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.

The top 85 people in the world own as much as the poorest half.

3.5 billion people...

Minimum wage needs to go way up, unions need better regulation to help them and give them government backing and the rich need to start paying their share.

A billionaire has no appreciable increase in happiness or well-being if his income doubles. To people on the bottom end of the economic spectrum even a 25% increase in their income makes a huge difference.

Why should we let insanely rich people hoard more money when they don't even know what to do with the money they already have? Many studies have shown that even the ultra-rich live better lives when there is greater income equality in a society.

Wow, so many of these people are so far out of touch with reality.
It's not a choice to work at Wall Mart - It's a last resort. If people had other options, they wouldn't be there. Few people chose to live in poverty

And Who cares about the cheap prices that Wal Mart is able to give. It's self serving. The largest employer keeps it's employees poor so they have no choice but to shop at their own store, which in turn just gives their wages back to employers. Sure other people reap the benefits of some cheap stuff, but let's stay real. It's cheap because the quality is often lowered to meet the competitive contracts targeted for manufacturers to be able to be Walmart's choice product. Nothing bought at WalMart lasts more than a year or two, you always end up re-buying it. So where is the cheap affordability now?

And while Wall Mart works hard to choke out the competition so they can raise their prices on certain products, their merchandising does the same thing. They only target certain manufacturers and give then the lion's share of the merchandising space on their shelves. Selection at Wal Mart is Slim. They are great at choosing your brands for you. The companies that play ball with WalMart. I have better selection on items at non department stores. Case in point Groceries. They have great prices on certain grocery items, but I don't have any choice on the brands I'm buying. And sooner or later, I'll still need to go to the grocery store, because WalMart just can't give me what I need to stock my kitchen with the basics. My Wall Mart doesn't even sell large bags of sugar.

AND.... This is why I don't shop at Walmart. Even on Consumer holidays like black friday. The choice doesn't exist with the workers looking for jobs. The choice exists for us as consumers where we decide to spend our money. Change will happen in the wage distribution when we decide to not shop at supercenters like Walmart or Target. I am willing to admit that the decision that I have made to not shop there hasn't been easy and has cost me some extra money (5% more overall) over the last decade, but I have the confidence that I am doing a miniscule part to change how things are.

@bobknight33
cognitive dissonance+circular logic=your comment

you state its all the governments fault.
you give an example of massive amounts of "aid"

care to clarify that position?

because i actually agree with you but i suspect it is for different reasons.

when we look at government subsidies (welfare/aid),the largest recipient by far is american corporations.we even subsidize CEO pay,not to mention subsidizing their slave wage work force.

so can you tell me who the TRUE welfare queens are?

and did you just equate our government and its corporate socialism to being "kind,nice and trying to do the right thing"?
and that somehow this government altruism is bad for capitalism?

seriously?

it wouldnt happen to have anything to do with the army of corporate lobbyists that stampede congress/senate and the judiciary now would it?

all with their hands out.looking for some tasty welfare.

noooooooo...corporations are GOOD for the economy!
they are the "job creators" (like wall mart) and all that extra profit will rain down upon us common folk like mana from heaven.

here is how our current system plays out:
socialism for the rich.
capitalism for the poor.

we dont have capitalism.
our government is bought.
they no longer work for you,nor me.we have become irrelevant.

capitalism.
sounds like a great system.
we should try it sometime.

Who'ses reality would be my first question, out of touch with 'WHO's' reality? Everyone has a 'choice' sir, and working at Walmart is FAR from any last resort-Don't know how or why anyone would desire to to deconstruct your skewed line of non-reasoning and retarded polemic...Suffice it to say that you have many other folks who are as developmentally-disabled as yourself with such horseshit thinking that at least you won't be lonely or have to enjoy your mind fucking itself in solitude.

Cheap prices they are able to "give?" Fuck that sorry noise. Walmart giveth unto itself and the machine that created it. So you understand the degree to which you are being ass-fucked and you are satisfied with that? No wonder the United States and the world is in such a de-evolving state...

