Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditApparently, Wal-Mart's defenders are still shamelessly willing to play the racism card in order to slander the company's critics. For years, as I've written before, the company has cast itself as the savior of the downtrodden black residents of inner cities, portraying labor and community opponents as racist white people -- never mind that so much of the opposition to big box development in inner cities comes from people of color who feel that their communities deserve better than Wal-Mart, real economic development that includes decently-paying jobs. Wal-Mart's line of argument -- which was always sleazy and mendacious -- recently reached a new level of ugliness. Andrew Young -- civil rights activist turned corporate tool -- then-spokesperson for the laughably-named Working Families for Wal-Mart (this, of course, is a "grass roots" organization, borne out of the organic love that the American people have for their favorite discount store, not a creation of Bentonville or a high-priced PR firm), waxed a bit racist last month when asked about Wal-Mart's tendency to shutter a community's small businesses:
But you see, those are the people who have been overcharging us selling us stale bread and bad meat and wilted vegetables. And they sold out and moved to Florida. I think they've ripped off our communities enough. First it was Jews, then it was Koreans and now it's Arabs; very few black people own these stores.
Oops! Foot in mouth, Too-Candid-Andy had to resign, and Wal-Mart hastened to distance itself from the very attitudes it usually tries so hard to exploit. You'd think these creeps would want to avoid this racism topic for a while. But race-baiting is almost compulsive among Wal-Mart's defenders, so eager are they to use the issue to divide the progressive opposition. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who this week, as my colleague Sam Graham-Felsen has written, vetoed an ordinance which would require big-box stores in Chicago to pay a living wage, joined this unfortunate chorus yesterday by absurdly implying that advocates of the ordinance were motivated by a desire to deprive black communities of jobs. He said: "Only in the West Side. Only in the South Side. ... At the same time it was all right for the North and Southwest Side to get the big boxes before this. It was all right. No one said anything. But all of a sudden we talk about economic development in the black community--there's something wrong there." In fact, Chicago's living wage ordinance has been pushed by a diverse coalition of groups, many of them black people who feel that, actually, it is racist and insulting to imply that their communities should be forced to settle -- and be grateful -- for dead-end jobs. But everyone agrees that because of the historic discrimination by some unions in the city -- particularly in the building trades -- such coalitions can be vulnerable to race-baiting. In a way, it was clever of Wal-Mart to figure this out. Still, playing the race card can backfire, as Too-Candid-Andy and his Bentonville bosses found out. Daley deserves to be publicly pilloried as Young was, for exploiting racial tensions in his city, dishonestly framing the debate (oh, and and for being a grovelling towel-boy to one of America's worst corporations). Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. rightly suggested that if Daley is so opposed to this ordinance, he should put his money where his mouth is: give up his own fat salary and live on a sub-living wage. I'd like it if all Wal-Mart's defenders would do the same: before hurling charges of racism at the company's critics, just try getting by on the wages that you think Chicago's South Siders should receive so gratefully.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Shameless...
that Katrina still is paying this clown for (writing?) her vision of ....what?...
must be affirmative action here......and a good example for killing it off....
Liza should be a greeter at Walmart..get some experience in the real world...
