felltoearth wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:


Yes it is. This Anything bad that anyone says about Walmart must true because they are so evil, way of thinking is quite a farce, yet not all that amusing.

What I'm out of step with is a lock step mentality where even questioning accepted doctrine/dogma/memes is met with little more than stale party line platitudes.

No, the issue is demonizing the un- and underemployed as evil for wanting a living wage and wanting to decently feed and house themselves and their family with decent health and dental care and perhaps the ability to retire before age 80, much like their own parents.

Oh yeah. But those people are just entitled whiners.

Strawman alert!

Identify the stawman. These are the take aways from your arguments.

I didn't make an argument, only an observation that is being vigorously avoided.

Sorry, that observation in a nutshell, then?

ETA: Of course ignoring the fact that claiming a strawman and saying "oh I didn't actually make an argument" is pretty fucking dishonest discourse.

This is not mine, found it on the net.

Bill Clinton, Hillary and Trump are traveling in a car together in the midwest. A tornado comes along, picks up the car, whirls it in the air, and tosses it several hundred yards away. When they come to, they realize they are in the Land of Oz, so they decide to visit the Wizard of Oz.

Trump says, 'I'm going to ask the wizard for a brain.'
Hillary says, 'I'm going to ask the wizard for a heart.'
Bill says, ‘Where's Dorothy?’

Gingrich says "you're too late Billy".

willhud9 wrote:So I support people who want to increase the minimum wage. That is not whining, but fighting for economic rights.

And this is the nub of the problem.

Corporations like Wal-mart and McDonalds aren't evil for structuring their salary system in a way that maximises their profit. If they are allowed to pay a full-time worker a wage that isn't enough to live on, either they do it or their competitors will.

willhud9 wrote:I wonder if when people were arguing to change the law in regards to child labour, conservatives called those children whiners?

It was pretty much, "This is an outrageous restriction on the free market. Those kids want the job, employers want to employ them; where's the problem?"

Child labour laws and compulsory state-funded education pretty much happened once employers realised they needed literate workers and that government intervention was the only way around the free-rider problem.

I'm all for raising the minimum wage significantly. Not to $15 though. Some small businesses in small towns don't make enough to support that. $10 seems fair. It's pretty measly though.

Nicko wrote:

willhud9 wrote:So I support people who want to increase the minimum wage. That is not whining, but fighting for economic rights.

And this is the nub of the problem.

Corporations like Wal-mart and McDonalds aren't evil for structuring their salary system in a way that maximises their profit. If they are allowed to pay a full-time worker a wage that isn't enough to live on, either they do it or their competitors will.

And?

So with that reasoning, every job out there should be paying minimum wage? They can still make massive profits AND pay a decent wage - who cares what their competitors do.

Teague wrote:

Nicko wrote:

willhud9 wrote:So I support people who want to increase the minimum wage. That is not whining, but fighting for economic rights.

And this is the nub of the problem.

Corporations like Wal-mart and McDonalds aren't evil for structuring their salary system in a way that maximises their profit. If they are allowed to pay a full-time worker a wage that isn't enough to live on, either they do it or their competitors will.

And?

So with that reasoning, every job out there should be paying minimum wage? They can still make massive profits AND pay a decent wage - who cares what their competitors do.

It goes beyond "structuring their salary system." They are anti-union bullies.

Getting a glimpse of Walmart’s internal PowerPoints and training manuals is rare, but one of Walmart’s orientation videos was leaked recently, and it again revealed Walmart’s anti-union efforts. Labor experts and Walmart employees say they were surprised at the blatant untruths in many of the video’s pro-company and anti-union statements.

Walmart confirmed the video’s authenticity and said the company showed it to new hires from 2009 through last year. Early on in the course of the video’s nine minutes, an actor dressed as a Walmart employee says, “You’re just beginning your career with us. It’s hard to grasp everything that’s available to you, like great benefits.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... ze/395051/

Oldskeptic wrote:

laklak wrote:We'd need one shitload more data to have any sort of meaningful discussion. Of the approximately 11% of Walmart employees on Medicaid, how many were part-time employees? What positions did they hold in the company? What were their family sizes? If they have children, were they single parents? What is their educational level? How long have they been with the company? What percentage of employees of other, similar companies are also on Medicaid and/or other public assistance? Were they receiving public assistance before they started at Walmart?

