What a deal, but not for the 99%!

Have to shrink it down to match the "intellect" of a lot of the low-information voters out there.

Wal-mart tells them to get food stamps. Working slave wages is abominable. When I was kid working after school part time I made a buck ten an hour. Gas was 25 cents and cars were $2-$3000. Now 50 years later, gas is 12 times as much and cars 10 times. Yet minimum wage is only 6 times. Not to mention rent or mortgages. Groceries! Your dead in the water before you get started!

check this Elizabeth Warren lecture out. She parses it all out. From past to present.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5707790

Wells Fargo, Mattel, Paccar, GE and about 40 others cost us FAR more than individuals who are down on their luck. This is because they've 'offshored' their profits so they don't have to pay any US income tax.

Then, on the other side of the coin, the corporations like Wal-Mart, McDonalds and others who cut people's hours to a minimum, pay wages that people can't even subsist on and offer no benefits cost us way too much money too. A recent article in Forbes, no less, estimates that Wal-Mart workers, because they earn such low pay, cost taxpayers $6.2 billion in public assistance. Likewise the other fast foods.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/

HELL no! The WORKERS don't cost taxpayers that money - WALMART and the Walton Family do! If the Walton Family instructed the Walmart corporation to pay all workers a living wage, it would cost the family and other Walmart share holders very little and would SAVE BILLIONS of dollars for the taxpayers!

In addition, all those higher paid employees could afford to buy more goods which would give a boost to the economy - including Walmart. And the employees would pay more in taxes, which would help the federal government pay down the deposit.

The Walton family must hate the US because their policies hurt the entire country.

Just twist it to blame the oppressed. Everything is the fault of the protesters, not the systems, cops and officials that cause the problems and the fear on a daily basis.

Imagine being an employee at Walmart, seeing and hearing reports on a daily basis that blame you for draining the economy. Blaming you for the audacity to want to feed your children.

The media is as much to blame as are the greedy. The greedy people and corporations run the media. So money in politics or not, their horrible message gets through in daily broadcast, online and print news.

We are at a precipice. If we don't change things, if we don't have the commitment, the tireless drive, that the protesters in Ferguson and St Louis do, we won't win. And we have only ourselves to blame.

The really sad part is that Wal-Mart could afford to pay its workers more money without really taking a hit. As far as I know the company makes a profit of $16 billion per year. It seems they could easily take $2-$4 billion and still make a profit of $12-$14 billion per year. I, probably like many others, do not oppose the idea of the Walton Family making billions of dollars a year. It is just so sad that they make so much money and pay their workers so little. It seems this economy would be doing much better if Wal-Mart paid its workers a better wage.

helping these big corporations avoid paying taxes. Corporations have stacked the deck with the agencies who regulate them, bought the politicians who write the laws for them, own the media who covers for them, and owns most of the judges/justices who would decide the fate of either the laws they had passed, or the corporations themselves, in the unlikely event they get caught violating the few remaining laws that apply to them! Run on sentence I know, but I was on a roll!

I still don't understand why people are not demanding an overhaul of the whole corrupt system! Instead, many here still get upset if you don't plan on voting for the Democrat with the seemingly best chance to defeat whatever Republican idiot they choose to run for President.
For example, if you like what Bernie Sanders is about, getting rid of campaign contributions and pushing for Publicly Funded Elections, raising the minimum wage more than $10.00 hr., equal pay for women, single payer health care, negotiating the price for prescription drugs bought by the government, hold Wall Street accountable, Glass Steagal, raise taxes on the wealthy, penalizing the offshoring of jobs, stopping bad trade agreements like the TPP, address climate change...
Vs.
Hillary, pro war, pro Wall Street, pro offshore, pro TPP... I believe Hillary would be very similar to Obama and do several good things, but when it comes down to it she will perpetuate our downward spiral and do what the Plutocrats want her to do (most are her friends).
It's time to make a real difference, certainly the climate cannot wait for us to get around to it, it WILL be too late!

I know, I am wearing my flame retardant suit so all of you misguided folks that don't like what I said about Hillary, do what you must. Yes I know Bernie doesn't appear to stand a chance, but that is because there are too many of you who don't want to admit that she will not significantly change the direction of this country. Yes I know the President cannot do all of this him/her self, but they would have the bully pulpit to point it all out if they had the guts and integrity to do it!

I don't know how a concerned American can vote any other way. This is not "party first" any longer. It is a dire situation that must be addressed and Bernie will address these situations in a way that is beneficial to the majority because he is an actual civil servant.