Posted by john maasch at 09/13/2006 @ 4:27pm
"Findings This study was originally presented to the Chicago City Council in July 1996. At the time, the Council was considering a "living wage" ordinance calling for a 79% minimum wage hike for employees of city contractors and firms that received municipal tax breaks. The results of this study were alarming:
The ordinance would cost the city nearly $20 million per year. The city would spend more than 20% of this amount ($4.2 million) on the administrative costs of certification, monitoring, and enforcement of the ordinance. This $20 million cost would require a permanent tax increase on citizens of Chicago. Labor costs among affected firms would rise by $37.5 million. This amount does not include additional administrative costs employers would incur in submitting payroll data and other paperwork to the city, or in determining which workers (if any) would be covered by the ordinance. Even firms that already paid more than the wage called for in the ordinance would bear the ongoing costs of proving their compliance. The city could expect at least 1,300 lost jobs as a result of the ordinance. On a per-employee basis, the costs of the proposal could total more than $7,000. However, an affected full-time worker supporting a family would see his or her disposable income rise by less than $1,900 under the ordinance. Meanwhile, the federal government would "gain" more than $4,400 (much of it from increased payroll and income taxes), and the state government would "gain" more than $900. The living wage ordinance would result in pay increases for about 8,470 workers. However, the authors point out that many of these workers were not in poverty to begin with. Nationwide, more than 70% of workers with wages below $7.50 live in households with incomes well above the poverty line for a family of four. Thus, while more than 8,400 workers in Chicago would get a raise, the number actually pulled out of poverty would be much smaller -- despite tens of millions of dollars in new costs to the city. Moreover, the authors note that many of the 1,300 people who would lose their jobs could fall into poverty. When presented with these facts, the Chicago City Council shelved the living wage proposal. Advocates of the policy later convinced the City Council to accept a less extensive version of the living wage proposal. City officials estimated this second proposal would cost the city as much as $4 million. "
Reference
Employment Policies Institute (www.epionline.org)
You can read the rest of the information in it's entirety Here [epionline.org]
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 09/13/2006 @ 4:36pm
As I noted on another thread, the new "Anti-Walmart" thread going through a lot of the guy hanging out at the Iowa State Fair, has a very tangible political up-side for them.
Biden, Kerry, Edwards, Vilsack, whoever....they know that there are a lot of "Lizas" out there in Blogosphere land (or just in the base) who love to hate WM.
And guess which junior US Senator from New York formerly sat on the WM board?...who just happens to be the front-runner for 2008?
After the primaries of course, it'll be dropped like a hot potato.
Anti-Walmartism doesn't sell in the Red States (not much in the Blue, as shown by Daley's "supposedly suicidal" move)...and the Dem nominee will move on to other issues, lest they get some question in the South Carolina primary like "Why are you guys trying to close down my Wal-mart?"
Posted by Mask at 09/13/2006 @ 4:46pm
BTW, if you'd like to see something fun....
Have Ms Featherstone ask Jesse Jackson, Jr. what he thinks of "sell-out" Andrew Young....and watch the back-pedalling!
Posted by Mask at 09/13/2006 @ 4:48pm
I've lived in Chicago all my life, and we Chicagoans all know that the only reasons Daley is playing the race card as far as Wal-Mart is concerned is because 1) there is an election approaching-an election Daley has a big chance of losing without Black support; and 2) Wal-Mart has undoubtedly given Daley some kind of financial kickback (oops, I mean "contribution"). Daley is the most corrupt big city mayor since William "Big Bill" Thompson. As Thompson was the tool of Al Capone in the 20s (right here in this very city), Daley is the current tool of big business of Chicago.
Posted by RPerry at 09/13/2006 @ 4:49pm
Liza,
I've got to say, that your crusade against Walmart is a bit puzzling. If Walmart was America's worst blight I'd be a lot happier than I actually am!
Just a suggestion: Have you ever tried to prioritize?
Once we're rid of Presidents that want to destroy our Constitution, once our boys and girls are out of the civil war in Iraq, once we get a check and balance on the corporate media and about 10,000 other things, then I'll be with you on the Walmart thing!
Posted by freedomplease at 09/13/2006 @ 4:50pm
The torture thread gets booted same-day in favor another Wal-Mart screed?
Hey, I don't like the big-boxers either, but c'mon, I'm with Freedom on this one. Priorities, indeed.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/13/2006 @ 5:00pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 09/13/2006 @ 4:50pm | ignore this person
Posted by NEW DAWN 09/13/2006 @ 5:00pm
Could have been WORSE....could have been a screed on a video game that "insulted" Hugo Chavez!
Posted by Mask at 09/13/2006 @ 5:02pm
If Wal-Mart was so pro-black, it would pay people a living wage, advocate for affordable housing, and help the cities in which they want to put stores maintain decent and functional public transportation so that their employees can get to work.
