Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Walmart is evil

FanboyMctroll
Posts: 3,388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2017 5:57:35 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Walmart is ruining small communities and making the middle class disappear. I know these facts are true because I worked for them for one summer as a student while in school.

Boycott Walmart and don't shop there!!

http://www.grunge.com...
David_Debates
Posts: 353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2017 9:50:53 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2017 5:57:35 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
Walmart is ruining small communities and making the middle class disappear. I know these facts are true because I worked for them for one summer as a student while in school.

I thought that Walmart was a business that sold things for cheaper than others, and as such, beat it's competition. Didn't that make the standard of living for most of these small communities a bit better? I mean, do you think they should charge more and make it harder for consumers to shop there?

Boycott Walmart and don't shop there!!

What injustice have they done? Paid you less than you wanted?

http://www.grunge.com...
People don't think the universe be like it is, but it do.
-Black Science Man
ken1122
Posts: 1,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2017 2:54:35 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2017 5:57:35 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
Walmart is ruining small communities and making the middle class disappear. I know these facts are true because I worked for them for one summer as a student while in school.

Boycott Walmart and don't shop there!!

http://www.grunge.com...

I know what you say is not true, because there is a Walmart in my community, and it has not ruined the community, and it did not make the middle class disappear.
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 3,388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2017 1:26:18 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2017 2:54:35 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/17/2017 5:57:35 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
Walmart is ruining small communities and making the middle class disappear. I know these facts are true because I worked for them for one summer as a student while in school.

Boycott Walmart and don't shop there!!

http://www.grunge.com...

I know what you say is not true, because there is a Walmart in my community, and it has not ruined the community, and it did not make the middle class disappear.

Look I know as a Walmart department manager, is it Housewares you are in charge of??? You of course will love Walmart, but they are shutting down small businesses in the small town and putting people out of work, then they turn around and hire you for $5.00 an hour and a good job button, yes they exist.

Walmart is a billion dollar corporation swallowing up all little town business and exploiting people for slave wages and selling cheap crap made in China, everything in their stores is cheap crap, like the dollar stores.

I call for a revolution, burn down all Walmarts!!!
ken1122
Posts: 1,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2017 9:10:41 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2017 1:26:18 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
At 8/18/2017 2:54:35 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/17/2017 5:57:35 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
Walmart is ruining small communities and making the middle class disappear. I know these facts are true because I worked for them for one summer as a student while in school.

Boycott Walmart and don't shop there!!

http://www.grunge.com...

I know what you say is not true, because there is a Walmart in my community, and it has not ruined the community, and it did not make the middle class disappear.

Look I know as a Walmart department manager, is it Housewares you are in charge of??? You of course will love Walmart, but they are shutting down small businesses in the small town and putting people out of work, then they turn around and hire you for $5.00 an hour and a good job button, yes they exist.
Do you know of anybody working at Walmart for $5;00 per hour? No; your argument fails.

Walmart is a billion dollar corporation swallowing up all little town business
If you add up all the Walmart's worldwide, yeah it's billions, but the single store in town that has to stand on it's own is not a billion dollar business. And most people in those towns usually want them there. What does that tell you?
dc0404
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2017 1:54:51 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2017 1:26:18 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
At 8/18/2017 2:54:35 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/17/2017 5:57:35 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
Walmart is ruining small communities and making the middle class disappear. I know these facts are true because I worked for them for one summer as a student while in school.

Boycott Walmart and don't shop there!!

http://www.grunge.com...

I know what you say is not true, because there is a Walmart in my community, and it has not ruined the community, and it did not make the middle class disappear.

Look I know as a Walmart department manager, is it Housewares you are in charge of??? You of course will love Walmart, but they are shutting down small businesses in the small town and putting people out of work, then they turn around and hire you for $5.00 an hour and a good job button, yes they exist.

Walmart is a billion dollar corporation swallowing up all little town business and exploiting people for slave wages and selling cheap crap made in China, everything in their stores is cheap crap, like the dollar stores.

I call for a revolution, burn down all Walmarts!!!

here is a guy trying to help the Walmart workers, thought you might enjoy it. We will see if those shoppers supporting higher wages are also in support of paying for it. Important point... Wages = Prices, this is why the world works.
https://www.youtube.com...

DC
HairlessApe
Posts: 230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2017 2:32:45 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Ah, but is it really WalMart that's doing this or, is it the trade deals and legislation allowing Companies to outsource cheap labor? And who makes this legislation? Politicians who are purchased through financial campaign support by those very Corporations who benefit from those trade deals and outsourcing. So WalMart is only a cog in the machine which is widening the wealth gap and destroying the middle class. It's the Oligarchy.
One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. -Sam Harris
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 3,388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2017 1:19:05 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/21/2017 2:32:45 AM, HairlessApe wrote:
Ah, but is it really WalMart that's doing this or, is it the trade deals and legislation allowing Companies to outsource cheap labor? And who makes this legislation? Politicians who are purchased through financial campaign support by those very Corporations who benefit from those trade deals and outsourcing. So WalMart is only a cog in the machine which is widening the wealth gap and destroying the middle class. It's the Oligarchy.

You are totally right, Walmart is only a small cog in the system. The politicians are responsible for the wage gap. Down with Capitol Hill!!! It's time for a revolution in DC!!
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 3,388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2017 1:24:53 PM
Posted: 3 months ago

I know what you say is not true, because there is a Walmart in my community, and it has not ruined the community, and it did not make the middle class disappear.

Look just because they gave you the job as the Pets & Seasonal department manager at Walmart doesn't mean others have not lost their small businesses in your community.

Do you know of anybody working at Walmart for $5;00 per hour? No; your argument fails.

Well you don't make $5.00 as the department manager, but the rest of the employees do. As a matter of fact in Harrisburg PA, Walmart where I just went, the employees make $4.15/hour, I just talked to them, so try again

Walmart is a billion dollar corporation swallowing up all little town business
If you add up all the Walmart's worldwide, yeah it's billions, but the single store in town that has to stand on it's own is not a billion dollar business. And most people in those towns usually want them there. What does that tell you?

The only people that want Walmart in their town are unemployed people and old people so they can be greeters. Your opinion is skewed anyways because you work for them, you think I'm going to buy your propaganda at the fact that Walmart is not bad? Nice try but you are wrong
ken1122
Posts: 1,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2017 6:34:27 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/21/2017 1:24:53 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:

I know what you say is not true, because there is a Walmart in my community, and it has not ruined the community, and it did not make the middle class disappear.

Look just because they gave you the job as the Pets & Seasonal department manager at Walmart doesn't mean others have not lost their small businesses in your community.
I"ve never worked at Wal-Mart, but I know people who have. They use Wal-Mart as a "starter job" because they will hire anybody, then once they get experience on the cash register, or stocking shelves, they get a better paying union job at places like Fred Meyers, or Safeway who only hire those with experience.

Do you know of anybody working at Walmart for $5;00 per hour? No; your argument fails.

Well you don't make $5.00 as the department manager, but the rest of the employees do. As a matter of fact in Harrisburg PA, Walmart where I just went, the employees make $4.15/hour, I just talked to them, so try again
If there were a Wal-Mart paying less than the Federal Minimum wage, they would be reported. I think your friends are lying to you

Walmart is a billion dollar corporation swallowing up all little town business
If you add up all the Walmart's worldwide, yeah it's billions, but the single store in town that has to stand on it's own is not a billion dollar business. And most people in those towns usually want them there. What does that tell you?

The only people that want Walmart in their town are unemployed people and old people so they can be greeters. Your opinion is skewed anyways because you work for them, you think I'm going to buy your propaganda at the fact that Walmart is not bad? Nice try but you are wrong

Maybe where you live; but where I live, only the fat cat business people don"t want to see Wal-Mart, it is the poor and low income who welcome Wal-Mart because the few dollars they have goes a long way
HairlessApe
Posts: 230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2017 7:51:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 8/21/2017 6:34:27 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/21/2017 1:24:53 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:

I know what you say is not true, because there is a Walmart in my community, and it has not ruined the community, and it did not make the middle class disappear.

