First Prev
of 3
Next Last
shoop

Dahlonega, GA

#1 Sep 5, 2013
Was there an employee walkout at the Blairsville store?
union co res

Jefferson, GA

#2 Sep 5, 2013
shoop wrote:
Was there an employee walkout at the Blairsville store?
yes everything was free got 3 tv cell phones and food.
well

Dahlonega, GA

#3 Sep 5, 2013
I guess now they will only have 1 checkout open instead of the usual 3.
Just Mike

Toccoa, GA

#4 Sep 5, 2013
Not just Walmart... what about the rebellious McD's workers demanding $15/hour cross country? The Walmart employees are demanding "full time" status and $25k/year,+ benefits.

My thinking is that a person is "worth what they can get". The exceptions to this rule are compensations dictated by the government AND those that are extorted by unions.
gamule

Jefferson, GA

#5 Sep 5, 2013
people use to fight for jobs in this country now most just sit around an wait for the government to feed them wonder if they know what it will cost them in the long run
froggy

Ashburn, VA

#6 Sep 5, 2013
Just Mike wrote:
Not just Walmart... what about the rebellious McD's workers demanding $15/hour cross country? The Walmart employees are demanding "full time" status and $25k/year,+ benefits.
My thinking is that a person is "worth what they can get". The exceptions to this rule are compensations dictated by the government AND those that are extorted by unions.
The US government subsidizes Wal-Mart because they pay slave wages and no benefits so you as the taxpayer pick up the slack in food stamps and Medicaid for their workers. Same with McDonald's. Do these corporations need us to support them? If workers are paid a living wage they then have no need for welfare and then have the money to grow the economy thru spending.
Lillypad

Dahlonega, GA

#7 Sep 6, 2013
froggy wrote:
<quoted text>The US government subsidizes Wal-Mart because they pay slave wages and no benefits so you as the taxpayer pick up the slack in food stamps and Medicaid for their workers. Same with McDonald's. Do these corporations need us to support them? If workers are paid a living wage they then have no need for welfare and then have the money to grow the economy thru spending.
This is very true. The US Tax Payers picks up the slack of Companies that pay low wages.
find out

Blairsville, GA

#8 Sep 6, 2013
froggy wrote:
<quoted text>The US government subsidizes Wal-Mart because they pay slave wages and no benefits so you as the taxpayer pick up the slack in food stamps and Medicaid for their workers. Same with McDonald's. Do these corporations need us to support them? If workers are paid a living wage they then have no need for welfare and then have the money to grow the economy thru spending.
Find out if the White House Interns, who do not get paid, get welfare. Find out if the unions that hire people for a few dollars an hour to stand on corners with signs get welfare. Find out if Washington, DC, who calls for Wal-mart to pay a "living wage" have a "living wage" for all its employees.
Just Mike

Clarkesville, GA

#9 Sep 6, 2013
froggy wrote:
<quoted text>The US government subsidizes Wal-Mart because they pay slave wages and no benefits so you as the taxpayer pick up the slack in food stamps and Medicaid for their workers. Same with McDonald's. Do these corporations need us to support them? If workers are paid a living wage they then have no need for welfare and then have the money to grow the economy thru spending.
I understand what you are saying... but I disagree with your conclusion. I liken your argument to FAILED Reagonomics... put more money into the pockets of wealthy (tax cuts) or, in this case the working poor (via mandatory minimum wages) and "the economy will boom for us all". Most Americans don't "buy" this theory any longer.

What is the "message" sent to BUSINESSES, who SHOULD be the drivers of our economy? Telling them that IF they become TOO successful, then Govt will step in and "regulate" their profitability? That would be catastrophic on so many levels!

Neither company "enslaves" its workers... they KNOW the "deal" when they apply for the job. It is simple law of supply and demand that SHOULD dictate wages. No "in-demand" skills that will get a person higher wages, then they will become "cheap" labor... that's the way it is. Do such people get to own smart-phones and have satellite TV? No!!

Perhaps our govt could focus on the food stamps, welfare and other freebies they provide to the working poor? Sure... provide the help, just NOT for nuthin'. Start up the CCC or other work programs, and subsidized skills programs... force "welfare lifers" to tow the line and EARN that money. Reform the Disability HANDOUT program and get people off their butts!!

NEARLY EVERYBODY can make a contribution to society in SOME way. Our current "entitlements" programs provide no real incentive (or opportunity) to recipients to become more valuable. Don't blame big business for ALL of this.
froggy

Ashburn, VA

#10 Sep 6, 2013
find out wrote:
<quoted text>
Find out if the White House Interns, who do not get paid, get welfare. Find out if the unions that hire people for a few dollars an hour to stand on corners with signs get welfare. Find out if Washington, DC, who calls for Wal-mart to pay a "living wage" have a "living wage" for all its employees.
Use common sense....if people have no money for the basics they have no money to spend on consumer goods which is what drives our economy. The rest of your argument is irrelevant.
froggy