But then again, if they actually paid their employees a living wage (and $10 an hour, or $20,800 a year isn't a living wage, it's merely a start), they might be able to afford cars.
But the fact that this is going on in Chicago makes me ask one question: why is it okay for Richard Daley to bring up race on Wal-Mart's behalf, but it's bad when Jesse Jackson brings up race on behalf of, well, black people?
Posted by edwriter at 09/13/2006 @ 5:04pm
" Daley is the most corrupt big city mayor since "
Obviously you never studied his father....he had graveyards voting for Kennedy, busing entire wards around the city to vote 2,3,4 times...it was beautiful to see such corruption masrefully displayed and honed to perfection.... and cost the Nixon the White House...of coursw the Kennedys dumped him shortly thereafter, but..it is an amazing study...
Posted by john maasch at 09/13/2006 @ 5:05pm
correction..".masterfully.".
Posted by john maasch at 09/13/2006 @ 5:06pm
HEY ED,
"it would pay people a living wage, advocate for affordable housing, and help the cities in which they want to put stores maintain decent and functional public transportation so that their employees can get to work. "
THATS THE GOVERNMENTS JOB AND YOUR COMMUNITY, AH ,THATS YOU!!!...YES, YOU...
....not some corporation....
Did you learn nothing in elementary school?
"If Wal-Mart was so pro-black"
Who said they are, why should they be, and who cares? They are a company, not the NAACP.
Posted by john maasch at 09/13/2006 @ 5:11pm
Isikoff and Corn will be on my Bay Area radio station KGO in an hour, discussing "Hubris".
Can't wait.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/13/2006 @ 5:19pm
""
I can...:)..slow is always better..unles you are short of time... :)
Posted by john maasch at 09/13/2006 @ 5:23pm
"THATS THE GOVERNMENTS JOB AND YOUR COMMUNITY, AH ,THATS YOU!!!...YES, YOU...
....not some corporation..."
so what is the role of a corporation, then?
Posted by darladoon at 09/13/2006 @ 5:38pm
Isikoff and Corn will be on my Bay Area radio station KGO in an hour, discussing "Hubris".
Can't wait.
Posted by NEW DAWN 09/13/2006 @ 5:19pm
Thanks. I'm going to try to halfway listen. Here's the online link. [kgoam810.com]
Posted by fromredbird at 09/13/2006 @ 6:35pm
Darla,
Really have to ask?
This is 2006!!!
The purpose is to bring a service or a product to a market that meets a demand at a profit for the stock holders....and not necessarily in that order. PERIOD.
Posted by john maasch at 09/13/2006 @ 8:16pm
Maasch,
your statement is quite revealing. you argue that, since this is 2006, all of corporate existence can be reduced to a simple word: profit.
well, then.
Posted by darladoon at 09/13/2006 @ 8:22pm
Profit, yes...and jobs. If the people in the community don't make money, the businesses in the community don't survive either. We're all eating on the same food chain. The illusion is when workers want to be the boss.
Liza....is "part deux" tomorrow?? Since we're on the living wage topic, why not uncover the facts behind Airhead America not even ponying up minimum wage to some of their "talent?" I'm looking forward to it.
-Concerned in Ohio-
Posted by Sliver at 09/13/2006 @ 8:30pm
Darla,
"your statement is quite revealing. you argue that, since this is 2006, all of corporate existence can be reduced to a simple word: profit."
This missunderstanding is rampant in the left and is the reason many can't make any resources of their own and "require it" from others than do understand the system.
Yes, it is revealing..we learned this in Jr High School...It is not rocket science, nor do corporations exist for others to milk or bilk for their money..
Sliver brings up a lesson on economics 101...no demand for Air America = no listeners = no ad sales = no return on orginal investers(Boys Club?)money = no profit = no more money to operate = no $ 2 miilion a year to pay the giant of humanity, Franken.