Look just because they gave you the job as the Pets & Seasonal department manager at Walmart doesn't mean others have not lost their small businesses in your community.
I"ve never worked at Wal-Mart, but I know people who have. They use Wal-Mart as a "starter job" because they will hire anybody, then once they get experience on the cash register, or stocking shelves, they get a better paying union job at places like Fred Meyers, or Safeway who only hire those with experience.

Do you know of anybody working at Walmart for $5;00 per hour? No; your argument fails.

Well you don't make $5.00 as the department manager, but the rest of the employees do. As a matter of fact in Harrisburg PA, Walmart where I just went, the employees make $4.15/hour, I just talked to them, so try again
If there were a Wal-Mart paying less than the Federal Minimum wage, they would be reported. I think your friends are lying to you

Walmart is a billion dollar corporation swallowing up all little town business
If you add up all the Walmart's worldwide, yeah it's billions, but the single store in town that has to stand on it's own is not a billion dollar business. And most people in those towns usually want them there. What does that tell you?

The only people that want Walmart in their town are unemployed people and old people so they can be greeters. Your opinion is skewed anyways because you work for them, you think I'm going to buy your propaganda at the fact that Walmart is not bad? Nice try but you are wrong

Maybe where you live; but where I live, only the fat cat business people don"t want to see Wal-Mart, it is the poor and low income who welcome Wal-Mart because the few dollars they have goes a long way

The "fat cat business people" is a major cause of so many poor people and their willingness to purchase cheap products made outside of the USA. The rich get richer and the burgeoning poor resolve themselves to shopping at WalMart.
Predatory Capitalism is bad.
One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. -Sam Harris
dc0404
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2017 10:36:02 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 8/27/2017 7:51:19 PM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 8/21/2017 6:34:27 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/21/2017 1:24:53 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:

I know what you say is not true, because there is a Walmart in my community, and it has not ruined the community, and it did not make the middle class disappear.

Look just because they gave you the job as the Pets & Seasonal department manager at Walmart doesn't mean others have not lost their small businesses in your community.
I"ve never worked at Wal-Mart, but I know people who have. They use Wal-Mart as a "starter job" because they will hire anybody, then once they get experience on the cash register, or stocking shelves, they get a better paying union job at places like Fred Meyers, or Safeway who only hire those with experience.

Do you know of anybody working at Walmart for $5;00 per hour? No; your argument fails.

Well you don't make $5.00 as the department manager, but the rest of the employees do. As a matter of fact in Harrisburg PA, Walmart where I just went, the employees make $4.15/hour, I just talked to them, so try again
If there were a Wal-Mart paying less than the Federal Minimum wage, they would be reported. I think your friends are lying to you

Walmart is a billion dollar corporation swallowing up all little town business
If you add up all the Walmart's worldwide, yeah it's billions, but the single store in town that has to stand on it's own is not a billion dollar business. And most people in those towns usually want them there. What does that tell you?

The only people that want Walmart in their town are unemployed people and old people so they can be greeters. Your opinion is skewed anyways because you work for them, you think I'm going to buy your propaganda at the fact that Walmart is not bad? Nice try but you are wrong

Maybe where you live; but where I live, only the fat cat business people don"t want to see Wal-Mart, it is the poor and low income who welcome Wal-Mart because the few dollars they have goes a long way

The "fat cat business people" is a major cause of so many poor people and their willingness to purchase cheap products made outside of the USA. The rich get richer and the burgeoning poor resolve themselves to shopping at WalMart.
Predatory Capitalism is bad.

Yet, it is not fat cat business people that are creating the poor. It is corrupt politicians that are willing to be bought off for special favors of a very few corporate elite. The vast majority of business people, that are also rich, also pay the vast majority of taxes. And, if we were to reduce their taxes along with reducing taxes at all socio-economic levels, we would see more profit in businesses, which is a VERY good thing and more investment by the rich. Profit = investment = production = efficiency/competition = lower prices/higher value = spending and consumption here in America. Also, investment = more jobs and higher wages. Right now as it works, the government is sucking out all of the extra wealth, and just a few corporate elites, and you are blaming it on the rich, this is hardly true.

DC
HairlessApe
Posts: 230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2017 2:40:32 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 8/27/2017 10:36:02 PM, dc0404 wrote:

Yet, it is not fat cat business people that are creating the poor. It is corrupt politicians that are willing to be bought off for special favors of a very few corporate elite.

I see, well let's see if you can tell who the bad guy is:
Businessman: I'll give you a big campaign donation that can sway the election in your favor if you sponsor a bill to let me out of paying my taxes for 5 years OR I'll give the donation to your opponent.

Politician: Hey, that's blackmail! I won't do it.

Businessman: I just talked to your opponent and he'll take the money... last chance...

Politician: Well, I can get 5 other things accomplished if I take the money and give you what you want or I can lose the election to my opponent.

The vast majority of business people, that are also rich, also pay the vast majority of taxes.

So, fairness doesn't enter into your ideology? As in, the people who benefit most from the system also pay the most?

And, if we were to reduce their taxes along with reducing taxes at all socio-economic levels, we would see more profit in businesses, which is a VERY good thing and more investment by the rich.

The neo-liberal ideology of "Trickle Down Economics" has proven itself to be an abject failure as exposed by reality. That's what you're espousing, TDE.

Profit = investment = production = efficiency/competition = lower prices/higher value = spending and consumption here in America. Also, investment = more jobs and higher wages. Right now as it works, the government is sucking out all of the extra wealth, and just a few corporate elites, and you are blaming it on the rich, this is hardly true.

In theory you are correct. In reality, the Oligarchy games the system to create an unfair market advantage over their competition. There is no "free market" in the current system and therefore "free market principles" like those you're clinging to, don't actually exist.
One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. -Sam Harris
dc0404
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2017 3:23:04 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 8/28/2017 2:40:32 PM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 8/27/2017 10:36:02 PM, dc0404 wrote:

Yet, it is not fat cat business people that are creating the poor. It is corrupt politicians that are willing to be bought off for special favors of a very few corporate elite.

I see, well let's see if you can tell who the bad guy is:
Businessman: I'll give you a big campaign donation that can sway the election in your favor if you sponsor a bill to let me out of paying my taxes for 5 years OR I'll give the donation to your opponent.

Politician: Hey, that's blackmail! I won't do it.

Businessman: I just talked to your opponent and he'll take the money... last chance...

Politician: Well, I can get 5 other things accomplished if I take the money and give you what you want or I can lose the election to my opponent.

The vast majority of business people, that are also rich, also pay the vast majority of taxes.

So, fairness doesn't enter into your ideology? As in, the people who benefit most from the system also pay the most?

And, if we were to reduce their taxes along with reducing taxes at all socio-economic levels, we would see more profit in businesses, which is a VERY good thing and more investment by the rich.

The neo-liberal ideology of "Trickle Down Economics" has proven itself to be an abject failure as exposed by reality. That's what you're espousing, TDE.

Profit = investment = production = efficiency/competition = lower prices/higher value = spending and consumption here in America. Also, investment = more jobs and higher wages. Right now as it works, the government is sucking out all of the extra wealth, and just a few corporate elites, and you are blaming it on the rich, this is hardly true.

In theory you are correct. In reality, the Oligarchy games the system to create an unfair market advantage over their competition. There is no "free market" in the current system and therefore "free market principles" like those you're clinging to, don't actually exist.

what you described is crony-capitalism that starts and ends with politicians who want to stay in power and are willing to be purchased. So, I do agree with you, that Oligarchy does exist, made up of these corrupt politicians providing favors for donors. It is not so much that I am clinging because I don't believe there is any hope, nor was it a part of the elitist master plan anyway, it is about power, money, and control for the elite. That being said, people need to know this elite does exist, and it sounds as if you already know this as well. So my point is made, although with you, it didn't really need to be made. But as you aid, in theory, I am right, but likely will never be our reality.

