It is the fault of government,

If the government did not freely hand out such vast amounts of aid then the people will not take the Walmart job unless it paid better.

Also if people do need more money then make yourself more valuable for you employer.

Robert Reight illustration is utter useless. In 57 you did not have a welfare state

To answer Sanders question, should the tax payers subsidize Wall Mart. The answer is NO. But that is not the taxpayers fault it is Big Goverment trying to be nice, fair, kind, the right thing to do... but in the end Big Government interferes with capitalism and causes such imbalances then blames capitalism.

Your video, Bernie Sanders tears into Walmart for corporate welfare, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Walmart viral ad

I'm a bit surprised that Ted didn't put a link to the actual article in his video description... but anyway it's here - http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/20440-walmart-is-not-the-bargain-you-might-think-it-is

This ends on a positive note so not too dark really. Just a tale of hatred towards consumerism.

Our social contract with government changes in the same way that the Apple Terms of Service changes. No way to back out of it and live a life of remote peace... SPEND.. YOUR. MONEY. Taxes, shmaxes, there's no more better judge of WASTING your goddamn money than your own judgement.

Sir, you are at risk of not spending every last fucking dime at Walmart. Or Target. Or Best Buy. Do you want your economy to be destroyed? Your leaders have already given up on you, so this is your last chance before monetary disciplinary action.

But getting trampled to death in a black friday savings riot does not represent risk because the true risk that matters in this world is the risk of assholes not getting your money.

Because fuck you if you don't want to be part of the dogpile.

The December update highlighted an issue that has been driving me insane for years now, an issue that makes me want to punch my fellow citizens right in the kisser for not looking beyond the facade.

His illustration of the price you pay for a t-shirt can be applied, without alteration, to our energy sector in Germany. The old, centralised infrastructure, primarily coal/gas/nuclear power plants, were subsidized heavily over the years, both directly through interest-free public loans and the privatisation of the energy grid as well as through indirect means, such as tax/insurance exemptions, R&D financing. Hell, the clean-up at Sellafield in the UK alone is expected to cost just shy of £100B. All this outsourcing of costs made it possible to keep the price of energy comparably cheap.

Meanwhile, all the subsidies for renewable energy are added on top of the energy price for consumers. No smoke screens, no outsourcing, no legacy costs. You get the price tag on your energy bill. A decent level of transparency, at last. But now people get pissed at the high prices of energy and demand a stop to the renewable energy program, which ironically pushed prices to a record low on the energy exchange. On-shore wind and solar are now cheaper than heavily subsidized coal and gas. My home town in the middle of nowhere generates wind power at 0.08€ per kwh, all year long, with minimal operating costs. Even solar works splendidly, despite the abysmal central European weather.

I think I might just try his Walmart explanation on some people, it's much easier to understand.

So cheers again for pointing out this wonderful series of lectures.

Let's be clear, $15/hr is gonna make a difference. If current minimum wage is $7.25 it's more than doubling the wage. That means doubling the salary costs for every business employing people for minimum wage. It seems the left is all excited about moving twice as much money from Walmart and McDonalds back to it's employees. The thing is, it doesn't just hurt corporate employers, it hurts ALL employers. In particular the mom and pop shops that open up to provide alternatives to Walmart and McDs. Raising the cost of entry to new business owners seriously hurts and undermines the little guy.

My point is the idea of striking a balance in minimum wage is very important, because shifting it too much in EITHER direction makes the 'wage-slave' problem worse. Either buy worse conditions for the lowest end of the working class, or by making it even more difficult to start out working for yourself.

@Shepppard
ah...my young friend.
come over by the fire,your buddy enoch has some things to speak to you about.
are you comfy?
need a drink? beer? coffee?

then let us begin.

1.why do YOU care what another makes an hour?is it YOUR business?

but i understand the basic gist of your point:unskilled labor.

ok.thats a fair point.
but why is 15$ an hr too high?
what arbitrary scale are you comparing their hourly worth to?
walmart workers?

here is a facts that may give you some perspective:
a.if we take the minimum wage from 1978 and factor in inflation and worker productivity todays minimum should average 22$ an hour (yes...you read that right).
b.the workers in these unskilled jobs are in the high percentages in goverment subsidies.to the tune of 7 BILLION a year.so basically we ALL are subsidizing mcdonalds and walmart to pay their workers like shit.

so are you still against them getting a living wage? when you and i are subsidizing their income. the companies they work for get to pocket those profits,you and i get to help pay for their housing and food stamps.

walmart even helps ttheir employees sign up for food stamps! now isnt that adorable.

dont you think it a better idea that these companies pay their help at least enough where they dont need government susbizies? you know.like actually PAY them and not force us to?