The air waves now are quieter and more reasonalble. A gift to us all.
Posted by john maasch at 09/13/2006 @ 8:56pm
I should add ,
..unconcerned in Nebraska, currently waiting for a late plane in Baltimore..
Posted by john maasch at 09/13/2006 @ 8:58pm
hey... air america is making it without multi-millions in government welfare.
Posted by Will C. at 09/13/2006 @ 9:02pm
john, i wasn't trying to teach you anything. i was trying to show you just how ridiculous banal your statement was.
you could have said: "a = a = a = a = a"
too much airport air in your lungs, john, get a beer quick...
Posted by darladoon at 09/13/2006 @ 9:27pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 09/13/2006 @ 4:50pm
To paraphrase Ross Perot; Across small town America and in demographically discrete communities that collectively comprise our cities, that giant sucking sound you hear is the sound of the individual and common wealth of those communities being diverted to countries that are transforming their "tied to the land" serfs into "tied to the factory" serfs (with the all too often evening side employment for these lucky workers as teen sex slaves). Howver, it's not all gloom and doom for America, after all that wealth passes through Bentonville and enough of it sticks to the hands of the Waltons to permit them to be able to purchase favorable trade and anti-labor legislation and hip-pocket regulatory officials.
Anyone miss the story of the former Wal-Mart ("always discriminatory employment practices, always labor busting, always illegal immigrant hiring, all the time") lawyer being appointed to be the new head of the Federal Wage and Hour division responsible for enforcement of the very laws that Wal-Mart could already afford to break with relative impunity?
In the same way that the Multinationals have demonstrated their good corporate citizenship through weakening America's value added producing industries by outsourcing our manufacturing sector and gradually turning our economy into a third world exporter of raw materials, Wal-Mart has exported the economic backbone of our communities while receiving tax subsidies from those communities that far exceed the wages of the jobs it created on a per-capita basis and facilitating the continued decay of the community infrastructures that our taxes built, supposedly for the benefit of all citizens.
Now, if that doesn't describe a blight...
Posted by canaar at 09/14/2006 @ 07:18am
Posted by WILL C. 09/13/2006 @ 9:02pm
Uh, no, they're not..."making it" that is.
Posted by Mask at 09/14/2006 @ 08:57am
Uh, no, they're not..."making it" that is.
Posted by MASK 09/14/2006 @ 08:57a
sure they are. Companies declare bankrupcy all the time. Anymore it's just a financial planning tool.
when they go off the air completely, then come talk to me
Posted by Will C. at 09/14/2006 @ 09:13am
Posted by WILL C. 09/14/2006 @ 09:13am
You know that's an INTERESTING defense, WILL.
Seems I remember reading a lot of blog posts about "All the companies that Bush has bankrupted"...yet the same people say AAR doing it is "no big deal"?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 09/14/2006 @ 09:34am
Since no one bothered to answer these on the OTHER "Walmart is evil" thread, I'll try again here.
1) DEFINE a "living wage"
2) ARE the workers at Walmart there for the sole income of a family or are they there for a supplemental income?
3) WHY is it ok to make Walmart pay this so-called "living wage" and not everyone? Shouldn't the workers at the smaller retail stores be able to make the same "living wage"?
4) Does anyone think that Walmart will do anything other than simply raise the costs of their goods sold to simply cover the costs? (meaning the people paying for the increase in wages will be Walmarts customers - low to middle income families - NOT Walmart)
Posted by John B at 09/14/2006 @ 10:39am
Posted by JOHN B 09/14/2006 @ 10:39am
JOHN, #1 will keep you busy with posts for a WEEK!
Nobody who "supports a living wage" can give you any specifics on it. If they do, they end up admitting that it's a "state-by-state" situation...ergo, requiring STATE, not Federal, solutions.
Which of course negates a prime tenet of liberalism, that the Fed, not the state and local guys, should control wages.