Their board headed by Walmart heirs got so greedy they are nullifying their own customers. Not one of them learned the lesson Henry Ford taught.

I would penalize corporations who's employees have to go on public assistance. The penalties they pay would go into a fund earmarked for public assistance (including Medicaid, SNAP, etc). I'd probably give each a small leeway before they're penalized (about 100 employees nationwide). Also on the application form, I would have a box to check that reads the following:

"I'd like full-time work but my company is only giving me part-time hours."

Walmart and McD's (and most retail and fast food) would either pay through the roof or change overnight.

ETA the tax that each corporation would pay would be the amount of public assistance each employee receives plus a 10% penalty. So if Walmart has 10 employees each receiving $5000 a year of assistance, their tax would be 55K.

Queen tabbycat31!

to raise the minimum wage except if its to help a president thats republican and even then its only a 50/50 chance imo.
As for walmart I agree 100% they need to get off their butts and pay people a overall wage that lifts them out of poverty which is why I have been wondering if Obama could somehow use the EBT program to strong arm them and other retailers that participate in the EBT program.
Say by maybe telling the companies if over x % of the people drawing EBT work for you then you may no longer participate and process EBT.

because I am all for Wally world paying more, but there are legit small businesses out there that can't. Hmm.... they could also tie it to the cost of living adjustments that are given for government employees who move/travel a lot.

http://store.appalshop.org/shop/appalshop-films/fast-food-women/
Fast Food Women
Directed by: Anne Lewis
1991
Running Time: 28:00
Color
Digitally Remastered (2008)

Fast Food Women takes an inside look at the lives of the women who fry chicken, make pizzas, and flip burgers at four different fast food restaurants in eastern Kentucky. These women, mostly middle-aged and raising children, are often the sole income source for their families. They work for wages barely above the minimum wage, have trouble getting full-time hours because of their employers’ scheduling policies, and are without health care and other benefits.

Analysis by Barbara Garson (author of The Electronic Sweatshop) of the way fast food jobs systematically dehumanize and devalue the worker is intercut with comments from human resources managers at the Druther’s chain. Scenes of women at work round out this incisive, sometimes troubling look at life on the other side of the counter.

Reviews

“Fast Food Women acts like a warning notice: fast food work is hazardous to the pocketbook and the soul.” -Pat Aufderheide, In These Times

That's the reason why corps don't give full time hours: they don't want to pay medical benefits. Take that out of the equation and there would be no reason not to schedule an employee for 40 hours, unless you're a despicable asshole. Living wage + single payer now.

Reached my tolerance already

have a better result and may be more politically possible.

a certain size (employees and/or revenues).

Smaller mom and pop organizations that can't afford that should be exempt within certain limits.

There should also be a limit on the amount a CEO or owner pays themselves compared to that of their workers. This would also apply to small business so that a small business owner couldn't get away with being Ebenezer Scrooge either. They should not be able to become filthy rich while they don't even pay a decent wage to their employees (or wage slaves in that matter). That should be illegal.

Not to mention, if we ask for $10, they'll probably give us $9.00 or even $8.50.

That goes for Exxon Mobil, that goes for Monsanto, that goes for Wal-Mart. Let's start prosecuting the corporate fraudsters and bankers that tanked our economy and allowed the Fortune 400 to steal half the world's wealth and create an economy that's becoming unsustainable.

I live in San Diego, where the City Council re-approved a mw hike oveer the R mayor's veto. But ALEC/CoC and our own rightwingers just got a petition signed by enough to delay the raise til 2016 while "the public" votes on it. So it has not just been part of a Democratic agenda nationally, it's a pending local proposition (tho Scott Peters, the Third Wayer here doesn't even mention it in his tight race against ALEC/KOCH/Norquist/Rove/Adelson backed De Maio).

In those local debates on the issue, the pro hike Dems got drowned out by the rightwing prop machine. Appealing to empathy & decency has it's strengths, but will not do the trick alone. Just like years of stories of " kids in prison for a joint" didn't get the needle to move on decriminalizing marijuana. When the argument began to stress the outrageous cost (60,000 per prisoner/year) of incarceration, then the middle class en masse begin to see the light and move to lessening avenues towards incarceration.

The strongest and most effective argument ...and the only one which will bring massive Repub votes... must be this relentless attack on corporate welfare. Repubs vote self-interest and resentment ups their turnout. The argument should always come back to the basic question: Why are "we" taxpayers supposed to shoulder the payroll for employers who won't pay decent wages? If you have a business and can't afford ( or refuse) to pay your employees enough to live without "our" taxpayers' subsidy, then you shouldn't hire employees.