2.if these corporations paid a minimum of 15$ an hr the projected hike in product prices will be......./drum roll.....
...........15 cents per item.........

3.how come it appears to be taboo to point to a CEO of a company who is making billions in bonuses while his/her workers are having to receive food stamps?
when did obscene gluttony and greed become something cool? even praiseworthy? while ridiculing those trying to survive and demanding a little bit of dignity as something to be chastised and cajoled for even having the impertinence to ask for a living wage.

the cognitive dissonance on display is on an epic scale.

who do YOU think you have more in common with?
the dude working at your local burger king?
or jamie dimon?

and dont even get me started on that condescending argument "get an education to get a better job".

i have been seeing many posts of late that reflect the very same flavor of yours @Shepppard and the one thing they all have in common is this judgemental value system that they just pulled out of their ass but in reality was given to them by the very people fucking them,and their children in the ass.

there will come a day when these people will realize they are slaves.
debt slaves.
wage slaves.
and while they were bickering the banksters and the corporate elite cleaned their clock.....
and they didnt notice until it was too late.

those elite fuckers.
they have a small club and you aint in it.
they dont like you.
they will never like you.
me?
im on your side man.

No not my video, I actually have not visited a Walmart yet

I was referring to the 1% of the west that was the target of the Occupy movement. If you want to point out the global wealth disparity then yes, we do enjoy our cheap Walmart crap. We then indeed come out far ahead of the poverty seen around the world, with the global 1% comprising people in USA, Canada, Japan and Brazil, etc. with an average annual income of just $34,000.

I think we can safely assume that the 1% talked about in this vid aren't worried about the international poor. The point is that they just want to keep the domestic disenfranchised out of their fantasy mansions (after the inevitable looting of Walmart is complete.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWSxzjyMNpU

You realize when the world economy implodes and the 1% has to defend themselves, that 1% is nearly every living sole in western world, right? Anybody making $30k annually is already, on a global scale, criminally overpaid compared to the workers making the stuff the 1% buy at Walmart.

@lantern53, basically what @enoch said.

EDIT: Warning.... very long post ahead... I'm sure there will be many TLDRs.

Let me be clear. I have no objection to businesses making a profit, or the people who run and operate those businesses to make more income than their workers... where I have a problem is when a bushiness fires 350 people, then tells the rest of the employees the company can't afford to give them raises then the owner goes out and buys a jet on the companies dime, the next year he fired 250+ people, and last year 450+ people, and no raises to anyone but the executives all those years, because the company couldn't afford it. How many jobs did that jet cost? Apparently 1,000 jobs so far, and many more who've made minimum wage for 4 years now so that one man can have a jet? Unrepentant greed is my issue. Where I have a problem is where the 6 Walmart heirs have a net worth over the bottom 30 some percent of the American population, meanwhile they pay their workers minimum wage and give few benefits... All of that would be somewhat acceptable, but for the fact that those on the right get mad at those 1,000 people that guy fired to have his jet for having lost their jobs, they are mad at the employees still there and working jobs like Walmart, Target, McDonalds and the like for not being paid a living wage. People on the right are mad at the people stuck at the bottom rather than saying those at the top should be held mildly accountable. It's like that cartoon where a rich guy, a middle class guy and a low wage worker are all at a table with 100 cookies, the rich guy takes 99 of them, the middle class guy gets 1, and the rich guy points to the poor guy with crumbs and warns the middle class guy that the poor guy wants his cookie... and rather than be mad at the rich guy for taking everything from everyone, the middle class guy (read those on the right, or at least those who vote that way, as those in control know what's going on) gets upset at the poor guy who was left with crumbs. The right are angry at the victim rather than the person doing the crime.

And like Enoch pointed out, it isn't Democrat vs Republican. They are very much the same, especially nowadays. The ideological differences are greatly exaggerated by the media... [And no, there isn't a "liberal media", at least not mainstream. Over 90% of the news is controlled by like 6 companies, none of whom have an interest in making American's aware of just how big the wealth distribution divide is, how fast it's growing, how the income gap is growing at an alarming rate... The fact that if minimum wage kept up with inflation since 1968, it would be over $10.50 by now, and if it kept pace with worker productivity it would be over $21.72 and a bit higher (I can't find the exact figure at the moment, but it was around $24) if it kept pace with executive/CEO pay... but I'm getting way off topic.] The truth is, they are far more alike then the media makes it out to be, especially right wing media. The reason it seems so vast is because that drives ratings, making people angry and distracted. Making mountains out of molehills, keeping people up with the Kardashians, Honey Boo Boo, Miley Cyrus, and other people that don't matter rather than focusing on the stuff that matters... rather than just report the news, they now feed you how to think about it (especially used by those on the right when they go "if you really think about it" then make some logical leap that isn't there, but makes their listeners/viewers think they are being smarter than they are... mainstream media does the same though, so...)