Posted by Mask at 09/14/2006 @ 11:12am
Since no one bothered to answer these on the OTHER "Walmart is evil" thread, I'll try again here.
1) DEFINE a "living wage"
2) ARE the workers at Walmart there for the sole income of a family or are they there for a supplemental income?
3) WHY is it ok to make Walmart pay this so-called "living wage" and not everyone? Shouldn't the workers at the smaller retail stores be able to make the same "living wage"?
4) Does anyone think that Walmart will do anything other than simply raise the costs of their goods sold to simply cover the costs? (meaning the people paying for the increase in wages will be Walmarts customers - low to middle income families - NOT Walmart)
Posted by JOHN B 09/14/2006 @ 10:39am
John -
#1 Try www.irs.gov for monthly National allowable living expenses for food, clothing, shelter, and other items (figured for the purposes of collection). I can live with those figures, grouped together, as reasonable living expenses, and from them, it can be figured that Wal-Mart wages (along with dozens of other companies' wages) often fall short of anything that could be described as a "living wage".
#2 Now, that's kind of a silly question. The senior citizens working there (like my grandfather before he passed) generally do so to supplement meager often meager retirement or social security benefits (note: a minor concession on my part to your point the other day that that is a dwindling security net). The others - you'd have to ask them as individuals. Your question begs one answer for all.
#3 It isn't. And yes, they should, in a perfect world (which we don't live in).
#4 They might cut more corners in benefits, incentives, hiring practices, etc. - the stuff that makes everyone mad about Wal-Mart, in addition to raising prices. That would not surprise me at all.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/14/2006 @ 11:36am
And John, in question #4, you make note of the plight of low to middle-income families that may have to pay higher Wal-Mart prices.
Should we not be equally concerned about the low-to middle-income famiiles that have to try and live on Wal-Mart wages?
Posted by New Dawn at 09/14/2006 @ 11:38am
Canaar,
Walmart plays the system. From their perspective they play a good game. Before Walmart there was Kmart, Sears, Jamesway, Bradlees ad infinitum. Walmart's reign has been impressive in scope and length, but it isn't permanant. The Walton family know that. Why doesn't Liza Featherstone know that?
If we rolled the clocks back 15 years would either of you have Kmart on your list as public enemy #1? 20 years ago was Jamesway the anti-christ?
40 years ago was Sears public enemy number one?
Posted by freedomplease at 09/14/2006 @ 11:42am
New Dawn... thanks for the addressing the questions
1) The problem with the "living wage" is that it varies depending on where the individual works. $10 an hour is not the same in NYC as it is in Lincoln, Nebraska (GO HUSKERS!!!). Thus, to have a federally mandated minimum wage is ridiculous. To do what Chicago tried to do is still wrong in my opinion, but less so than at the federal level.
2) Not really a silly question in my opinion. Places like Walmart tend to attract senior citizens (as you mentioned), high school students and second wage earners. These jobs are not designed to be held by primary bread winners. These are jobs that should be paid based on the production of the employee. Does it really take a lot of skill to stand at the door and say hi to people?(which apparently Darla finds annoying)
4) Anything is certainly possible. But Walmart is no different from small retailers who "may" do the same things. Walmart is not the problem. They are just the favorite whipping post for some on the left.
Posted by John B at 09/14/2006 @ 11:57am
Should we not be equally concerned about the low-to middle-income famiiles that have to try and live on Wal-Mart wages?
Posted by NEW DAWN 09/14/2006
Yes, we should be concerned to an extent. Again, Walmart and other low skill jobs are not meant to be held by primary bread winners. If a situation arises that a single parent or both parents have no skills and thus have to have a low skilled job, then we should look for ways to provide them with skills, not force Walmart and others to pay more as that just hurts the customers and doesn't really help the worker (as they may make more, but the costs of the products they buy would typically increase in an offsetting manner).
It is the same problem we have with welfare. Do we care about those that are on welfare? Yes. Does handing them more and more money to live off of actually HELP them to get off welfare? No it doesn't.