...sounds kinda like the company store in a coal mining town.

http://youtu.be/GQkc0178qJc

@chingalera
ill take a crack at that deconstruction.
@Sagemind was basically prefacing the fact that the few remaining jobs are low paying crap jobs,like walmart for instance.

but you are correct that it is NOT a job of last resort.
you dont HAVE to apply at walmart.
nobody is FORCING you to work for slave wages.

you could always suck a dick.
handjobs in the local gas station bathroom for a quick buck.
sell plasma,blood,semen.
sell a kidney.
sell drugs..but not weed..might as well work at walmart.

you could always sell your integrity.
i hear wall street is a good place for that,but they require your soul as well.
how about insurance fraud?
reverse mortgages? fuck those old people..they gonna die anyways.

ya gotta eat,so ya do what ya gotta do.

who am i kidding?
while i would never work at walmart nor any corporation,some people have to do what they have to do.
and sometimes its a short list and working at walmart is the trade off for them.

guess they dont like dick.

so im with @Sagemind or is my skewed line of non-reasoning still a retarded polemic?

because at the end of the day who are we to judge anybody for their choices?

The point of view that Sanders is taking is that corporations are paying so little that the workers have no choice but to take welfare.

I say that if there was no welfare ( well not as much as there is today) then corporations like Walmart would have to pay more. Otherwise people would not even apply.

For every dollar the government hands out in welfare, the corporations have to give a dollar more to make working for them worthwhile.

Minimum wage is not to be a living wage but an entry level wage where one can better oneself and then one would have standing to ask for a higher wage.

As far as big ass tax breaks for the big corporations I say F to that.

I agree that corps have corrupted government to favor them. Capitalism without morality is we are today.


Capitalism is the best system. We all practice capitalism every day with our purchasing dollars. We look for the best value for the good and services we desire.

If there was no welfare of any sort, people would still have to apply at Walmart. People with stomachs to be filled far outnumber jobs that generate an income. And while the population is increasing, the number of jobs -- in the long run -- is actually decreasing.

It was always clear that automation would greatly reduce the number of jobs in manufacturing and agriculture, first and foremost. Given that the latest burst in technology is represented by Google, Apple, FB and Amazon, I'd say the hope of generating jobs through new areas of technology fell flat on its arse -- those four giants are worth a combined $1T, yet employ only 150k, or half as many as GE.

tl;dr

#people >> #jobs, exacerbated by robots/automation and politically suppressed aggregate demand

--------------------------

As for minimum wage being entry level wage: that's the idea, but given the age structure of fast food workers and the number of them who worked the job for years and years, it is merely theoretical in nature. Many people are stuck in it, others are floating in and out of employment at minimum wage level. Asking for a higher wage becomes a futile exercise as long as there's an army of willing replacements on the market. Some corporations try to minimize turn-over by paying above-average wages (Costco, Aldi), but the vast majority engage in a race to the bottom.

If you ask me, all of us deserve food in our stomachs, a roof over our heads. And health insure, while we're at it. The establishment over here used to call it the "revolution tax", because it allows people to retain some level of dignity and prevents them from chopping everyone's heads off with a guillotine. I prefer a considerably more expansive definition of human dignity, but I'm just one of those dirty socialists, so...

@bobknight33 it seems your viewpoint rests on the fact that minimum wage should be an "entry level wage where one can better oneself [..] to ask for a higher wage."

At least in my country, a lot of the time the vast majority of jobs vacancies are in places that deal with minimum wage - fast food, supermarkets, that kind of thing - because they usually deal with the "basics" that people can't do without. Hence basic, menial and minimum wage for minimum stress at work.

The people who are in better jobs over here have seen a lot of similarly positioned people get sacked so they know they've got to keep hold of their job. Everyone's been cutting back, there's less jobs, and those jobs are tightly held by people with better experience. And then, when better jobs become available, you have lots and lots of low experienced workers applying alongside a select few who used to work - who's more likely to get the job?