Where you went wrong was when you said "fat cat business people" because this will cause others (that are not in the know) to think all business people that are rich, or a part of the 1% are the problem, that is hardly the case. Instead it is a small group of corporate elitist billionaires and their buddy politicians that is the cancer. It will also cause people like me to correct you as if you are unaware of this elitist group, which you are not.

DC
HairlessApe
Posts: 230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2017 2:12:08 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 8/29/2017 3:23:04 AM, dc0404 wrote:
At 8/28/2017 2:40:32 PM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 8/27/2017 10:36:02 PM, dc0404 wrote:

Yet, it is not fat cat business people that are creating the poor. It is corrupt politicians that are willing to be bought off for special favors of a very few corporate elite.

I see, well let's see if you can tell who the bad guy is:
Businessman: I'll give you a big campaign donation that can sway the election in your favor if you sponsor a bill to let me out of paying my taxes for 5 years OR I'll give the donation to your opponent.

Politician: Hey, that's blackmail! I won't do it.

Businessman: I just talked to your opponent and he'll take the money... last chance...

Politician: Well, I can get 5 other things accomplished if I take the money and give you what you want or I can lose the election to my opponent.

The vast majority of business people, that are also rich, also pay the vast majority of taxes.

So, fairness doesn't enter into your ideology? As in, the people who benefit most from the system also pay the most?

And, if we were to reduce their taxes along with reducing taxes at all socio-economic levels, we would see more profit in businesses, which is a VERY good thing and more investment by the rich.

The neo-liberal ideology of "Trickle Down Economics" has proven itself to be an abject failure as exposed by reality. That's what you're espousing, TDE.

Profit = investment = production = efficiency/competition = lower prices/higher value = spending and consumption here in America. Also, investment = more jobs and higher wages. Right now as it works, the government is sucking out all of the extra wealth, and just a few corporate elites, and you are blaming it on the rich, this is hardly true.

In theory you are correct. In reality, the Oligarchy games the system to create an unfair market advantage over their competition. There is no "free market" in the current system and therefore "free market principles" like those you're clinging to, don't actually exist.

what you described is crony-capitalism that starts and ends with politicians who want to stay in power and are willing to be purchased. So, I do agree with you, that Oligarchy does exist, made up of these corrupt politicians providing favors for donors. It is not so much that I am clinging because I don't believe there is any hope, nor was it a part of the elitist master plan anyway, it is about power, money, and control for the elite. That being said, people need to know this elite does exist, and it sounds as if you already know this as well. So my point is made, although with you, it didn't really need to be made. But as you aid, in theory, I am right, but likely will never be our reality.

Where you went wrong was when you said "fat cat business people" because this will cause others (that are not in the know) to think all business people that are rich, or a part of the 1% are the problem, that is hardly the case. Instead it is a small group of corporate elitist billionaires and their buddy politicians that is the cancer. It will also cause people like me to correct you as if you are unaware of this elitist group, which you are not.

DC

Nothing you said there was necessarily wrong but there are a few things to notice.
First, one could say that the culprit is the system itself which allows for the quid pro quo that has infected our political system. But the system didn't create itself. Politicians created the system... at the behest of the donors. It's greed on both sides of that coin. Since you can't remove the politicians or the donors to correct the system, you have to remove the money from the system making it more difficult for politicians to be forced, whether they want it or not, to do the bidding of the donors. How to do that is the problem because whichever side has the power to make the change, got into power because of the system and are therefore loathe to change it.

Using the word "elite" in this context is a loaded term. Elitism isn't a bad thing and should not be used to label the corrupt. We love elite people like athletes, chess players, actors, musicians, scientists and yes business people. Applying this term to the "problem people" causes a cognitive dissonance and for those without the intellectual acumen to discern the differences, it gets applied erroneously.

Lastly. Considering the numbers, if as you say, not all of the 1% (so less than 1%) are "part of the problem" then I am willing to sacrifice the good name of those few for the greater good that would come from a deep suspicion of and antipathy towards those in the 1%. Since the number of "problem people" is so small then it's better for us all if we just assume that the richest of the rich are greedy and willing to do harm to the majority for their own personal gain. A healthy skepticism, if you will. So, let's not defend the 1%. That's kinda how we got here...
One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. -Sam Harris
ken1122
Posts: 1,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2017 1:28:09 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 8/27/2017 7:51:19 PM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 8/21/2017 6:34:27 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/21/2017 1:24:53 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:

I know what you say is not true, because there is a Walmart in my community, and it has not ruined the community, and it did not make the middle class disappear.

Look just because they gave you the job as the Pets & Seasonal department manager at Walmart doesn't mean others have not lost their small businesses in your community.
I"ve never worked at Wal-Mart, but I know people who have. They use Wal-Mart as a "starter job" because they will hire anybody, then once they get experience on the cash register, or stocking shelves, they get a better paying union job at places like Fred Meyers, or Safeway who only hire those with experience.

Do you know of anybody working at Walmart for $5;00 per hour? No; your argument fails.

Well you don't make $5.00 as the department manager, but the rest of the employees do. As a matter of fact in Harrisburg PA, Walmart where I just went, the employees make $4.15/hour, I just talked to them, so try again
If there were a Wal-Mart paying less than the Federal Minimum wage, they would be reported. I think your friends are lying to you

Walmart is a billion dollar corporation swallowing up all little town business
If you add up all the Walmart's worldwide, yeah it's billions, but the single store in town that has to stand on it's own is not a billion dollar business. And most people in those towns usually want them there. What does that tell you?

The only people that want Walmart in their town are unemployed people and old people so they can be greeters. Your opinion is skewed anyways because you work for them, you think I'm going to buy your propaganda at the fact that Walmart is not bad? Nice try but you are wrong

Maybe where you live; but where I live, only the fat cat business people don"t want to see Wal-Mart, it is the poor and low income who welcome Wal-Mart because the few dollars they have goes a long way

The "fat cat business people" is a major cause of so many poor people and their willingness to purchase cheap products made outside of the USA.

How do "fat cat business people" cause people to be poor?
HairlessApe
Posts: 230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2017 2:35:09 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2017 1:28:09 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/27/2017 7:51:19 PM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 8/21/2017 6:34:27 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/21/2017 1:24:53 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:

I know what you say is not true, because there is a Walmart in my community, and it has not ruined the community, and it did not make the middle class disappear.

Look just because they gave you the job as the Pets & Seasonal department manager at Walmart doesn't mean others have not lost their small businesses in your community.
I"ve never worked at Wal-Mart, but I know people who have. They use Wal-Mart as a "starter job" because they will hire anybody, then once they get experience on the cash register, or stocking shelves, they get a better paying union job at places like Fred Meyers, or Safeway who only hire those with experience.

Do you know of anybody working at Walmart for $5;00 per hour? No; your argument fails.

Well you don't make $5.00 as the department manager, but the rest of the employees do. As a matter of fact in Harrisburg PA, Walmart where I just went, the employees make $4.15/hour, I just talked to them, so try again
If there were a Wal-Mart paying less than the Federal Minimum wage, they would be reported. I think your friends are lying to you

Walmart is a billion dollar corporation swallowing up all little town business
If you add up all the Walmart's worldwide, yeah it's billions, but the single store in town that has to stand on it's own is not a billion dollar business. And most people in those towns usually want them there. What does that tell you?

The only people that want Walmart in their town are unemployed people and old people so they can be greeters. Your opinion is skewed anyways because you work for them, you think I'm going to buy your propaganda at the fact that Walmart is not bad? Nice try but you are wrong

Maybe where you live; but where I live, only the fat cat business people don"t want to see Wal-Mart, it is the poor and low income who welcome Wal-Mart because the few dollars they have goes a long way

The "fat cat business people" is a major cause of so many poor people and their willingness to purchase cheap products made outside of the USA.

How do "fat cat business people" cause people to be poor?

They took the lion's share of the economic gain's since Reagan ushered in the Neo-Liberal economy and broke up organized labor. Technology, off-shoring labor, and increases in worker productivity have increased profits, while wages have stagnated or declined. Thus, the wealth gap and the scooping out of the middle class. Haven't you been paying attention to what's going on?
One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. -Sam Harris
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 3,388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2017 1:20:48 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
They took the lion's share of the economic gain's since Reagan ushered in the Neo-Liberal economy and broke up organized labor. Technology, off-shoring labor, and increases in worker productivity have increased profits, while wages have stagnated or declined. Thus, the wealth gap and the scooping out of the middle class. Haven't you been paying attention to what's going on?

