Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 17 minutes later[^][v]#397,671
This is why we need to raise the minimum wage. Hard-working, competent people with full-time jobs shouldn't have to rely on government safety nets. Our taxes are subsidizing Walmart's labor.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 52 seconds later, 18 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,673
At the beach, I once saw a nice van drop off a fake homeless guy, who removed his own wheelchair from the vehicle, and set it up on the shore.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^][v]#397,681
@397,671 (B)
Hard work is a means to an end: productivity. You could lug a brick around and get nothing done while working hard. A smart worker will be more useful than a dumb laborer.
@previous (C)
It's that kind of entrepreneurial spirit that will reinvigorate America.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,190
@397,671 (B)
What are you talking about? Those people working in the Walmart made a mistake. People need to feel the effects of their own choices even when those choices are fucking stupid.
They asked for a shit job, which they knew damn well to be a shit job, in the hopes of making money. They told the hiring manager, "I want to work." So good for them, they get to work. The beggars outside asked for what they really needed, money. Honesty and directness should of course be rewarded more than stupidity and bullshit.
I don't see a problem here.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,192
> They asked for a shit job
No, they didn't. Capitalists asked them to do a shit job, and they agreed because they needed the money. Stupidity has nothing to do with it, and honesty should not necessarily be rewarded.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,194
@previous (E)
But the people outside need money too. And they appear to be much better at getting it. So the free market seems to disagree with your assertion that honesty should not necessarily be rewarded.
Also: the people outside are forced to deal with uncertainty, while the people inside know exactly how much they can earn in a week. Higher risk = higher reward. Get over it.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,195
> But the people outside need money too.
They are clearly getting more than they "need". Anything above the bare minimum is a luxury.
> the free market seems to disagree with your assertion that honesty should not necessarily be rewarded.
The free marker disagrees with me about many things.
!KThEOwLwbU joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,196
> > But the people outside need money too. > They are clearly getting more than they "need". Anything above the bare minimum is a luxury.
Oh now you can just go fuck yourself. If you intend to be the sole arbiter of needs and wants someday, you might want to do something more productive with your time than posting on Minichan. I'm just saying.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,199
lol intellectual masturbation lol
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,201
@previous (G)
It's true, and I haven't even cum yet.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,208
Uh... nah, I've heard the old "rich beggar" myth for years. It's not true, but people try to cliam it to be true in order to, I guess, make the point that we shouldn't bother helping the poor.
Show me the numbers that prove beggars make more than minimum wage, I will not take your word for it.
And as for people being dropped off to beg, yeah, the salvation army does that down here. They've got a hostil you can stay in overnight, drug rehab, and a free taxi so you can make it to your corner.
Sounds real wealthy to me.
squeegee double-posted this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,209
@previous (squeegee)
Also one news article from one bumpkin town does not equal statistically proven generalization
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,213
@398,196 (!KThEOwLwbU)
Expectations and assertions are not proof. You have no way of knowing precisely what would happen if every Walmart employee started begging. What if Walmart decided to pay more rather than lose it's top talent to panhandling?
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,216
> Show me the numbers that prove beggars make more than minimum wage, I will not take your word for it.
I work with beggars every day for my job. I know it probably depends on where they're begging, but in London it's common for them to make £50+ per day. Some of them more. On Christmas day, one of them came back with nearly £400. It's rare, but it does happen.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,218
@previous (E)
Again. So fucking what? Do you deny people's right to give their money to whomever they choose?
If beggars outside the store appear more deserving of Walmart customers' money to Walmart customers than Walmart employees do, who the fuck are you to argue? It's their money, they can do with it what they like.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,219
@397,681 (A) @398,190 (D)
So you don't think it's possible that their are smart, productive, hard-working, educated people at Walmart, who are creating value for Walmart, but Walmart doesn't pay them any more simply because they don't have to? It happens all the time, especially in this economy. It's called exploitation, and it happens. If those people were not creating value for Walmart, Walmart would not be a multi-billion-dollar corporation. If the minimum wage is raised, it would force Walmart to lay-off those who do not create that much value for the company, so those people who made mistakes and need to feel the pain will still feel the pain, while people who do create that much value for the company will actually be paid closer to what they're worth. That way we don't have educated, hard-working people collecting benefits from the government simply because Walmart won't pay them. Sounds like a win-win-win to me. For me, the bigger issue is Walmart benefiting from what is essentially government subsidized labor and making billions because of it, not because I have a bleeding heart for people who are failures.
Anonymous I double-posted this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,220
@398,194 (D)
Excellent point about higher risk, higher reward.
!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,221
> So you don't think it's possible that their are smart, productive, hard-working, educated people at Walmart, who are creating value for Walmart, but Walmart doesn't pay them any more simply because they don't have to?
Irrelevant. Those people voluntarily entered into a mutual obligation. Walmart has fulfilled its end of the obligation by paying them as agreed. They must be required to fulfill their end of the obligation as well. Both parties are free to terminate this mutual obligation at any time. If they don't like it they shouldn't have pretended to want a job when what they really wanted was money.
> It happens all the time, especially in this economy. It's called exploitation, and it happens.
Boo whooo. Life is necessirally exploitative. If you've got a problem with that take it up with Mother Nature, or God, whatever your world view may be.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,241
@398,219 (I)
Walmart is composed of a lot more than those employees. If all it took was the laborers involved, you could pay them a couple dollars more, with a hit to your profits, and completely overtake Walmart's business.
As it happens, the system Walmart operates on, how they handle logistics, advertising, negotiating with suppliers, handling their own manufacturing, designing the stores, stocking the right products, and so much more. The reason they are a big company is because of the corporate workers who manage all of that, and are a trouble to replace. Not the unskilled worker who provides no unique service. If they were truly valuable, they could ask for their value and get it.
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,249
@398,216 (E)
Anecdotes are not proof of a general trend
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,254
@398,221 (!KThEOwLwbU)
I have no job, yet I am not starving. I've never allowed myself to spend more in a week than I could invest in that same week. This is why I have a home, and can eat well.
Walmart has no way of knowing what it cost their employees to maintain a home, nor should they care. So far as they're concerned, the fact there are so many people willing to accept $8/hr means there are people out there who can maintain their existence on $8/hr. They choose to employ these people.
Your theory is bunk.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,380
@previous (D)
The problem is that Walmart knows damn well that just about everyone working at Walmart has to rely on foodstamps, welfare, and other benefits and they know that that's why they can get away with paying them less. Take those things away andWalmart would be forced to pay them more because they need their employees to have energy to work, not starving to death. Walmart knows damn well that their labor is subsidized. So ripping of their workers is not the real issue here. They're exploiting the taxpayers and they're making billions doing it.
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#398,381
@previous (J)
Too bad the government wont raise the minimum wage.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 14 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#398,581
@398,380 (J) > implying Walmart doesn't pay corporate taxes. > implying Walmart doesn't pay dividends to shareholders who pay taxes. > implying lawmakers can't change the minimum wage any time they feel ripped off.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 day later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#398,917
What about the life insurance Walmart takes out on every employee and collects 11 Million off of every year?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 34 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#398,924
@previous (K)
What issue do you have with that, other than some bs abstract "it's just immoral to profit off another's death" thing?
They lose money when a worker dies, insurance exists to spread the cost of liabilities like that.