Ashburn, VA

#11 Sep 6, 2013
Just Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand what you are saying... but I disagree with your conclusion. I liken your argument to FAILED Reagonomics... put more money into the pockets of wealthy (tax cuts) or, in this case the working poor (via mandatory minimum wages) and "the economy will boom for us all". Most Americans don't "buy" this theory any longer.
What is the "message" sent to BUSINESSES, who SHOULD be the drivers of our economy? Telling them that IF they become TOO successful, then Govt will step in and "regulate" their profitability? That would be catastrophic on so many levels!
Neither company "enslaves" its workers... they KNOW the "deal" when they apply for the job. It is simple law of supply and demand that SHOULD dictate wages. No "in-demand" skills that will get a person higher wages, then they will become "cheap" labor... that's the way it is. Do such people get to own smart-phones and have satellite TV? No!!
Perhaps our govt could focus on the food stamps, welfare and other freebies they provide to the working poor? Sure... provide the help, just NOT for nuthin'. Start up the CCC or other work programs, and subsidized skills programs... force "welfare lifers" to tow the line and EARN that money. Reform the Disability HANDOUT program and get people off their butts!!
NEARLY EVERYBODY can make a contribution to society in SOME way. Our current "entitlements" programs provide no real incentive (or opportunity) to recipients to become more valuable. Don't blame big business for ALL of this.
These corporations are not just raking in profits...they raking in obscene profits at a cost to all taxpayers. We support their employees, they not profit they shirk the amount of taxes they should pay..so we are being screwed twice. Does' t seem right to me.
Just Asking Questions

Blairsville, GA

#12 Sep 6, 2013
froggy wrote:
<quoted text>These corporations are not just raking in profits...they raking in obscene profits at a cost to all taxpayers. We support their employees, they not profit they shirk the amount of taxes they should pay..so we are being screwed twice. Does' t seem right to me.
Do they deserve whatever profits they can when they, evidently, are providing a service to many, many customers? Customers can vote with their feet. Look at Soros. Look at what Bill Clinton gets for a speech. Look at what Al Gore gets fro a speech. You talk about obscene profits!! It's not failed Reagonomics. Reagonomics has never failed. The opposite, the welfare state has never created prosperity.
froggy

Ashburn, VA

#13 Sep 6, 2013
Just Asking Questions wrote:
<quoted text>
Do they deserve whatever profits they can when they, evidently, are providing a service to many, many customers? Customers can vote with their feet. Look at Soros. Look at what Bill Clinton gets for a speech. Look at what Al Gore gets fro a speech. You talk about obscene profits!! It's not failed Reagonomics. Reagonomics has never failed. The opposite, the welfare state has never created prosperity.
You create a welfare state when the corporations shove off basic needs like health care and food costs to the government. Wal-Mart and McDonald's are examples of two large recipients of corporate welfare. Why is it okay for corporations? Pay the people a living wage and they can provide for their own needs.
Just Mike

Clarkesville, GA

#14 Sep 6, 2013
froggy wrote:
<quoted text>These corporations are not just raking in profits...they raking in obscene profits at a cost to all taxpayers. We support their employees, they not profit they shirk the amount of taxes they should pay..so we are being screwed twice. Does' t seem right to me.
But... ask yourself WHY they are so successful in the first place. You (and everybody) KNOW the answer... because they are the least expensive, will most always take something back without a hassle and, to a large extent are a one stop shop. They figured out how to do "what they do" better than their competition.

Did they decimate a lot of "good people" small guys- yes. Do they pay crappy wages and avoid full time hiring- yes. Will people pay more for their goods if they pay employees more... oh c'mon- you know shoppers want to pay the LEAST they can for most everything. They will either go elsewhere or just buy online.

Hey... at least Wally and Mickey have played "by the rules" and live or die by the consumer's will. Can you say the same about Big Oil or defense contractors? What about BRMEMC type monopolies that increase whatever they want regardless of the needs of their customers or their own mismanagement?

I think it is just UNFAIR to penalize successful companies that have essentially played by the rules. Every one of us that shops there condones what they are doing... don't say there aren't other choices. Consumers piss and moan... but they WANT what is offered by these companies.

Let the MARKET decide their fate... NOT our government!
Just Asking Questions

Blairsville, GA

#15 Sep 6, 2013
Just Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
But... ask yourself WHY they are so successful in the first place. You (and everybody) KNOW the answer... because they are the least expensive, will most always take something back without a hassle and, to a large extent are a one stop shop. They figured out how to do "what they do" better than their competition.
Did they decimate a lot of "good people" small guys- yes. Do they pay crappy wages and avoid full time hiring- yes. Will people pay more for their goods if they pay employees more... oh c'mon- you know shoppers want to pay the LEAST they can for most everything. They will either go elsewhere or just buy online.
Hey... at least Wally and Mickey have played "by the rules" and live or die by the consumer's will. Can you say the same about Big Oil or defense contractors? What about BRMEMC type monopolies that increase whatever they want regardless of the needs of their customers or their own mismanagement?
I think it is just UNFAIR to penalize successful companies that have essentially played by the rules. Every one of us that shops there condones what they are doing... don't say there aren't other choices. Consumers piss and moan... but they WANT what is offered by these companies.
Let the MARKET decide their fate... NOT our government!
Well said. Companies like Walmart have lowered the cost of living for millions of people, especially those in the rural areas that have been forever taking advantage of by local merchants. Overall, the Walmart effect has been beneficial to consumers and their standard of living.
froggy