Finer points aside, i'd love everyone in the thread to agree that there are a whole bunch of people spending a whole lot of money at walmart - and every other scary-large company. If that money is not cycling around between people then it's stagnating somewhere and doing nobody any good.

Take soccer here in england for example. Soccer players are paid something like £20 000 per week at every top team. A lot of them are actually between £40 000 and £120 000 per week but let's talk approximate. Now look, we should all be able to see that a person couldn't possibly hope to spend that much money. If you want to go to a match, let's call it £40, 60 000 people are giving £40 to go and watch, so that's £2 400 000 and let's say it all goes on wages. Well what's happening is this entire wad of cash is ending up sitting in a bank account somewhere, because this guy can't physically go out and redistribute this cash, spending his money in the normal way and keeping the economy moving and the money spreading.

It's not just footballers and i'm sure we can agree to some extent that this can be seen in a lot of places - a select few are in positions allowing them to amass huge fortunes they can't possibly use.

"Trickle-down" has not worked, it isn't trickling anywhere, they've got the cracks sealed up. Maybe we should be thinking about "trickle up" - if cost us less to watch a soccer match, metaphorically speaking (as in cheaper bills, higher wages, less stagnation at the top), maybe people might feel less stressed, less scared, more generous, more free, the world might be a better place so that services would be better, people would be more dedicated at their job to improve because they stand to earn more, less stress less violence, more money less crime, etc. Is there something to that perhaps?

The problem is it's hard to interject whilst it's all ongoing and say "you're taking this cut, you're taking this cut, all this money is going here, just trust us the world will be a better place." It's not fair to suddenly tell people what they do is only worth half of what it was yesterday. But between the top and the bottom what you have is a rich billionaire smoking a cigar whilst some child in the poorest neighbourhood is sat in 5th-hand-me-downs on a filthy carpet listening to his mother selling her body? That's a guess, i don't know how to best represent poverty, but take any example you like. If the rich person was stood directly next to the baby he'd probably feel outraged and help, but there's a lot of smoke and mirrors that stand between him helping every baby that is every born in the future, because warlmart suddenly can afford to double their lowest wages by halving some of their highest.

To conclude - i don't think minimum wage is as you suggest.

Basically, anytime big gov't gets involved in anything, prices go up. Examples are everywhere. Doctors used to come to people's homes, then gov't got involved.

How about we dis-empower gov't?

If you think the gov't, by raising the minimum wage, will allow people to be wealthier, you are as naive as all the socialist academics who teach the crap you read on these boards.

I don't get the Right's logic on stuff like this... More and more wealth is moving to the top few percent, and more and more of the earnable wages are moving to the top few percent. Walmart for example could easily afford to pay every employee something like $2-3 more an hour, give benefits and hire more people so their stores are properly staffed and still make a profit. And they get upset at the people working there needing help... "oh it's the government's fault for giving them aid letting the company do that"... What?! The company made a choice, and they blame the government actions for it... it's like when they blame moving jobs overseas on the government instead of the rich guy who decided that it is in his own greedy personal self interest to send the jobs there rather than pay Americans. Or its like that cartoon where a rich man, a middle class man and a working class person are all at a table with 100 cookies and the rich guy takes 99 of them, the middle class guy gets 1 and the working class guy has crumbs, then the rich guy warns the middle class guy "better watch out, he wants your cookie" and they fall for it, they get mad at that guy rather than the guy who took 99 cookies for himself...

They get upset at wanting to keep minimum wage in pace with inflation, something that happens in most countries. They get upset at the idea of the cost to business to do so, but somehow businesses do it all around the world... heck, when we were thinking of moving to New Zealand and a few other places we discovered that most countries force employers to give paid vacation time, not just a bonus that some/most employers offer after 1 or 2 years of service if they want. Almost every country forces employers to offer paid maternity leave, and paid holidays... American businesses have it easy compared to most countries, one could possibly argue they have an unfair advantage compared to the rest of the world. And it's not like those businesses outside the US don't make a killing, as in those countries the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, so that isn't a unique US trait.