All of that is much too difficult when you can just go with the Walmart and McDonald's suck and everyone knows they are evil strategy.

They are just smart business people, not greedy like working people are.

This week in the war on workers: Walmart loses $54 million wage theft lawsuit


Let’s call this what it is: theft.

Wal-Mart intentionally failed to pay hundreds of truck drivers in California the minimum wage for duties such as inspecting and washing their vehicles, a federal jury decided Wednesday, awarding the workers more than $54 million in damages and opening up the retail giant to additional penalties.

Seven jurors returned the verdict in a lawsuit that also accused the company of not properly paying drivers for layovers. Wal-Mart argued that truckers are paid for activities that include maintenance tasks and that they are not working during layovers.


https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/ ... ft-lawsuit

Federal regulators and states are finding fast food companies like Chipotle, McDonald’s and Papa John culpable of wage theft, worker intimidation and discrimination. A practice they say is “pervasive” in the industry.

Workers are fighting back, however, and finding support in the court and regulatory bodies.

https://www.rt.com/usa/357412-fast-food ... e-workers/

No, thieves who steal millions of dollars from poor people aren't evil.

They are just "structuring their salaries."

Teague wrote:They can still make massive profits AND pay a decent wage - who cares what their competitors do.

The shareholders. At least in the case of publicly traded companies, it's actually illegal for them to not maximise return to shareholders.

Henry Ford subscribed to your view. He was of the opinion that it might be nice if his workers could afford to buy the cars they made. Not just nice, but good for the industry and the economy as a whole. He got sued by his shareholders for his trouble.

My point is that the massive inequalities that have been developing for decades in the US won't ever be solved by companies becoming "nice". Historically, wage earners have only seen real income growth through political action. Whether this is union agitation or government regulation, the private sector will not solve this problem by itself.

Yep

Nicko wrote:Henry Ford subscribed to your view. He was of the opinion that it might be nice if his workers could afford to buy the cars they made. Not just nice, but good for the industry and the economy as a whole. He got sued by his shareholders for his trouble.

This a massive oversimplification of the issues addressed in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., and fails to deal with the actual decision (it wasn't entirely against Ford). As well, the principle of shareholder wealth maximization does not preclude treating workers decently. "Case law on the fiduciary duty of directors to maximize the wealth of corporate shareholders"

Nicko wrote:

Teague wrote:They can still make massive profits AND pay a decent wage - who cares what their competitors do.

The shareholders. At least in the case of publicly traded companies, it's actually illegal for them to not maximise return to shareholders.

Henry Ford subscribed to your view. He was of the opinion that it might be nice if his workers could afford to buy the cars they made. Not just nice, but good for the industry and the economy as a whole. He got sued by his shareholders for his trouble.

Ford was sued by the Dodge brothers, who owned 10% of Ford Auto, and planned to use their special dividend to expand their fledgling car company. Ford wanted to use the money from the special dividend to expand his own company.

Nicko wrote:My point is that the massive inequalities that have been developing for decades in the US won't ever be solved by companies becoming "nice". Historically, wage earners have only seen real income growth through political action. Whether this is union agitation or government regulation, the private sector will not solve this problem by itself.

Well, that bolded bit is simply absurd. Only? Really?

The prime pressure towards income growth is growth in markets. Growth in trade, growth do to innovation, improved manufacturing techniques/technology, shipping, and marketing are oceans compared to the raindrop size contribution of political action.

Nicko wrote:

Teague wrote:They can still make massive profits AND pay a decent wage - who cares what their competitors do.

The shareholders. At least in the case of publicly traded companies, it's actually illegal for them to not maximise return to shareholders.

Henry Ford subscribed to your view. He was of the opinion that it might be nice if his workers could afford to buy the cars they made. Not just nice, but good for the industry and the economy as a whole. He got sued by his shareholders for his trouble.