I am ultimately an anarchist. I'd love to see an end to government, but until such point that humanity can grow up, get past the evils of greed, lack of education, lack of empathy, and superstitions, then government is a necessary force to maintain those with greedy motives that want to take advantage of those lacking education, who are superstitious. We need a government of people of empathy who can understand those people, and help those people free themselves of the greedy elite are are pulling way too many strings... sadly they are using government to do so, but that is the thing about democracy, representative or not, we can change the outcome, we can make things better for all, not just a select few.

I get it. I used to be a hardcore Republican. I used to hate the poor, and thought that "teach a man to fish" type stuff, and thought the best way to help them was to kick them in the water and let them sink or swim essentially, some may drown, but many would swim and rise above it all. Then I started to have issues with how the Republican party wanted to control what people did on their own, that wasn't hurting anyone else, and I became a hardcore Libertarian, still belittling the poor (funny as I was poor myself). I stopped watching and defending Fox and Rush and the like, but I held to the Libertarian ideals of free markets being the best solution. Then as I studied God's Word, I started having issues with how the Republican right and Libertarians were sort of contrary to His teachings that I already commented on in my earlier post. At the same time I was learning critical thinking to analyze not just what was said, but who's saying it, and vetting their sources, and I started to see that not only did it conflict with my faith, it conflicted with logic, at least with how man is now... that critical thinking would soon be applied to faith as well, already shaken by the fact that so many people were clearly voting for a party that proclaimed Christianity but was so vastly opposed to the teaching of Christ I had to ask why wasn't God screaming at His people that they were wrong (some liberal Christians would agree that perhaps God was saying something, but making sure the right lost the Presidency, as God is in control, and appoints all leaders, but I was too far off faith by that point). I came to question other aspects of faith, and eventually lost it fully. [I think the Christian Right has been taken over by Christian Reconstructionist who don't admit they are Reconstructionist or even Calvinist, but they clearly are. They try to slightly distance themselves from Rousas John Rushdoony and his ilk, but they are all the same, and they will turn more and more people off Christianity than anything else in this world... save perhaps education and learning to think critically... and ultimately is the true power behind the Tea Party movement... Reconstructionist mixed with a healthy dose of Millennialism...] Anyhow, again getting way off topic, I get it, I was there once myself. I have an old account here on the Sift (I could never resurrect as Hotmail kept losing the password reset requests) where I defended Fox News, where I said something stupid and ignorant about evolution... heck, one look at the old political or religious posts on my blog (personal blog, not a videosift blog) and one would see how far to the right I used to be. I learned though that everyone is closer to one another than the media and politicians and the elite that are pulling the strings would have you believe.

Being unable to vote is not the same thing as being denied the right to vote. Saying a three year old is a suffragist is kind of...well, silly. But it's true based on the idea that she is "denied the right to vote."

Because the definition is so broad, it really means NOTHING at all (As John Stewart said, "When you amplify everything, you hear nothing." The definition as you use it is the same vein.)

Are corporations, declared real people by the supreme court, suffragists. Publix maybe, but not Walmart! (That was facetious, not intended to be sarcastic.)

For example Jigga, we are both poor suffragists because we can't vote--in the Iraqi elections. Poor us, being held back. I don't apply suffragist to reasonable expectations. You should have to be a citizen of the country you vote in. A certain age (Which doesn't imply you should or should not be allowed to pre-register...) A certain mental capacity (Ie., not in a coma. Ie., have the ability to spell capacity and not "compacity," like I apparently cannot do )

I do think tests on intellect make for suffragists. I do think gender and gender identification make for suffragists. I do think religious bias makes for suffragists. I do think being arrested and paying for your time yet being released and unable to vote makes for suffragists.

I don't think this girl in any way shape or form is a suffragist.

Did you just compare fucking people on camera to working at Walmart?

Being a porn star isn't "employment" at all. You cannot even begin to compare Walmart hourly workers to a porn star.

However, I have zero sympathy for Walmart employees who continue to work there despite the supposed questionable employment practices. For every person that quits Walmart, there are 100 people in line waiting for that job. If you are working at or near minimum wage in retail or food service, you might want to reevaluate your life before getting all self-entitled demanding perks.