Posted by John B at 09/14/2006 @ 12:01pm
JOHN....notice what NEW DAWN did?
Sent you to the IRS website and said "I can live with those figures", but...
didn't actually give you the figures. Now, why do you think he did that?
Again, you can yank and pull and strain....but you will almost NEVER get any specific figures for what the "Federally mandated 'living wage'" should be from its proponents.
Posted by Mask at 09/14/2006 @ 12:19pm
Mask...
I know. It is one of those arbitrary things that can be interpreted 1000 different ways.
Posted by John B at 09/14/2006 @ 12:21pm
*(Back on-topic.....there ya go then....)
ASSOCIATED PRESS
CHICAGO -- The so-called ``big-box-ordinance'' that would have required mega-retailers to pay higher wages was turned back Wednesday as supporters on the City Council failed to muster enough votes to override Mayor Richard Daley's veto.
Daley, who vetoed the ordinance this week saying it would cost the city jobs and hurt people who need those jobs the most, was able to convince enough aldermen who voted in favor of the ordinance in July to change their votes. The vote was 31-18 in favor of overriding the veto -- three short of the necessary votes to do so.
``Everyone wants a living wage, but it has to be statewide,'' said Daley, who promised to take the debate to lawmakers in Springfield and Washington.
During a nearly 2˝ hour hearing, proponents of the measure repeated their contention that it would guarantee large retailers' employees a sustainable income. But they lost to aldermen who said it would prompt such businesses to open outside the city and take with them jobs desperately needed by residents of some of the city's most economically depressed areas.
``I'm glad for the veto because it gives my community an opportunity,'' said Alderman Carrie Austin, whose ward is in the city's South Side. ``It gives my people a stepping stone.
``It's not a great job, but it's a job.''
A statement from Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, lauded the council's latest vote as supporting ``valuable job opportunities and increased savings for the working families of Chicago.''
Alderman Joe Moore, one of the ordinance's most vocal proponents, said the effort to increase workers' wages would continue and that he would introduce a measure at the Oct. 4 council meeting that would require a living wage for workers at companies with at least 1,000 employees. Others said they would try to mount a referendum campaign.
``We will be back,'' Moore said. ``I can assure you this will not go away.''
Posted by Mask at 09/14/2006 @ 12:32pm
JOHN....notice what NEW DAWN did?
Sent you to the IRS website and said "I can live with those figures", but...
didn't actually give you the figures. Now, why do you think he did that?
Again, you can yank and pull and strain....but you will almost NEVER get any specific figures for what the "Federally mandated 'living wage'" should be from its proponents.
Posted by MASK 09/14/2006 @ 12:19am
Because I said that "I can live with them" as representative of a living wage, you creatively-editing, manipulative scumbag. And because those figures, as the printouts on my desk stand, and with particular relation to California, where I live, come out to almost a dozen pages of complex figures and tables. You want me to reproduce them here?
Do your own homework.
No subject, and few people, are as simple as you try to make them, you lying scum.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/14/2006 @ 1:07pm
New Dawn... thanks for the addressing the questions
1) The problem with the "living wage" is that it varies depending on where the individual works. $10 an hour is not the same in NYC as it is in Lincoln, Nebraska (GO HUSKERS!!!). Thus, to have a federally mandated minimum wage is ridiculous. To do what Chicago tried to do is still wrong in my opinion, but less so than at the federal level.
2) Not really a silly question in my opinion. Places like Walmart tend to attract senior citizens (as you mentioned), high school students and second wage earners. These jobs are not designed to be held by primary bread winners. These are jobs that should be paid based on the production of the employee. Does it really take a lot of skill to stand at the door and say hi to people?(which apparently Darla finds annoying)
4) Anything is certainly possible. But Walmart is no different from small retailers who "may" do the same things. Walmart is not the problem. They are just the favorite whipping post for some on the left.
Posted by JOHN B 09/14/2006 @ 11:57am
#1 Agreed, for the most part.
