So scam the country to benifit a few billionaires.
That equates to 17.6 billion dollars. So you have arbitrarily decided that 1.3 billion is enough profit for Walmart and that all of its shareholders will gladly sit back and watch as their holdings become worthless? Why? Because low skilled workers have decided they donāt want to do what is necessary to acquire a skill set.
Makes sense to me.
Can I assume you would expect all companies to follow suit, while the stock market basically becomes worthless and all of our 401ks disappear?
Simply because unskilled workers donāt want to acquire the skills they need to earn a decent living?
Really?
I am heavily invested in the stock market with my 401k, as are many millions of Americans. This has nothing to do with benefiting a few billionaires.
Unfortunately this is beginning to turn ugly, as I suspected it would. We are now simply slinging rhetoric instead of having meaningful discussion.
But hey if thatās where you want to take this, Iām as capable of slinging rhetoric as the next man.
It all depends on how much the company is profiting. Min wage is fine if the company is some mom pop rural shop or whatever but a company making billions in profits while sucking up billion in government reasources should not exist.
1 Like
You know that is where we are headed with this conversation. Compensation has nothing to do with ones skill set. It must be based on some loosely defined living wage, whatever that even means.
So who gets to decide how much profit a company is entitled to? What about all of the stockholders holding shares in that company?
10 billion of those profits go to a single family 
What happens to America if every company follows Walmarts lead on this?
It is not sustainable.
If a company is not profitable why should it exist?
Other companies that are not sucking up billions in government reasources can take Walmarts place.
Why is this an issue? Donāt cons hate welfare and gov spending?
When the rich write the lawsā¦it is no surprise, the laws favor the rich.
Now, how the rich have convinced the poor, or almost poor to vote for themā¦is truly remarkable.
As of now, they are winning the religion and race culture wars.
Actually Iām just asking you for clarification because you have resorted to reciting rhetoric.
Itās not rhetoric, do you acknowledge that Walmarts business model is unsustainable if it spreads to other companies?
Youāve lost me. I asked a simple question. Who gets to decide how much profit a company is entitled to?
What does that have to do with your question? But in answer to your question, a nonprofitable company canāt survive for very long.
What ārhetoricā are you talking about?
I responded to Eagleās post. Apparently that has upset you.
Seriously?
Certainly you must understand that isnāt even remotely possible. That you would even ask such a question leads me to believe that you really didnāt read @RTchoke second article after all.
1 Like
So compensation should be commensurate with the number of children a person has so long as they can afford it? What if this part time employee decides to have another four kids? What if many of their other part time employees decide to many more children?
No one should be able too.
Walmart costs the government billions in resources each year. It is a parasite on america.
So then we are in agreement that no one should be able to tell a company how much profit they can make?
The underlying theme in this thread and in the earlier thread is that you donāt much like Walmart. Iām kind of curious if you shop there?
The US should tell them that they will no longer subsidize their employees and then they can try to make how much profits as they make.
I only go there to get them to price match pricing errors because Iād feel bad ripping off other stores.
I got a 800$ tv for 199 that I would feel guilty doing at other stores
