4 ms·
>> ...Walmart uses their resources to take advantage of current (broken) laws to...pay...pennies...and forc[e]...the government to pay the rest of a living wage
by Chaebixi 9y ago
>> ...Walmart uses their resources to take advantage of current (broken) laws to...pay...pennies...and forc[e]...the government to pay the rest of a living wage.
> What difference does it make where the money is coming from?
Because taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart's business, for one. That's unacceptable, especially if the subsidy is the result of conscious policy on Walmart's part.
> If we force Walmart to pay more, low-income ppl who shop will have to pay higher prices as opposed to now where all the taxpayers are footing the bill.
They will also get paid more to pay those prices, and the taxpayers will not longer be subsidizing Walmart's profits (if the grandparent is correct).
- smileysteve 9y ago> Because taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart's business We can assume then that taxpayers are subsidizing all businesses with employees making under $11 and hour, so why isn't the government changing minimum wage laws from $7.25/hr and $2.35/hr
- Chaebixi 9y agoThere's something especially slimy about the #1 company in the Fortune 500 consciously doing it. And by it, I mean pay its employees so little they need to go on welfare, and then directing them to the welfare office. > so why isn't the government changing minimum wage laws from $7.25/hr and $2.35/hr Because it's been captured by people who like to pay their employees as little as possible.
- smileysteve 9y agoSlimy about consciously, doing what? Paying a minimum of 122% of what they are legally required to? Paying an average of 191% of what they're legally required to? [If nearly doubling "expectations" is slimy, what does it take to exceed expectations]
- Chaebixi 9y agoYou're confusing legality with ethics and morality. You can behave can quite unethically and immorally while still meeting or exceeding legal requirements.