Wal-Mart’s newest big lie: Another misleading ad campaign from a job-killing behemoth

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If you don't like your job, quit and find another. If you don't like where you shop, go next door. It's not complicated.

Make a trip through Florida and then good luck with that in some of the most desolate places. There's nowhere else to work or shop for miles. Driving through some of those small towns, one feels like driving through a third world country. It's where Wal Mart feels at home.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[Karee 4,191]

The fact is that Walmart should be paying their employees more than they are. You and I are picking up THEIR slack. And they have far more money than we do.

You have to ask yourself why we're picking up their "slack" Walmart isn't under any obligation to pay their employees any more than minimum wage. So not sure what "slack" you're talking about. If you're referring to the govt. benefits Walmart employees are receiving, take that up with the people giving the benefits. Namely the U.S. govt.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

You have to ask yourself why we're picking up their "slack" Walmart isn't under any obligation to pay their employees any more than minimum wage. So not sure what "slack" you're talking about. If you're referring to the govt. benefits Walmart employees are receiving, take that up with the people giving the benefits. Namely the U.S. govt.

I have no problem with the Walmart employees who are on government benefits because Walmart isn't paying them enough to live on. None at all. Sure, Walmart doesn't have an obligation to pay more than minimum wage. But it could absolutely pay its employees more but it isn't because it doesn't HAVE to.

The average Walmart employee makes less than $20,000 a year. Most of them have families to support. Do we blame the US government for giving them benefits or do we blame Walmart for not paying their employees enough to live on?

[Karee 4,191]

I have no problem with the Walmart employees who are on government benefits because Walmart isn't paying them enough to live on. None at all. Sure, Walmart doesn't have an obligation to pay more than minimum wage. But it could absolutely pay its employees more but it isn't because it doesn't HAVE to.

The average Walmart employee makes less than $20,000 a year. Most of them have families to support. Do we blame the US government for giving them benefits or do we blame Walmart for not paying their employees enough to live on?

Walmart is under no responsibility to pay their employees any more than minimum wage. It's not, nor should it be, Walmarts responsibility to figure out what amount of money their employees need to live on. By that logic, ANY company that pays minimum wage is not paying their employees enough to live on. Are people singling out Walmart because they are the biggest? What about any other employer? How come there's no outrage against the local car wash or against the factories that pay minimum wage?

Edited March 18, 2014 by Karee

[Operator 1,927]

Is it an employer's responsibility to support an employee's family?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

By that logic, ANY company that pays minimum wage is not paying their employees enough to live on.

You're right - they aren't.

Minimum wage in this country is a joke.

If someone has a full time job, they should be able to support themselves on that full time job. They shouldn't have to turn to the government for food stamps because they have no other choice - even though they work 40+ hours a week.

Those hard working people who are stuck in sh!tholes like Walmart get looked down for their food stamps by people in this very group. Yet they have no other choice.

Walmart gets attention because they are RAKING in the cash. It's disgusting how much money they make and how little actually goes towards the people who operate their stores.

[Karee 4,191]

Is it an employer's responsibility to support an employee's family?

I don't think it is. I'd say it's the employee's responsibility. Seems some here disagree with that concept.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Is it an employer's responsibility to support an employee's family?

No. But shouldn't someone who is employed be able to support their family themselves?

Isn't that the point of employment?

What's the point if you just have to crawl to the government for help anyway?

America, the land of opportunity!!

Edited March 18, 2014 by Penny Lane

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Any full time position should be enough to support a small family without government intervention. It used to be that if you were willing to work you could survive. That is not true anymore.

I am surprised that the neocons don't mourn the loss of the American worker. That's good American values: you work, you support your family. Corporate CEOs are doing everything they can to change that, to make the government subsidize their profits, and the new talking points about the free market are enough to erase a common sense value?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Any full time position should be enough to support a small family without government intervention.

Agreed.

It's a shame that's not the case anymore.

People working 40+ hours a week and then need food stamps. And then get judged for being on food stamps. Hurrah! Sounds like a grand old time to me.

It's the American dream, you know.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Penny Lane

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Any full time position should be enough to support a small family without government intervention. It used to be that if you were willing to work you could survive. That is not true anymore.

I am surprised that the neocons don't mourn the loss of the American worker. That's good American values: you work, you support your family. Corporate CEOs are doing everything they can to change that, to make the government subsidize their profits, and the new talking points about the free market are enough to erase a common sense value?

I never worked for a poor person in my life. America remains the land of opportunity for those who seek to improve themselves using their bootstraps and asking not what America can do for them, but what they can do for America. Get an education, improve yourself, make yourself more marketable in today's world, and quit seeking the low-bar of the working world. Help your children seek something other than a job at Wal-Mart.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

You know, most minimum wage workers are women working to support their families because their husband's income isn't enough.

And all these republicans love to talk about family values and how absent parents result in crime.

Why wouldn't these same people want to make it so only one parent has to work while the other can stay home and care for their family? I support it if both parents want to work, but I don't think that both adults in the household should be forced to work to survive. If one works a full time job, that should be enough for their family.

The CEOs can afford it. Profits are higher than ever.

[Karee 4,191]

No. But shouldn't someone who is employed be able to support their family themselves?

There's no right to employment or a good paying job in this country. Sure it would be nice if everyone had one, but that's not realistic.

Isn't that the point of employment?

The point of employment is to do a certain task or tasks for a certain amount of money in return. It's primary purpose isn't to make sure you feed you're family. That's up to the employee what he does with his/her earnings.

What's the point if you just have to crawl to the government for help anyway?

I would guess that having a job and collecting some govt. benefits probably pays better than not having a job at all, and living solely on govt.benefits.

I'm not knocking you for wanting people to make more money and have better lives etc. I think everyone wants that. Simply forcing companies to pay their workers more isn't going to acheive that goal. It's real easy to blame the big bad corporation for the fact that someone makes $7.25 an hour. I'd argue that the reason someone makes $7.25 an hour has more to do with the choices they made in life.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I never worked for a poor person in my life. America remains the land of opportunity for those who seek to improve themselves using their bootstraps and asking not what America can do for them, but what they can do for America. Get an education, improve yourself, make yourself more marketable in today's world, and quit seeking the low-bar of the working world. Help your children seek something other than a job at Wal-Mart.

You think people who are working at Walmart sought it out like a dream job?

Look, these stores aren't going away. Walmart will always need employees. Shouldn't the employees who work there 40+ hours a week be able to survive on what they make?

I am so tired of the attitude that people who are working in retail are uneducated, lazy people with no real motivation in life.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

I never worked for a poor person in my life. America remains the land of opportunity for those who seek to improve themselves using their bootstraps and asking not what America can do for them, but what they can do for America. Get an education, improve yourself, make yourself more marketable in today's world, and quit seeking the low-bar of the working world. Help your children seek something other than a job at Wal-Mart.

I assure you I have quite a fine education and neither me or my children will ever work for Walmart.

But not everyone should be as educated as me. It takes all sorts to make this world go around. There are plenty of good jobs that don't require a college education and we need people to work those jobs. The people that work those jobs should get paid a living wage and be able to have a fair life. The world needs janitors.