I totally agree with that, the middle class is disappearing, pretty soon it will just be millionaires and the poor. Kind of like the old days in England, you had the royalty, the nobles who owned all the land, and the rest were the peasant workers.

Unfortunately for me I don't have any rich family so I will end up being a peasant.

Oh well, grew up in the gutter, I'm still there.
HairlessApe
Posts: 230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2017 2:16:33 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2017 1:20:48 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
They took the lion's share of the economic gain's since Reagan ushered in the Neo-Liberal economy and broke up organized labor. Technology, off-shoring labor, and increases in worker productivity have increased profits, while wages have stagnated or declined. Thus, the wealth gap and the scooping out of the middle class. Haven't you been paying attention to what's going on?

I totally agree with that, the middle class is disappearing, pretty soon it will just be millionaires and the poor. Kind of like the old days in England, you had the royalty, the nobles who owned all the land, and the rest were the peasant workers.

Unfortunately for me I don't have any rich family so I will end up being a peasant.

Oh well, grew up in the gutter, I'm still there.

More like the "gilded age" of the late 1800s - early 1900s causing the great depression and a labor movement that went on to propel our middle class.
One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. -Sam Harris
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 3,388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2017 2:27:31 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2017 2:16:33 PM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 9/13/2017 1:20:48 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
They took the lion's share of the economic gain's since Reagan ushered in the Neo-Liberal economy and broke up organized labor. Technology, off-shoring labor, and increases in worker productivity have increased profits, while wages have stagnated or declined. Thus, the wealth gap and the scooping out of the middle class. Haven't you been paying attention to what's going on?

I totally agree with that, the middle class is disappearing, pretty soon it will just be millionaires and the poor. Kind of like the old days in England, you had the royalty, the nobles who owned all the land, and the rest were the peasant workers.

Unfortunately for me I don't have any rich family so I will end up being a peasant.

Oh well, grew up in the gutter, I'm still there.

More like the "gilded age" of the late 1800s - early 1900s causing the great depression and a labor movement that went on to propel our middle class.

That is why I'm all for labor unions, solidarity and FU corporations!!!
ken1122
Posts: 1,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2017 2:31:16 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2017 2:35:09 AM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 9/13/2017 1:28:09 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/27/2017 7:51:19 PM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 8/21/2017 6:34:27 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/21/2017 1:24:53 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:

I know what you say is not true, because there is a Walmart in my community, and it has not ruined the community, and it did not make the middle class disappear.

Look just because they gave you the job as the Pets & Seasonal department manager at Walmart doesn't mean others have not lost their small businesses in your community.
I"ve never worked at Wal-Mart, but I know people who have. They use Wal-Mart as a "starter job" because they will hire anybody, then once they get experience on the cash register, or stocking shelves, they get a better paying union job at places like Fred Meyers, or Safeway who only hire those with experience.

Do you know of anybody working at Walmart for $5;00 per hour? No; your argument fails.

Well you don't make $5.00 as the department manager, but the rest of the employees do. As a matter of fact in Harrisburg PA, Walmart where I just went, the employees make $4.15/hour, I just talked to them, so try again
If there were a Wal-Mart paying less than the Federal Minimum wage, they would be reported. I think your friends are lying to you

Walmart is a billion dollar corporation swallowing up all little town business
If you add up all the Walmart's worldwide, yeah it's billions, but the single store in town that has to stand on it's own is not a billion dollar business. And most people in those towns usually want them there. What does that tell you?

The only people that want Walmart in their town are unemployed people and old people so they can be greeters. Your opinion is skewed anyways because you work for them, you think I'm going to buy your propaganda at the fact that Walmart is not bad? Nice try but you are wrong

Maybe where you live; but where I live, only the fat cat business people don"t want to see Wal-Mart, it is the poor and low income who welcome Wal-Mart because the few dollars they have goes a long way

The "fat cat business people" is a major cause of so many poor people and their willingness to purchase cheap products made outside of the USA.

How do "fat cat business people" cause people to be poor?

They took the lion's share of the economic gain's
The reason they were able to take the lions share of economic gains is because they CREATED the lions share of economic gains. The fat cats creating wealth does not take away from the poor, it actually helps the poor.

since Reagan ushered in the Neo-Liberal economy and broke up organized labor.
The Reagan administration has been over for nearly 30 years already. The reason organized labor lost some power is because they became too powerful and many of the workers got tired of them and refused to give them more power by joining.

Technology, off-shoring labor, and increases in worker productivity have increased profits, while wages have stagnated or declined.
Like it or not, technology is the future; and today wages are as high as ever.

Thus, the wealth gap and the scooping out of the middle class. Haven't you been paying attention to what's going on?
The wealth gap isn"t the problem, people not making enough money is the problem; but even that is starting to be less and less of a problem as the economy improves.
GrimlyF
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2017 10:04:38 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2017 2:31:16 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 9/13/2017 2:35:09 AM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 9/13/2017 1:28:09 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/27/2017 7:51:19 PM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 8/21/2017 6:34:27 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/21/2017 1:24:53 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:

I know what you say is not true, because there is a Walmart in my community, and it has not ruined the community, and it did not make the middle class disappear.

Look just because they gave you the job as the Pets & Seasonal department manager at Walmart doesn't mean others have not lost their small businesses in your community.
I"ve never worked at Wal-Mart, but I know people who have. They use Wal-Mart as a "starter job" because they will hire anybody, then once they get experience on the cash register, or stocking shelves, they get a better paying union job at places like Fred Meyers, or Safeway who only hire those with experience.

Do you know of anybody working at Walmart for $5;00 per hour? No; your argument fails.

Well you don't make $5.00 as the department manager, but the rest of the employees do. As a matter of fact in Harrisburg PA, Walmart where I just went, the employees make $4.15/hour, I just talked to them, so try again
If there were a Wal-Mart paying less than the Federal Minimum wage, they would be reported. I think your friends are lying to you

Walmart is a billion dollar corporation swallowing up all little town business
If you add up all the Walmart's worldwide, yeah it's billions, but the single store in town that has to stand on it's own is not a billion dollar business. And most people in those towns usually want them there. What does that tell you?

The only people that want Walmart in their town are unemployed people and old people so they can be greeters. Your opinion is skewed anyways because you work for them, you think I'm going to buy your propaganda at the fact that Walmart is not bad? Nice try but you are wrong

Maybe where you live; but where I live, only the fat cat business people don"t want to see Wal-Mart, it is the poor and low income who welcome Wal-Mart because the few dollars they have goes a long way

The "fat cat business people" is a major cause of so many poor people and their willingness to purchase cheap products made outside of the USA.

How do "fat cat business people" cause people to be poor?

They took the lion's share of the economic gain's
The reason they were able to take the lions share of economic gains is because they CREATED the lions share of economic gains. The fat cats creating wealth does not take away from the poor, it actually helps the poor.

since Reagan ushered in the Neo-Liberal economy and broke up organized labor.
The Reagan administration has been over for nearly 30 years already. The reason organized labor lost some power is because they became too powerful and many of the workers got tired of them and refused to give them more power by joining.

Technology, off-shoring labor, and increases in worker productivity have increased profits, while wages have stagnated or declined.
Like it or not, technology is the future; and today wages are as high as ever.

Thus, the wealth gap and the scooping out of the middle class. Haven't you been paying attention to what's going on?
The wealth gap isn"t the problem, people not making enough money is the problem; but even that is starting to be less and less of a problem as the economy improves.

