4 ms·
Are you holding them blameless? If so, why? This is the largest employer in the US and to not hold them responsible would imply they don't have the leverage to
by 1_2__3 10y ago
Are you holding them blameless? If so, why? This is the largest employer in the US and to not hold them responsible would imply they don't have the leverage to change the playing field. Of course they do.
- JustSomeNobody 10y agoChange what playing field? Are you saying that in order to do business, a company must pay each employee enough to keep them off food stamps?
- jellicle 10y agoThat would be an excellent requirement to add to U.S. law, yes.
- JustSomeNobody 10y agoReally? Oh do please explain how you would see that playing out in real life.
- closeparen 10y agoAbsolutely. We've somehow decided that businesses are entitled to enjoy the benefits of workers having enough money to live (i.e. large pool of willing, living employees, who are probably not going to die for lack of basic necessities before their shift tomorrow), with the public picking up a good chunk of the tab. That's a subsidy. Every welfare dollar that helps a Walmart employee stay alive and go to work tomorrow is a gift from the taxpayer to Walmart shareholders: they'd have to pay for it if we didn't.
- JustSomeNobody 10y agoOk cool. So glad to hear that me the consumer would get all this free of charge.
- learc83 10y agoYou the tax payer are already paying for this in the form of food-stamps and social programs that allow companies to benefit from well-fed, capable workers, while paying less than living wages.
- JustSomeNobody 10y agoSo if I didn't have to pay the tax, I'd still have to pay in increased costs for goods. Either way it's costing me.
- closeparen 10y agoOnly to the extent that your consumption involves cheap labor.
- JustSomeNobody 10y agoAhhh. So I'm a piece of crap cause I can only afford Walmart prices. Thank you Mr Privileged.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]