Ashburn, VA

#16 Sep 6, 2013
Just Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
But... ask yourself WHY they are so successful in the first place. You (and everybody) KNOW the answer... because they are the least expensive, will most always take something back without a hassle and, to a large extent are a one stop shop. They figured out how to do "what they do" better than their competition.
Did they decimate a lot of "good people" small guys- yes. Do they pay crappy wages and avoid full time hiring- yes. Will people pay more for their goods if they pay employees more... oh c'mon- you know shoppers want to pay the LEAST they can for most everything. They will either go elsewhere or just buy online.
Hey... at least Wally and Mickey have played "by the rules" and live or die by the consumer's will. Can you say the same about Big Oil or defense contractors? What about BRMEMC type monopolies that increase whatever they want regardless of the needs of their customers or their own mismanagement?
I think it is just UNFAIR to penalize successful companies that have essentially played by the rules. Every one of us that shops there condones what they are doing... don't say there aren't other choices. Consumers piss and moan... but they WANT what is offered by these companies.
Let the MARKET decide their fate... NOT our government!
So it's
OK with you that you are subsidizing their profits with your tax money?
Not much difference that I can see between them and other welfare queens. And I include big oil and defense contractors. They work the system and take home the cash and you pay one way or another.
froggy

Ashburn, VA

#17 Sep 6, 2013
Just Asking Questions wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said. Companies like Walmart have lowered the cost of living for millions of people, especially those in the rural areas that have been forever taking advantage of by local merchants. Overall, the Walmart effect has been beneficial to consumers and their standard of living.
You try living on the minimum wage and support a family. At least these folks are trying to earn an honest living. Contrary to corporate propaganda most minimum wage earners are not teenagers but adult head of households.
Bitter Clinger

Dahlonega, GA

#18 Sep 6, 2013
froggy wrote:
<quoted text>You try living on the minimum wage and support a family. At least these folks are trying to earn an honest living. Contrary to corporate propaganda most minimum wage earners are not teenagers but adult head of households.
Why don't they find better paying jobs? Lack of skills? What were they doing when they were teenagers, the time when other people gained skills.
answer

Dahlonega, GA

#19 Sep 6, 2013
Maybe because the economy is bad and employers are not hiring? That ever occur to you?
Bitter Clinger wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't they find better paying jobs? Lack of skills? What were they doing when they were teenagers, the time when other people gained skills.
Informed Opinion

Fort Myers, FL

#20 Sep 6, 2013
Just Mike wrote:
<quoted text>I understand what you are saying... but I disagree with your conclusion. I liken your argument to FAILED Reagonomics... put more money into the pockets of wealthy (tax cuts) or, in this case the working poor (via mandatory minimum wages) and "the economy will boom for us all". Most Americans don't "buy" this theory any longer.

What is the "message" sent to BUSINESSES, who SHOULD be the drivers of our economy? Telling them that IF they become TOO successful, then Govt will step in and "regulate" their profitability? That would be catastrophic on so many levels!

Neither company "enslaves" its workers... they KNOW the "deal" when they apply for the job. It is simple law of supply and demand that SHOULD dictate wages. No "in-demand" skills that will get a person higher wages, then they will become "cheap" labor... that's the way it is. Do such people get to own smart-phones and have satellite TV? No!!

Perhaps our govt could focus on the food stamps, welfare and other freebies they provide to the working poor? Sure... provide the help, just NOT for nuthin'. Start up the CCC or other work programs, and subsidized skills programs... force "welfare lifers" to tow the line and EARN that money. Reform the Disability HANDOUT program and get people off their butts!!

NEARLY EVERYBODY can make a contribution to society in SOME way. Our current "entitlements" programs provide no real incentive (or opportunity) to recipients to become more valuable. Don't blame big business for ALL of this.
Big Business's legitimate goal is to create a "serf" class that will provide ever cheaper labor to cause ever larger profits.

That's great - unless your the Serf - which, statistically, you will be.

America: What Went Wrong? is a solid indictment of how the rulemakers in Washington and the dealmakers on Wall Street have changed the rules of the game to favor the privileged, the powerful, and the influential — at the expense of everyone else.

A great book written by Donald Bartlett and James Steele about the destruction of the Middle Class and the creation of a two tier America (the haves and the have nots).

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Blairsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
EMC Makes Channel 2 news (Apr '14) 2 hr Rapala 237
Crazy Floridiots 4 hr Truth 10
Floridiot Obama supporters disrespecting disabl... 4 hr Timmys Friend 1
Walmart Walk-in Clinic (Jan '11) 6 hr trail90 21
Beware of Invasive non native species destroyin... 8 hr Another day in th... 13
Sheriff Sexual Harassment Thu Truth 5
EMC info from Hiawassee Forum Thu Emcfed up 46
Local MD in jail? Apr 22 Question on Healt... 94
More from around the web

Blairsville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]