The problem with the U.S. is the "Magpie Effect". Americans buy "stuff" because it's new. Not because they need it (who needs a $999 'phone?) but because it's new. It is also more expensive than the "stuff" you already have, which still works perfectly, but it isn't as shiny as the new one. The average American buys a new car even when his old car works properly. He doesn't care that the first time he turns the key in the ignition he loses 30% of the value of the car immediately. Thousands of dollars gone but it's alright, he has a shiny new car. The makers of "stuff" know they can incrementally increase prices if they just keep slowly adding more needless bells and whistles to their "stuff". The answer, of course, is to stop consuming. It isn't peer pressure that makes Americans spend, If your neighbour wants to lose $20,000 on a new car you should laugh at him.
Americans don't need higher salaries, they need lower prices. The best way to achieve this is to stop buying. If you stop buying you first get a glut. This lowers prices and if you continue to not buy prices will drop like a rock. Manufacturers and suppliers will be forced to take less profit until it is pared to the bone.

So. Stop buying now so you can buy later when it's cheaper.
ken1122
Posts: 1,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2017 12:45:34 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2017 10:04:38 AM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 9/14/2017 2:31:16 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 9/13/2017 2:35:09 AM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 9/13/2017 1:28:09 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/27/2017 7:51:19 PM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 8/21/2017 6:34:27 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/21/2017 1:24:53 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:

I know what you say is not true, because there is a Walmart in my community, and it has not ruined the community, and it did not make the middle class disappear.

Look just because they gave you the job as the Pets & Seasonal department manager at Walmart doesn't mean others have not lost their small businesses in your community.
I"ve never worked at Wal-Mart, but I know people who have. They use Wal-Mart as a "starter job" because they will hire anybody, then once they get experience on the cash register, or stocking shelves, they get a better paying union job at places like Fred Meyers, or Safeway who only hire those with experience.

Do you know of anybody working at Walmart for $5;00 per hour? No; your argument fails.

Well you don't make $5.00 as the department manager, but the rest of the employees do. As a matter of fact in Harrisburg PA, Walmart where I just went, the employees make $4.15/hour, I just talked to them, so try again
If there were a Wal-Mart paying less than the Federal Minimum wage, they would be reported. I think your friends are lying to you

Walmart is a billion dollar corporation swallowing up all little town business
If you add up all the Walmart's worldwide, yeah it's billions, but the single store in town that has to stand on it's own is not a billion dollar business. And most people in those towns usually want them there. What does that tell you?

The only people that want Walmart in their town are unemployed people and old people so they can be greeters. Your opinion is skewed anyways because you work for them, you think I'm going to buy your propaganda at the fact that Walmart is not bad? Nice try but you are wrong

Maybe where you live; but where I live, only the fat cat business people don"t want to see Wal-Mart, it is the poor and low income who welcome Wal-Mart because the few dollars they have goes a long way

The "fat cat business people" is a major cause of so many poor people and their willingness to purchase cheap products made outside of the USA.

How do "fat cat business people" cause people to be poor?

They took the lion's share of the economic gain's
The reason they were able to take the lions share of economic gains is because they CREATED the lions share of economic gains. The fat cats creating wealth does not take away from the poor, it actually helps the poor.

since Reagan ushered in the Neo-Liberal economy and broke up organized labor.
The Reagan administration has been over for nearly 30 years already. The reason organized labor lost some power is because they became too powerful and many of the workers got tired of them and refused to give them more power by joining.

Technology, off-shoring labor, and increases in worker productivity have increased profits, while wages have stagnated or declined.
Like it or not, technology is the future; and today wages are as high as ever.

Thus, the wealth gap and the scooping out of the middle class. Haven't you been paying attention to what's going on?
The wealth gap isn"t the problem, people not making enough money is the problem; but even that is starting to be less and less of a problem as the economy improves.

The problem with the U.S. is the "Magpie Effect". Americans buy "stuff" because it's new. Not because they need it (who needs a $999 'phone?) but because it's new. It is also more expensive than the "stuff" you already have, which still works perfectly, but it isn't as shiny as the new one. The average American buys a new car even when his old car works properly. He doesn't care that the first time he turns the key in the ignition he loses 30% of the value of the car immediately. Thousands of dollars gone but it's alright, he has a shiny new car. The makers of "stuff" know they can incrementally increase prices if they just keep slowly adding more needless bells and whistles to their "stuff". The answer, of course, is to stop consuming. It isn't peer pressure that makes Americans spend, If your neighbour wants to lose $20,000 on a new car you should laugh at him.
Americans don't need higher salaries, they need lower prices. The best way to achieve this is to stop buying. If you stop buying you first get a glut. This lowers prices and if you continue to not buy prices will drop like a rock. Manufacturers and suppliers will be forced to take less profit until it is pared to the bone.

So. Stop buying now so you can buy later when it's cheaper.

The problem with your idea is it would cause mass unemployment and a collapse of the economy. It will decrease the gap between the rich and the poor though.... because everybody will be poor.
HairlessApe
Posts: 230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2017 1:49:40 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2017 2:31:16 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 9/13/2017 2:35:09 AM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 9/13/2017 1:28:09 AM, ken1122 wrote:

How do "fat cat business people" cause people to be poor?

They took the lion's share of the economic gain's

The reason they were able to take the lions share of economic gains is because they CREATED the lions share of economic gains. The fat cats creating wealth does not take away from the poor, it actually helps the poor.

Wow. You really are drunk on the corporate kool-ade. Are you a Chamber of Commerce officer? If you think that business owners or investors created the product or service and not the workers then you need an economics starter course. Rex Tillerson DID NOT work the oil rigs that pulled the oil from the Earth. Apparently you think that he did; I suppose you also think the Walton kids are working the cash registers and stocking the shelves...

"Income inequality in the United States has increased significantly since the 1970s after several decades of stability, meaning the share of the nation's income received by higher income households has increased. This trend is evident with income measured both before taxes (market income) as well as after taxes and transfer payments. Income inequality has fluctuated considerably since measurements began around 1915, moving in an arc between peaks in the 1920s and 2000s, with a 30-year period of relatively lower inequality between 1950"1980.[1][2]"

I mean, you can just type into google - income inequality - or - wealth gap - and get a plethora of articles and statistics. Your position is truly, willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

since Reagan ushered in the Neo-Liberal economy and broke up organized labor.

The Reagan administration has been over for nearly 30 years already. The reason organized labor lost some power is because they became too powerful and many of the workers got tired of them and refused to give them more power by joining.

That's the party line propaganda. Reagan ushered in neo-liberal ideology and part of that was economics. They called it Trickle Down Economics, aka. Voodoo Economics etc. and even though it's shown to be an abject failure, the model is still proffered by the Business Sector for the ignorant. Even Alan Greenspan admitted that their approach was flawed. The Reagan admin and the Repubs along with their Business sector comrades waged a propaganda campaign to denounce unions (so that business could have more control over wages and safety/environmental regulations) and it succeeded to a large extent. Was there a problem with the power structure of SOME Unions at the time? Yes, but the solution is not to wreck the labor movement. Unfortunately that's what happened and why we have income inequality, stagnant wages and social unrest.

Technology, off-shoring labor, and increases in worker productivity have increased profits, while wages have stagnated or declined.

Like it or not, technology is the future; and today wages are as high as ever.

Of course technology is the future. But just like the Industrial revolution, it's putting workers out of jobs. Unlike the industrial revolution however, technology requires less labor meaning fewer jobs. Mean Wages are not as high as ever. A simple google search will enlighten your ignorant position.

Thus, the wealth gap and the scooping out of the middle class. Haven't you been paying attention to what's going on?

The wealth gap isn"t the problem, people not making enough money is the problem; but even that is starting to be less and less of a problem as the economy improves.

DOH... people not making enough money is a function of the wage gap and results in the wealth gap. SMH

I'm done. No reasonable discussion can be had where reason doesn't exist.
One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. -Sam Harris
GrimlyF
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2017 9:28:09 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2017 12:45:34 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 9/14/2017 10:04:38 AM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 9/14/2017 2:31:16 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 9/13/2017 2:35:09 AM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 9/13/2017 1:28:09 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/27/2017 7:51:19 PM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 8/21/2017 6:34:27 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/21/2017 1:24:53 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:

I know what you say is not true, because there is a Walmart in my community, and it has not ruined the community, and it did not make the middle class disappear.