My point is that the massive inequalities that have been developing for decades in the US won't ever be solved by companies becoming "nice". Historically, wage earners have only seen real income growth through political action. Whether this is union agitation or government regulation, the private sector will not solve this problem by itself.

Yeah well good luck prosecuting anyone on not "maximising returns" - if that was the case everyone would be working minimum wage through fear of the law coming after the board (lmfao )

You can literally say anything to get away with your decisions and the only time that legality is brought out is to excuse the shitty decisions made by corporations - "but we have to it's the law!!"

Any case can be made for lowering prices and upping wages since nobody can tell you

a) how to maximise profits

b) that you had any idea the market would change so much! That's why we didn't get the maximum profits

But then you need to set what the max is and then find out how far you fell short.

It's a massive load of bollocks put in place to basically give company's excuses for being assholes.

Interview with Thomas Frank. Great breakdown on why the Dems keep losing. It might be good for OS to watch this to see what his party actually represents, and who they are actively rejecting.



Katie Halper is less annoying than usual. She talks over interviewees way too much, but sort of controlled it for most of the discussion this time. Not a great interview skillset.

Willie71 wrote:Interview with Thomas Frank. Great breakdown on why the Dems keep losing. It might be good for OS to watch this to see what his party actually represents, and who they are actively rejecting.

Katie Halper is less annoying than usual. She talks over interviewees way too much, but sort of controlled it for most of the discussion this time. Not a great interview skillset.

Jimmy Dore does a better interview with him I think.

Teague wrote:

Willie71 wrote:Interview with Thomas Frank. Great breakdown on why the Dems keep losing. It might be good for OS to watch this to see what his party actually represents, and who they are actively rejecting.

Katie Halper is less annoying than usual. She talks over interviewees way too much, but sort of controlled it for most of the discussion this time. Not a great interview skillset.

Jimmy Dore does a better interview with him I think.

Thom Hartman's interview over a year ago was the best that I've seen, but it was predictive, not a post mortem.

Interesting that Frank, Hedges, Martin, and Blyth all got this right, but were ignored completely until Clinton lost.

Add onto that Ugyr, Chomski (I'm going to assume here), Ball (Krystal Ball - remember her peice on not voting for Clinton?)

There were tons of people that actually knew what they were talking about but they were drowned out by the morons who thought they knew better. These morons still have their jobs btw and are still smug enough to think they all know better.

Who was the dickhead that shouted out they had a new "Nate Silver" because whilst Nate put Clintons chances at 60% (?) this guy had it right at 98.4%.

And what happened after, the dems started losing, losing, losing. They just lost another 4 races. Ossoff lost - he ran a centrist campaign just like Clinton did - wowee exciting stuff.

The Dems are done. The old fossils that ruled are feeling their grip starting to slip away and it's about fucking time too.

Government is FOR the people not for you to stick your hand in the cookie jar and share them amongst your friends.

Willie71 wrote:

Teague wrote:

Willie71 wrote:Interview with Thomas Frank. Great breakdown on why the Dems keep losing. It might be good for OS to watch this to see what his party actually represents, and who they are actively rejecting.

Katie Halper is less annoying than usual. She talks over interviewees way too much, but sort of controlled it for most of the discussion this time. Not a great interview skillset.

Jimmy Dore does a better interview with him I think.

Thom Hartman's interview over a year ago was the best that I've seen, but it was predictive, not a post mortem.

Interesting that Frank, Hedges, Martin, and Blyth all got this right, but were ignored completely until Clinton lost.

People will tend to continue to ignore them, because the Democratic leadership isn't interested in the working classes in the United States - they honestly think their 'lesser of two evils' game can be played forever. Nevermind it has brought their party and the nation to disaster.

Our dear thought leaders in the media will continue with the bizarre narratives that somehow the racists who put Obama in the White House wouldn't vote for Clinton, or that it was sexism that caused the popular victory by the Democrats but an Electoral College win by the Republican candidate, or some byzantine conspiracy theory involving those inscrutable Russians.