If Walmart Paid its 1.4 Million U.S. Workers a Living Wage, it Would Result in Almost No Pain for the Average Customer

[Karee 4,190]

Who said anything about "struggling" to put food on the table? Is that what a "living wage" means to you? Near poverty?

To me a living wage means enough money to afford decent housing and reliable transportation. It means earning enough so you ARE NOT struggling to put food on the table or gasoline in the car. It means earning enough to afford healthcare coverage and do a bit of saving.

I call BS on your friends in the Big Apple earning 50k and even being able to live paycheck to paycheck. Even if they exist, they are surely single people who live in rentals and don't own a car.

Are all your friends LadyBoys?

Hard to tell. I don't want to pay the 4k baht to find out. I've had some scary encounters with the "men" of the night in Thailand.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Amiazing how you cnsider Walmart employees to be exploited and abused, but not illegal immigrants who are paid less and have no benefits or protections at all. Just wild.

Walmart employees that are unhappy with their wages should quit. If enough of them quit, Walmart will be forced to raise wages and benefits. Kind of like a union, but without the goons.

[Peikko 1,575]

Amiazing how you cnsider Walmart employees to be exploited and abused, but not illegal immigrants who are paid less and have no benefits or protections at all. Just wild.

Walmart employees that are unhappy with their wages should quit. If enough of them quit, Walmart will be forced to raise wages and benefits. Kind of like a union, but without the goons.

Unions are successful because they allow individuals to act collectively for a common purpose and provide those individuals with resources for a threat to withdraw labour to have some meaning. That unions have become distorted is obviously a problem, but the union model is the only one that could work in a situation where you have a large company with many resources and a large pool of people desperate for employment. The idea that enough individuals could or would quit for an indefinite period when they know there are 20 people willing to take their place without some organized cooperation is fanciful.

Trying to link this to the situation of undocumented immigrant workers is silly. Most people do recognize that these workers are exploited, regardless of whether or not they also sympathise with their reasons for being in the situation that they are in or whether or not they would vote for a legal path for them to work manual jobs in the US.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Unions are successful because they allow individuals to act collectively for a common purpose and provide those individuals with resources for a threat to withdraw labour to have some meaning. That unions have become distorted is obviously a problem, but the union model is the only one that could work in a situation where you have a large company with many resources and a large pool of people desperate for employment. The idea that enough individuals could or would quit for an indefinite period when they know there are 20 people willing to take their place without some organized cooperation is fanciful.

Trying to link this to the situation of undocumented immigrant workers is silly. Most people do recognize that these workers are exploited, regardless of whether or not they also sympathise with their reasons for being in the situation that they are in or whether or not they would vote for a legal path for them to work manual jobs in the US.

But the question remains. Why is one "against" the "exploitation" of legal wrkers who choose to accept jobs at a legal employer (Walmart) and one is NOT against employers that exploit people illegally? when will these same people support strong measures against anyone that employs illegals?

Obviously Walmart pays as low wages and benefits as they can to increase profits for their stockholers, which seems to be regarded as some sort of terrible thing, yet when someone employs illegals for the same reason, PLUS deny them basic human dignities and safe work places...that's OK.

The people that scld Walmart and the people that run their head away from the exploitation of illegals are one and the same. Because they are racist, of course. It is OK to do it to brown people.

[Peikko 1,575]

But the question remains. Why is one "against" the "exploitation" of legal wrkers who choose to accept jobs at a legal employer (Walmart) and one is NOT against employers that exploit people illegally? when will these same people support strong measures against anyone that employs illegals?

Obviously Walmart pays as low wages and benefits as they can to increase profits for their stockholers, which seems to be regarded as some sort of terrible thing, yet when someone employs illegals for the same reason, PLUS deny them basic human dignities and safe work places...that's OK.

The people that scld Walmart and the people that run their head away from the exploitation of illegals are one and the same. Because they are racist, of course. It is OK to do it to brown people.

You are not making sense. What 'people' are you talking about? Making these generalizations just doesn't forward a discussion. Why do you say that those who would like to see Walmart employees paid better automatically regard stock holder profits as a bad thing for example? That makes almost no sense at all faced with the fact that the article is all about how much 'pain' would really be incurred by either Walmart or those who patron the store were the employees to be paid a 'living' wage and its conclusion that it would make no noticeable difference.

[Peikko 1,575]

I clearly explained why linking the situation of undocumented immigrant workers and the Walmar situation in the way that you did is ridiculous but yet you continue to make the exact same mistakes.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You are not making sense. What 'people' are you talking about? Making these generalizations just doesn't forward a discussion. Why do you say that those who would like to see Walmart employees paid better automatically regard stock holder profits as a bad thing for example? That makes almost no sense at all faced with the fact that the article is all about how much 'pain' would really be incurred by either Walmart or those who patron the store were the employees to be paid a 'living' wage and its conclusion that it would make no noticeable difference.

Typical non answer. Carry on. If one ignores that fact that far more people are being exploited by business as illegals it all goes away and doesn't hurt.

[Peikko 1,575]

Typical non answer. Carry on. If one ignores that fact that far more people are being exploited by business as illegals it all goes away and doesn't hurt.

Who is ignoring the fact that undocumented immigrants are exploited? What has this got to do with the Walmart situation?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Who is ignoring the fact that undocumented immigrants are exploited? What has this got to do with the Walmart situation?

I give up.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

Gary,

perhaps it's because people have more sympathy for US citizens and residents who are exploited at WalMart, then with illegal immigrants who crossed he border illegally on their own account, stay in the US illegally on their own, and work illegally on their own?

Just an idea.

If two two people get admitted to the hospital with a gun shot wound, and one of them is a cop, and the other one a bank robber, people tend to have more sympathy with the cop.

[mawilson 2,133]

I call BS on your friends in the Big Apple earning 50k and even being able to live paycheck to paycheck. Even if they exist, they are surely single people who live in rentals and don't own a car.

Everyone rents here and almost no-one owns a car.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Typical non answer. Carry on. If one ignores that fact that far more people are being exploited by business as illegals it all goes away and doesn't hurt.

There are more illegals working in this country than there are legal workers earning the minimum wage?

I doubt that.

Everyone rents here and almost no-one owns a car.

Are they single? Your 50K friends in NYC?

And how does their situation compare to someone in a locality where people traditionally purchase homes and need cars to get to work?

[mawilson 2,133]

There are more illegals working in this country than there are legal workers earning the minimum wage?

I doubt that.

Why do you doubt that?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's quite simple, really. If Walmart paid a living wage to it's staff, taxpayers would no longer be subsidizing the company's profits. I mean, the shareholders and executives are in all actuality living in part off the government teat. That's right. You're paying their dividends and bonuses.

[rin and john 71]

"If Walmart Paid its 1.4 Million U.S. Workers a Living Wage, it Would Result in Almost No Pain for the Average Customer Approximately 1.3 Million Would Be Paid More Than They are Worth"

Fixxored!