Look just because they gave you the job as the Pets & Seasonal department manager at Walmart doesn't mean others have not lost their small businesses in your community.
I"ve never worked at Wal-Mart, but I know people who have. They use Wal-Mart as a "starter job" because they will hire anybody, then once they get experience on the cash register, or stocking shelves, they get a better paying union job at places like Fred Meyers, or Safeway who only hire those with experience.

Do you know of anybody working at Walmart for $5;00 per hour? No; your argument fails.

Well you don't make $5.00 as the department manager, but the rest of the employees do. As a matter of fact in Harrisburg PA, Walmart where I just went, the employees make $4.15/hour, I just talked to them, so try again
If there were a Wal-Mart paying less than the Federal Minimum wage, they would be reported. I think your friends are lying to you

Walmart is a billion dollar corporation swallowing up all little town business
If you add up all the Walmart's worldwide, yeah it's billions, but the single store in town that has to stand on it's own is not a billion dollar business. And most people in those towns usually want them there. What does that tell you?

The only people that want Walmart in their town are unemployed people and old people so they can be greeters. Your opinion is skewed anyways because you work for them, you think I'm going to buy your propaganda at the fact that Walmart is not bad? Nice try but you are wrong

Maybe where you live; but where I live, only the fat cat business people don"t want to see Wal-Mart, it is the poor and low income who welcome Wal-Mart because the few dollars they have goes a long way

The "fat cat business people" is a major cause of so many poor people and their willingness to purchase cheap products made outside of the USA.

How do "fat cat business people" cause people to be poor?

They took the lion's share of the economic gain's
The reason they were able to take the lions share of economic gains is because they CREATED the lions share of economic gains. The fat cats creating wealth does not take away from the poor, it actually helps the poor.

since Reagan ushered in the Neo-Liberal economy and broke up organized labor.
The Reagan administration has been over for nearly 30 years already. The reason organized labor lost some power is because they became too powerful and many of the workers got tired of them and refused to give them more power by joining.

Technology, off-shoring labor, and increases in worker productivity have increased profits, while wages have stagnated or declined.
Like it or not, technology is the future; and today wages are as high as ever.

Thus, the wealth gap and the scooping out of the middle class. Haven't you been paying attention to what's going on?
The wealth gap isn"t the problem, people not making enough money is the problem; but even that is starting to be less and less of a problem as the economy improves.

The problem with the U.S. is the "Magpie Effect". Americans buy "stuff" because it's new. Not because they need it (who needs a $999 'phone?) but because it's new. It is also more expensive than the "stuff" you already have, which still works perfectly, but it isn't as shiny as the new one. The average American buys a new car even when his old car works properly. He doesn't care that the first time he turns the key in the ignition he loses 30% of the value of the car immediately. Thousands of dollars gone but it's alright, he has a shiny new car. The makers of "stuff" know they can incrementally increase prices if they just keep slowly adding more needless bells and whistles to their "stuff". The answer, of course, is to stop consuming. It isn't peer pressure that makes Americans spend, If your neighbour wants to lose $20,000 on a new car you should laugh at him.
Americans don't need higher salaries, they need lower prices. The best way to achieve this is to stop buying. If you stop buying you first get a glut. This lowers prices and if you continue to not buy prices will drop like a rock. Manufacturers and suppliers will be forced to take less profit until it is pared to the bone.

So. Stop buying now so you can buy later when it's cheaper.

The problem with your idea is it would cause mass unemployment and a collapse of the economy. It will decrease the gap between the rich and the poor though.... because everybody will be poor.

Why mass unemployment?They will be selling as much as they did only cheaper. The economy won't collapse because profit is lessened and since most big corps hide their true profits to escape tax the government will still collect the same amount. "Poor" is relative. you will buy the same things only cheaper as will the well-off.What you will achieve is a more equal sharing of the wealth. The current climate of huge bonus's and salaries will cease as profit declines (you've still got stockholders to appease) but you will still be canning a million tins of beans per week so you need to keep your workforce.

You Americans regard wealth as a kind of yardstick of your worth as a man and this is because of your buy,buy,buy culture. You spend all your money and go deep into debt to buy "stuff" you don't need or really want. The only answer, again, is to stop.
ken1122
Posts: 1,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2017 1:29:10 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2017 1:49:40 PM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 9/14/2017 2:31:16 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 9/13/2017 2:35:09 AM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 9/13/2017 1:28:09 AM, ken1122 wrote:

How do "fat cat business people" cause people to be poor?

They took the lion's share of the economic gain's

The reason they were able to take the lions share of economic gains is because they CREATED the lions share of economic gains. The fat cats creating wealth does not take away from the poor, it actually helps the poor.

Wow. You really are drunk on the corporate kool-ade. Are you a Chamber of Commerce officer? If you think that business owners or investors created the product or service and not the workers then you need an economics starter course. Rex Tillerson DID NOT work the oil rigs that pulled the oil from the Earth. Apparently you think that he did; I suppose you also think the Walton kids are working the cash registers and stocking the shelves...

You kidding right? When someone comes up with an idea, then they go to the bank, get a loan and invest in that idea, if that idea makes a profit, the one who came up with the idea will be in a position to benefit the most from that idea. If that idea fails, the person who came up with the idea will be in a position to lose the most from that idea.

"Income inequality in the United States has increased significantly since the 1970s after several decades of stability, meaning the share of the nation's income received by higher income households has increased. This trend is evident with income measured both before taxes (market income) as well as after taxes and transfer payments. Income inequality has fluctuated considerably since measurements began around 1915, moving in an arc between peaks in the 1920s and 2000s, with a 30-year period of relatively lower inequality between 1950"1980.[1][2]"

I mean, you can just type into google - income inequality - or - wealth gap - and get a plethora of articles and statistics. Your position is truly, willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

I never disputed the gap between the rich and the poor has been forever increasing, where we disagree is that I don't see the rich getting richer as directly tied to the poor getting poorer; as you obviously do. This country has a history of the rich getting richer, and the poor getting richer as well; the rich just get richer at a much faster rate. But no mistake about it; the poor of today are much better off than the poor of 50 years ago when the gap between the rich and poor was less than today.

since Reagan ushered in the Neo-Liberal economy and broke up organized labor.

The Reagan administration has been over for nearly 30 years already. The reason organized labor lost some power is because they became too powerful and many of the workers got tired of them and refused to give them more power by joining.

That's the party line propaganda. Reagan ushered in neo-liberal ideology and part of that was economics. They called it Trickle Down Economics, aka. Voodoo Economics etc. and even though it's shown to be an abject failure, the model is still proffered by the Business Sector for the ignorant. Even Alan Greenspan admitted that their approach was flawed. The Reagan admin and the Repubs along with their Business sector comrades waged a propaganda campaign to denounce unions (so that business could have more control over wages and safety/environmental regulations) and it succeeded to a large extent. Was there a problem with the power structure of SOME Unions at the time? Yes, but the solution is not to wreck the labor movement. Unfortunately that's what happened and why we have income inequality, stagnant wages and social unrest.

That"s the party line propaganda. Nobody wrecked the labor movement; yeah a few policies may have been put in place that allowed people who wanted to work without being a part of the Union get jobs, like right to work states. Some of the problems people had with unions was when they would use their union dues to support political candidates, and issues that they disagree with. Just because such and such Union supports candidate "X" doesn"t mean the people who make up that union support candidate "X".

Technology, off-shoring labor, and increases in worker productivity have increased profits, while wages have stagnated or declined.

Like it or not, technology is the future; and today wages are as high as ever.

Of course technology is the future. But just like the Industrial revolution, it's putting workers out of jobs. Unlike the industrial revolution however, technology requires less labor meaning fewer jobs. Mean Wages are not as high as ever. A simple google search will enlighten your ignorant position.

So technology results in fewer jobs, yet the unemployment rate today is around 4% which is as low as it was in the 50"s and 60"s, yet today we have a record number of women also in the workforce where as in the 50"s and 60"s most women stayed at home to raise their family while only the man worked. With technology taking away so many jobs where are all those extra jobs coming from?