They claim that only like 4% of the workforce get paid minimum, but ignore the fact that figure doesn't account for the fact that if minimum kept pace with inflation, that is the actual cost of living, then it would be over $10 something right now, which means everyone making less than that is below minimum... that guy working at Walmart, Target, McDonalds or whatever for $9, yes, they may be "above minimum" but if you account for the actual cost of living they are below it...which means that person making $12, while they are well above minimum isn't that far above it. Stretching it further, if minimum kept pace with worker productivity, and nobody is suggesting it should, it would be over $17, so the companies are getting great value out of their workers, and still would be even if minimum wage kept pace with inflation. That doesn't even account for where it would be if it kept pace with CEO/Executive pay of over $22...

And yes, Walmart is near the bottom of the rung in jobs, no matter what the right may say about them having a choice... Nobody grows up wanting to work at Walmart, McDonalds and the like. Most people working at those sort of jobs work them because that was the best job they can get, and after a while, you gain "job security" as well as you can call it that, which makes it harder for them to move on, up and out, taking a risk that some rich guy might ship their jobs overseas so he can take more for himself while screwing over his workers and the American public. So they get stuck, because it's the best option that they have, especially in a country that is so far lopsided in favor of the business over the workers... in one of the few countries that doesn't guarantee health insurance for everyone, that took a Republican created plan that makes people buy health insurance from for profit insurance companies (which if I recall correctly was one of the top 3 most profitable businesses in the US per dollar earned, with banks at number one, and pharmasutcal companies), and made it the law of the land, while those same Republicans, many who co-sponsored the legislation when Republicans tried to pass it at the federal level, now oppose their own creation... because apparently the changes that the left made to the bill (not being able to deny people for pre-existing conditions and not being able to charge them extra, and moving to comprehensive coverage rather than just catastrophic coverage, so two things that mean insurance companies have to pay out more for) are bad.

For enoch-Uhhh, at the end of the day, who are we to judge, period? My gentle chiding of Sagemind was more was more of an atomic bomb indictment of his take on 'reality' ( a personal construct ), the loaded use of language to parrot a framework for a way of thinking whereby so-called intelligent peeps give power away rather than embracing it, and my own coluratura-filled vitriolic on the overall tone and timbre easily recognized by anyone who doesn't think too hard about how they are being ass-fucked daily by shit-think.

Your own reductio ad absurdum with the dick-sucking options available to hard-working individuals well, I can appreciate your coming to the defense of a wayward soul but....Maybe the smarter and more fastidious folks in the herd should get more creative with such actions suggested later like tax fraud or even homicide if they want to see some tangible changes to digression of systems they so fervently defend.

@chingalera
/chuckles
oh i know man.

my comment was with tongue firmly planted in cheek but my basic point remains the same.

some people have to make concessions in order to survive in this fucked up system.
maybe they have children.
maybe they are married with an asston of debt hanging over their heads.

i am an anarchist.
so i have arranged my life in a way where my participation in this zombie system is shaved to a bare minimum but i also have to recognize that some people do not have that luxury.since i am not living their lives i refuse to judge them.

just look at the comments here.
your assertion of an imagined polemic plays out in this thread,quite conveniently making your point.

we have @bobknight33 posting the heritage foundations position almost verbatim (thanks for responding bob,i like when you participate.sincerely),in regards to capitalism.

then we have @Sagemind posting a more "left" leaning comment.

and then we have the always ironic @lantern53 bemoaning the ills of government.yet his salary is provided by taxpayers,and hence the very government he is deriding.he is such a closet socialist.(loooove you lantern../hugs).

yet all these positions have validity.

the governments role should be criticized and examined.
corporations should be exposed for their undue influence.

this is not a simple issue and it is where i think you and i totally agree.
i too get frustrated when people talk about this subject in a binary way.
it is NOT just a black/white,good/evil,right/left matter.

