Wal-Mart's profits threatened by Canadian Union

[Verto]

Minimum wage was not meant to be used to support a family.

[chequita guevara]

Yes it was. Teenagers didn't become an important factor in employment until the 60s with the rise of fast food. Min. wage was established in the 30s, and was explicitely meant to help working families.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There nothing inconsistent! He wants the stuff removed, but it doesn't mean he can't take advantage of government services until then - because HE won't be coercing anyone.

So he is not coercing anyone, but he is supporting the coercive apparatus by taking advatange of state funding. It'd be like someone on welfare for 2 years saying the government should get rid of a welfare. It's a total disconnect from reality. If you really believed the government should not be providing those services (like setting up universities), you should not pay your money to them, because any state university will charge you tuition, even if you are an in state individual. So you are paying them more than simply your tax money.

Basically he is benefiting from something voluntary (going to a university isn't forced on you) that he wants destroyed. How silly is that?

[chequita guevara]

It's not silly from my point of view. We commies believe in taking advantage of the system, but it's not internally consistent with the rigid ethical code of libertarianism.

[Kuciwalker]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Regardless, the "living wage" argument is bogus in a time when there are other means to keep families afloat who are below the poverty line.

BS! Besides, a person shouldn't have to rely on charity to make a living. They ought to be able to pay their own way by their own work. Anyway, I thought you Repugs were opposed to making people dependent on charity, or is it just government assistance you hate?

Government assistance. While some of us, from a personal standpoint, may see charities as detrimental to society in the long run, they are as much a part of personal liberty as anything.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Well, since it is asking for big bucks in exchange for the forest, the only way really is to exploit it. Natural resources and territory are supposed to be public, but in the way they are managed they really are just exploitation spots in the waiting for prospective corporations.

Now how can you say that it's not corporation friendly?

Because everyone has equal opportunity to buy it. It's just, those who pay the most end up getting it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Government assistance. While some of us, from a personal standpoint, may see charities as detrimental to society in the long run, they are as much a part of personal liberty as anything.

Don't give me your liber-tyranny crap. Ned's a typical conservative, and they've been decrying for years the dependency of people on welfare and government assistence. Rather than ensuring that people make enough money on to support themselves, he wants employers to be able pay starvation wages and private charities make up the gap. They always talk about getting people to take care of themselves, but he want to create a class of people permanently dependent on charity who are also working at the same time. That's EVIL!

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Anyway what does this have to do with Wal-Mart since they already pay more than the minimum wage? Hell they even provide health insurance.

In the case of this Canadian store, the employees get no special benefits, and are paid $0.50 above the min. wage.

[DinoDoc]

Strange that a cashier in MS gets a better deal than you Canadians.

[Fake Boris]

OTOH, health insurance is not required in Canada.

[Shi Huangdi]

The Minimum wage is an inappropriate way of helping the poor. By raising the cost of labor, if you have an ineffective minimum wage it encourages unemployment. Other alternatives such as cutting down and payroll and sales taxes and replacing them with more progressive taxes, or government assistance with expenses such as health care are better way of helping the poorest people.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Well, since it is asking for big bucks in exchange for the forest, the only way really is to exploit it. Natural resources and territory are supposed to be public, but in the way they are managed they really are just exploitation spots in the waiting for prospective corporations.

Now how can you say that it's not corporation friendly?

Because everyone has equal opportunity to buy it. It's just, those who pay the most end up getting it.

Therefore, it is corporation friendly, because corporations are those who will be using it for profitable purposes.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Therefore, it is corporation friendly, because corporations are those who will be using it for profitable purposes.

As of course, anything that allows more profit is evil, evil, evil... according to the left. And we are to trust these guys with the US economy?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
By raising the cost of labor, if you have an ineffective minimum wage it encourages unemployment.

While this seems logical on its face, historically it has proben to be untrue. Nearly every raise of the min wage is followed by economic expansion. Putting more money in the hands of the poorest workers raises demand for products, which in turn, raises demand for labor, despite it's increased cost. So while there may be a short term dip in employment, in the medium to long run, the working poor do much better.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Don't give me your liber-tyranny crap.

This is about as juvenile as M$

Grow up, if you're going to attack something at least back it up.

Ned's a typical conservative, and they've been decrying for years the dependency of people on welfare and government assistence. Rather than ensuring that people make enough money on to support themselves, he wants employers to be able pay starvation wages and private charities make up the gap. They always talk about getting people to take care of themselves, but he want to create a class of people permanently dependent on charity who are also working at the same time. That's EVIL!

1) it's not evil, given that there's no coercion involved...

2) he doesn't want people to be dependent on welfare, but he is actively opposed to welfare and minimum-wage laws. In the first case he thinks it's detrimental to society, though he wouldn't actually use coercion (the government) to do anything about it. In the second case, he's trying to prevent coercion by the government, and so he WILL do something about it, vote.