Thus, the wealth gap and the scooping out of the middle class. Haven't you been paying attention to what's going on?

The wealth gap isn"t the problem, people not making enough money is the problem; but even that is starting to be less and less of a problem as the economy improves.

DOH... people not making enough money is a function of the wage gap and results in the wealth gap. SMH

10 years ago the gap between the richest american and the poorest american was approx 55 billion dollars. Now the gap is approx 85 billion dollars; an increase of over 60%. Yet the poor of today are better off than they were 10 years ago when the wage gap was smaller. If poor people are the function of the wage gap, how come when the economy improved and the rich got richer increasing the wage gap, the middle income and poor got richer as well?
ken1122
Posts: 1,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2017 1:31:08 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2017 9:28:09 PM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 9/14/2017 12:45:34 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 9/14/2017 10:04:38 AM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 9/14/2017 2:31:16 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 9/13/2017 2:35:09 AM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 9/13/2017 1:28:09 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/27/2017 7:51:19 PM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 8/21/2017 6:34:27 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/21/2017 1:24:53 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:

I know what you say is not true, because there is a Walmart in my community, and it has not ruined the community, and it did not make the middle class disappear.

Look just because they gave you the job as the Pets & Seasonal department manager at Walmart doesn't mean others have not lost their small businesses in your community.
I"ve never worked at Wal-Mart, but I know people who have. They use Wal-Mart as a "starter job" because they will hire anybody, then once they get experience on the cash register, or stocking shelves, they get a better paying union job at places like Fred Meyers, or Safeway who only hire those with experience.

Do you know of anybody working at Walmart for $5;00 per hour? No; your argument fails.

Well you don't make $5.00 as the department manager, but the rest of the employees do. As a matter of fact in Harrisburg PA, Walmart where I just went, the employees make $4.15/hour, I just talked to them, so try again
If there were a Wal-Mart paying less than the Federal Minimum wage, they would be reported. I think your friends are lying to you

Walmart is a billion dollar corporation swallowing up all little town business
If you add up all the Walmart's worldwide, yeah it's billions, but the single store in town that has to stand on it's own is not a billion dollar business. And most people in those towns usually want them there. What does that tell you?

The only people that want Walmart in their town are unemployed people and old people so they can be greeters. Your opinion is skewed anyways because you work for them, you think I'm going to buy your propaganda at the fact that Walmart is not bad? Nice try but you are wrong

Maybe where you live; but where I live, only the fat cat business people don"t want to see Wal-Mart, it is the poor and low income who welcome Wal-Mart because the few dollars they have goes a long way

The "fat cat business people" is a major cause of so many poor people and their willingness to purchase cheap products made outside of the USA.

How do "fat cat business people" cause people to be poor?

They took the lion's share of the economic gain's
The reason they were able to take the lions share of economic gains is because they CREATED the lions share of economic gains. The fat cats creating wealth does not take away from the poor, it actually helps the poor.

since Reagan ushered in the Neo-Liberal economy and broke up organized labor.
The Reagan administration has been over for nearly 30 years already. The reason organized labor lost some power is because they became too powerful and many of the workers got tired of them and refused to give them more power by joining.

Technology, off-shoring labor, and increases in worker productivity have increased profits, while wages have stagnated or declined.
Like it or not, technology is the future; and today wages are as high as ever.

Thus, the wealth gap and the scooping out of the middle class. Haven't you been paying attention to what's going on?
The wealth gap isn"t the problem, people not making enough money is the problem; but even that is starting to be less and less of a problem as the economy improves.

The problem with the U.S. is the "Magpie Effect". Americans buy "stuff" because it's new. Not because they need it (who needs a $999 'phone?) but because it's new. It is also more expensive than the "stuff" you already have, which still works perfectly, but it isn't as shiny as the new one. The average American buys a new car even when his old car works properly. He doesn't care that the first time he turns the key in the ignition he loses 30% of the value of the car immediately. Thousands of dollars gone but it's alright, he has a shiny new car. The makers of "stuff" know they can incrementally increase prices if they just keep slowly adding more needless bells and whistles to their "stuff". The answer, of course, is to stop consuming. It isn't peer pressure that makes Americans spend, If your neighbour wants to lose $20,000 on a new car you should laugh at him.
Americans don't need higher salaries, they need lower prices. The best way to achieve this is to stop buying. If you stop buying you first get a glut. This lowers prices and if you continue to not buy prices will drop like a rock. Manufacturers and suppliers will be forced to take less profit until it is pared to the bone.

So. Stop buying now so you can buy later when it's cheaper.

The problem with your idea is it would cause mass unemployment and a collapse of the economy. It will decrease the gap between the rich and the poor though.... because everybody will be poor.

Why mass unemployment?They will be selling as much as they did only cheaper.

No, when people stop buying products as you suggested, they will be selling less.

The economy won't collapse because profit is lessened

When profits is lessened, business close down and people get laid off and when enough people are out of a job, the economy collapse. The more people buy, the more money employees make and those employees can afford to buy more stuff, and the cycle continues.
GrimlyF
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2017 10:42:51 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2017 1:31:08 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 9/14/2017 9:28:09 PM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 9/14/2017 12:45:34 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 9/14/2017 10:04:38 AM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 9/14/2017 2:31:16 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 9/13/2017 2:35:09 AM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 9/13/2017 1:28:09 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/27/2017 7:51:19 PM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 8/21/2017 6:34:27 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/21/2017 1:24:53 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:

I know what you say is not true, because there is a Walmart in my community, and it has not ruined the community, and it did not make the middle class disappear.

Look just because they gave you the job as the Pets & Seasonal department manager at Walmart doesn't mean others have not lost their small businesses in your community.
I"ve never worked at Wal-Mart, but I know people who have. They use Wal-Mart as a "starter job" because they will hire anybody, then once they get experience on the cash register, or stocking shelves, they get a better paying union job at places like Fred Meyers, or Safeway who only hire those with experience.

Do you know of anybody working at Walmart for $5;00 per hour? No; your argument fails.

Well you don't make $5.00 as the department manager, but the rest of the employees do. As a matter of fact in Harrisburg PA, Walmart where I just went, the employees make $4.15/hour, I just talked to them, so try again
If there were a Wal-Mart paying less than the Federal Minimum wage, they would be reported. I think your friends are lying to you

Walmart is a billion dollar corporation swallowing up all little town business
If you add up all the Walmart's worldwide, yeah it's billions, but the single store in town that has to stand on it's own is not a billion dollar business. And most people in those towns usually want them there. What does that tell you?

The only people that want Walmart in their town are unemployed people and old people so they can be greeters. Your opinion is skewed anyways because you work for them, you think I'm going to buy your propaganda at the fact that Walmart is not bad? Nice try but you are wrong

Maybe where you live; but where I live, only the fat cat business people don"t want to see Wal-Mart, it is the poor and low income who welcome Wal-Mart because the few dollars they have goes a long way

The "fat cat business people" is a major cause of so many poor people and their willingness to purchase cheap products made outside of the USA.

How do "fat cat business people" cause people to be poor?

They took the lion's share of the economic gain's
The reason they were able to take the lions share of economic gains is because they CREATED the lions share of economic gains. The fat cats creating wealth does not take away from the poor, it actually helps the poor.

since Reagan ushered in the Neo-Liberal economy and broke up organized labor.
The Reagan administration has been over for nearly 30 years already. The reason organized labor lost some power is because they became too powerful and many of the workers got tired of them and refused to give them more power by joining.

Technology, off-shoring labor, and increases in worker productivity have increased profits, while wages have stagnated or declined.
Like it or not, technology is the future; and today wages are as high as ever.

Thus, the wealth gap and the scooping out of the middle class. Haven't you been paying attention to what's going on?
The wealth gap isn"t the problem, people not making enough money is the problem; but even that is starting to be less and less of a problem as the economy improves.