and when people engage in this form of perception they also tend to demonize the "other" side.
so if someone posits an opinion that happens to be contrarian to ones views,they are automatically dismissed as "wrong" and anything they have to say is discarded as being stupid,ill-thought or just plain downright wrong.

this is the fundamental flaw in this binary thinking.
and it is not by accident but rather by design.

divide and conquer.

in the developed western world we have 30 choices for toilet paper but when it comes to things that TRULY matter?
we get two.

so the true elite and powerful of this country pick their prized horse and offer up to us,the american public,a choice of TWO rich fuckers.
would you like democrat?
or republican?

doesnt really matter who you choose because either one is going to serve their masters.
who of course are wall street and corporate america.
not you or i.

we are fed a constant stream of populist bullshit that gives the appearance of solidarity and nationalism but in reality serves only the corporate masters in fleecing the american people of more and more of their own hard earned:money,rights,liberties and ultimately our independence.

the problems with un-fettered capitalism are well known and well understood.
just as the problems with socialism are well known.

it is the SYSTEM that needs to be challenged and questioned,examined and ultimately discarded if we find it lacking.

and i find it lacking.
morally,socially and financially.

it is time we kill the beast.
because it is feeding on itself and putting us ALL at risk.

bah..you fucker.got me ranting.

let me conclude with this:
i find all structures of power and authority to be illegitimate until proven otherwise.
i find the system of plutocracy currently in place to be illegitimate.
it serves only the upper eschelon and commodifies the poor.
the poor have become fodder for the military industrial complex as well as the private prison system.
the working poor have become cogs in a machine that is slowly crushing them under the weight of the hubris of those who feel entitled to their fortunes and that somehow they are more deserving then their fellow man.

the beast is sick with its own arrogance and needs to be put down.
the only recourse us normal folk have is to stop feeding the beast.

if only 5% stopped going to work and took to the streets you will see a very frightened beast begging us all to the negotiating table.

thats my 2 cents anyways.

<< Well thank (G)god and quantum theory and the high-priestesses of non-linearity (Hail Eris) for assisting the few brave and hapless souls in the quest watcher-man, I'd imagined in the most heated of moments to be dealing with creatures that looked like humans who were in fact, mindless automaton designed to make my experience on Earth a living hell of sorts...That said, if everyone shopped at Walmart the few times a year I go in there and spend less than $20 bucks atta time, every one of their locations would be a black hole of unused square footage slated for demolition and re-acquisition. They'd make for some great multi-lane bowling alleys, skating rinks, or homeless shelters-

*sigh* No, what would happen is exactly what Wal-Mart does . . . They'd threaten to move. They'll strong arm governments, which is what they ALREADY do, warning they'll destroy them if they don't play ball.

For instance, Wally World has 5 stores in 5 small towns. Town A complains they're having to compensate the workers too much, so Wally World just leaves. Wally World has already undercut and destroyed the local economy with their "low prices" and "capitalism" (they are not far from that) so by leaving, they take away the rest of the town.

Now, the other 4 towns get word that Wal-Mart is going to build a Super Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart will pick one town to build in, and close their stores in the other 3. So now they face death, or playing by Wal-Marts rules.

And on top of that, all these workers have no where else to get jobs because Wal-Mart killed off their competition through unfair pricing schemes (by lowering prices below cost and taking a loss knowing their other stores will compensate). So now these workers have no where else to make money . . . except stealing, dealing drugs or turning to prostitution. But you're absolutely right, they should have sought these other choices.

Or maybe they should have gone to school at one of those privatized places . . . or gotten a eduction by the standards that most Republicans think is scientifically creationist "has a whole way of shutting that down" and let's eliminate all Atheists from our history books schools.

So I agree, you're absolutely right there. 100%…..

Oh yes and sincere thanks you enoch, for keeping my rage against the machines created by a broken society in-check'n perspective-I am continually reminded by those close to me who can't stand my robotic reactions to bullshit, of the same dynamic. I can play nice when I chose to, but relish in every opportunity to hijack myself.