate minimum wage rates, either by action of the legislature or voter initiative.
"We're not taking a position on what the government does," said Schumacher. "But any time any company, whether it's us or someone else, raises wages, it's a help for the economy."


The improved labor market, with employers hiring at their strongest pace since the 1990s, is giving workers a boost: The average wage nationwide climbed by 2.2% over the previous year, according to the Labor Department. The number of employees willing to quit jobs to look for or take new positions is also rising.
While Walmart says the higher wages should help reduce its turnover rate, Schumacher said these plans were in the works well before the recent pick-up in the job market. But Walmart is following the path blazed by others, including clothing retailer Gap (GPS) and furnishings retailer Ikea, which already raised the wages of its lowest paid employees early last year.


OUR Walmart, the union-backed group organizing protests at Walmart, took credit for the company's announcement.
"We are so proud that by standing together we won raises for 500,000 Walmart workers, whose families desperately need better pay and regular hours from the company," said Emily Wells, a leader of the group. But she said the improved wages still fell well short of what was needed.
"With $16 billion in profits, Walmart can afford to provide the good jobs that Americans need -- and that means $15 an hour, full-time, consistent hours and respect for our hard work."


But the National Retail Federation, which has been a leader in the fight against raising the minimum wage, said Wal-Mart's announcement was proof that a change in the minimum wage is not needed, saying it is an example of the "power of the marketplace."
"Like many other retailers, Walmart made its decision based upon what is best for their employees, their customers, their shareholders and the communities in which they operate," said Mathew Shay, CEO of the retailers' trade group.
Yahoo (YHOO, Tech30) CEO Marissa Mayer, a member of the Walmart board, tweeted that she was "so happy for Walmart associates and proud of Walmart management. A great leadership decision by [Walmart CEO] Doug McMillon."

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/19/news/companies/walmart-wages/


----------



## Swiper (Feb 19, 2015)

LAM said:


> When was the period when prices remained flat?  What years were those again exactly?



who said prices remained flat?  seriously, read my posts before you reply to them, thx


----------



## Devostator (Feb 25, 2015)

lol at the "union thug" - that really cracked me up


----------



## BigBobby (Feb 25, 2015)

I did not expect to find these types of discussions on this forum....  Good debate gentlemen.  I like it here a lot more.


----------