The problem with the U.S. is the "Magpie Effect". Americans buy "stuff" because it's new. Not because they need it (who needs a $999 'phone?) but because it's new. It is also more expensive than the "stuff" you already have, which still works perfectly, but it isn't as shiny as the new one. The average American buys a new car even when his old car works properly. He doesn't care that the first time he turns the key in the ignition he loses 30% of the value of the car immediately. Thousands of dollars gone but it's alright, he has a shiny new car. The makers of "stuff" know they can incrementally increase prices if they just keep slowly adding more needless bells and whistles to their "stuff". The answer, of course, is to stop consuming. It isn't peer pressure that makes Americans spend, If your neighbour wants to lose $20,000 on a new car you should laugh at him.
Americans don't need higher salaries, they need lower prices. The best way to achieve this is to stop buying. If you stop buying you first get a glut. This lowers prices and if you continue to not buy prices will drop like a rock. Manufacturers and suppliers will be forced to take less profit until it is pared to the bone.

So. Stop buying now so you can buy later when it's cheaper.

The problem with your idea is it would cause mass unemployment and a collapse of the economy. It will decrease the gap between the rich and the poor though.... because everybody will be poor.

Why mass unemployment?They will be selling as much as they did only cheaper.

No, when people stop buying products as you suggested, they will be selling less.

The economy won't collapse because profit is lessened

When profits is lessened, business close down and people get laid off and when enough people are out of a job, the economy collapse. The more people buy, the more money employees make and those employees can afford to buy more stuff, and the cycle continues.

Which would you rather, some profit or no profit? A business that makes money never closes. No lay offs, production as normal.
You say workers need more wages and business shouldn't make such huge profits. I give you an example of what happens when even a minimum wage is concerned.
In England 3yrs ago a sandwich packing firm was told to pay their staff a minimum wage. The firm said it would have to raise its prices to pay the hike. The firm raised the wages of 125 people by "2.50 per week and the firm added 5p to the cost of the sandwich. On an ordinary week the firm made and packed 10,000 sandwiches. So who gained the most and who did it cost?
HairlessApe
Posts: 230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2017 2:02:32 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2017 1:29:10 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 9/14/2017 1:49:40 PM, HairlessApe wrote:

Wow. You really are drunk on the corporate kool-ade. Are you a Chamber of Commerce officer? If you think that business owners or investors created the product or service and not the workers then you need an economics starter course. Rex Tillerson DID NOT work the oil rigs that pulled the oil from the Earth. Apparently you think that he did; I suppose you also think the Walton kids are working the cash registers and stocking the shelves...

You kidding right? When someone comes up with an idea, then they go to the bank, get a loan and invest in that idea, if that idea makes a profit, the one who came up with the idea will be in a position to benefit the most from that idea. If that idea fails, the person who came up with the idea will be in a position to lose the most from that idea.

"Income inequality in the United States has increased significantly since the 1970s after several decades of stability, meaning the share of the nation's income received by higher income households has increased. This trend is evident with income measured both before taxes (market income) as well as after taxes and transfer payments. Income inequality has fluctuated considerably since measurements began around 1915, moving in an arc between peaks in the 1920s and 2000s, with a 30-year period of relatively lower inequality between 1950"1980.[1][2]"

I mean, you can just type into google - income inequality - or - wealth gap - and get a plethora of articles and statistics. Your position is truly, willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

I never disputed the gap between the rich and the poor has been forever increasing, where we disagree is that I don't see the rich getting richer as directly tied to the poor getting poorer; as you obviously do. This country has a history of the rich getting richer, and the poor getting richer as well; the rich just get richer at a much faster rate. But no mistake about it; the poor of today are much better off than the poor of 50 years ago when the gap between the rich and poor was less than today.

I really try hard to understand how so many people can be so ill informed. It must be the media outlets you listen too that never give you the facts or they teach you to be obdurate about anything they want you to disagree with. Here is a prime example.
I say that the "fat cat business people" take too much of the profit for themselves instead of being more equitable with that profit and your response is that they should be so inequitable because they started the business. It's about being equitable. Apparently, in the neo-liberal mind, equability means to take whatever you can get away with until your employees revolt.
You seem to be woefully uninformed on the wages and wealth of the USA during the 20th century. Conservatives opine for the good old days of the 1950s without remembering what the paradigm was then compared to now. IOWs you are ignorant of history and with the availability of information your ignorance of said history can only be willful.
You admit that you recognize that the wage and wealth gap is increasing but you don't seem to grasp the concept that they are INCREASING. In case you're unfamiliar with the this concept I'll give you an example.

"But pay increases and ratios only tell part of the story. The stark differences are made concrete when translated into dollars and cents. In 1965, CEOs earned an average of $832,000 annually compared to $40,200 for workers. In 2014, CEO pay had risen to an average of $16,316,000 compared to only $53,200 for workers."
http://fortune.com...

Now you have to ask yourself, have the CEOs become that much more productive to explain this increase? Actually, WORKERS have become more productive and yet the share of profits from that work have not "trickled down" to the workers. Did a guy starting a business in 1960 have such an easier time getting that loan and starting that business than today, accounting for this increase?

The Reagan administration has been over for nearly 30 years already. The reason organized labor lost some power is because they became too powerful and many of the workers got tired of them and refused to give them more power by joining.

That's the party line propaganda. Reagan ushered in neo-liberal ideology and part of that was economics. They called it Trickle Down Economics, aka. Voodoo Economics etc. and even though it's shown to be an abject failure, the model is still proffered by the Business Sector for the ignorant. Even Alan Greenspan admitted that their approach was flawed. The Reagan admin and the Repubs along with their Business sector comrades waged a propaganda campaign to denounce unions (so that business could have more control over wages and safety/environmental regulations) and it succeeded to a large extent. Was there a problem with the power structure of SOME Unions at the time? Yes, but the solution is not to wreck the labor movement. Unfortunately that's what happened and why we have income inequality, stagnant wages and social unrest.

That"s the party line propaganda. Nobody wrecked the labor movement; yeah a few policies may have been put in place that allowed people who wanted to work without being a part of the Union get jobs, like right to work states. Some of the problems people had with unions was when they would use their union dues to support political candidates, and issues that they disagree with. Just because such and such Union supports candidate "X" doesn"t mean the people who make up that union support candidate "X".

Here you are again, uninformed of history. Think about the attitude by conservatives concerning Unions. How did this they get this attitude? Their media outlets constantly push the concept that Unions are detrimental to profitability and too powerful; that they force companies to shut down or lay off employees to acquiesce to Union demands... What actually happened is that the labor movement lost power. The result is management taking an ever increasing share of the profits.

https://www.forbes.com...

Like it or not, technology is the future; and today wages are as high as ever.

Of course technology is the future. But just like the Industrial revolution, it's putting workers out of jobs. Unlike the industrial revolution however, technology requires less labor meaning fewer jobs. Mean Wages are not as high as ever. A simple google search will enlighten your ignorant position.

So technology results in fewer jobs, yet the unemployment rate today is around 4% which is as low as it was in the 50"s and 60"s, yet today we have a record number of women also in the workforce where as in the 50"s and 60"s most women stayed at home to raise their family while only the man worked. With technology taking away so many jobs where are all those extra jobs coming from?

I believe I already explained this to you. U6 is the true employment stat and is around 8.6%. Do you know the difference between a manufacturing economy and a service economy? Seems not.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. -Sam Harris
ken1122
Posts: 1,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2017 12:11:38 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2017 10:42:51 AM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 9/15/2017 1:31:08 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 9/14/2017 9:28:09 PM, GrimlyF wrote:
Why mass unemployment?They will be selling as much as they did only cheaper.

No, when people stop buying products as you suggested, they will be selling less.

The economy won't collapse because profit is lessened

When profits is lessened, business close down and people get laid off and when enough people are out of a job, the economy collapse. The more people buy, the more money employees make and those employees can afford to buy more stuff, and the cycle continues.

Which would you rather, some profit or no profit?
I would prefer profit.

A business that makes money never closes. No lay offs, production as normal.
Not quite, its not quite as simple as that.

You say workers need more wages and business shouldn't make such huge profits.
No I never said that. Perhaps you have mistaken me for someone else. Go back and read what I said.