#2 "These jobs are not designed to be held but primary breadwinners". Sez you, John. Explain that to my grandfather, who was the primary breadwinner in his household for almost 70 years. He did not want the job, but they had to eat. Jobs are for those who will take them and work them. Now, is "door-greeter" a minimum wage job? Hell, yes - we damned sure agree on that.
#4 Wal-Mart has a track record of doing the things I mentioned - "may" was not the point. That is why they are a favorite whipping post of many on both sides, and particularly the left.
For the record, the last time I was in (and gave a fuck about a) Wal-mart was when I bought my son a bike there for less than it was selling at the local mall.
(It broke in less than a year... but you get what you pay for...)
Posted by New Dawn at 09/14/2006 @ 1:12pm
It is the same problem we have with welfare. Do we care about those that are on welfare? Yes. Does handing them more and more money to live off of actually HELP them to get off welfare? No it doesn't.
Posted by JOHN B 09/14/2006 @ 12:01am
To me, welfare (far too abused to be left as it stands) and a living wage are apples and oranges, but I'll entertain your fair observations.
Allow me to creatively edit, a la Mask:
Do we care about those that [work for low wages at a Wal-Mart]? Yes. Does handing them more and more money to live off of actually HELP them to [leave Wal-Mart for a better job]? No it doesn't.
I think we'd both argue that a possible "way out" for both employees at low-wage jobs (anywhere) and those on welfare would be better education and learning new job skills...
Agreed?
Posted by New Dawn at 09/14/2006 @ 1:18pm
Posted by NEW DAWN 09/14/2006 @ 1:07pm
Quite simple, NEW DAWN.....type in the "Type your message here" box....
the actual FIGURE that is a "living wage", that you would like to see mandated by Federal law.
It would look something like..."$#####" or even "$######".
Posted by Mask at 09/14/2006 @ 2:04pm
I think we'd both argue that a possible "way out" for both employees at low-wage jobs (anywhere) and those on welfare would be better education and learning new job skills...
Agreed?
Posted by NEW DAWN 09/14/2006 @ 1:18pm
Absolutely agreed. But that education is not the responsibility of Walmart.
The reason I made the comparison of Walmarts potential forced wage increase and welfare is that they do the same thing. They give money to individuals to try to "help" them. But neither solves the problem they are intended to solve.
Posted by John B at 09/14/2006 @ 2:07pm
Mask -
Do your own homework.
And I won't be pulled back in to debating something that I did not say. I never mentioned "mandated by Federal law".
Main Entry: living wage Function: noun 1 : a subsistence wage 2 : a wage sufficient to provide the necessities and comforts essential to an acceptable standard of living
Gee, I don't see how what I said is at all inconsistent with the definition of the term...
Again, no subject, and few people, are as simple as you try to make them, Mask, you lying scum.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/14/2006 @ 2:11pm
Absolutely agreed. But that education is not the responsibility of Walmart.
The reason I made the comparison of Walmarts potential forced wage increase and welfare is that they do the same thing. They give money to individuals to try to "help" them. But neither solves the problem they are intended to solve.
Posted by JOHN B 09/14/2006 @ 2:07pm
Okay.
Whose "responsiblity" is providing further education? No hidden agenda on my part, John, I promise, no answer I've already decided is the "right" one, no trap being laid.
I'm really asking what you think.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/14/2006 @ 2:13pm
New Dawn....
The problem I have with a forced minimum wage is that it simply raises the wages throughout the economy... which leads to wage inflation, which is typically passed on by increased costs of goods OR in reduction in labor forces.
Consider... you have....
Walmart employee: Typically an unskilled worker making $8.00 an hour (not sure what it actually is, just using it for arguments sake). Makes 16k per year.
Ford line-employee: Typically requires a skill set, working around manufacturing line is riskier, making $20/hr. Makes $40k per year.
Teacher: Typically possess college education, makes $35k per year... because all they do is educate the next generation... they shouldn't make much (sarcasm off)
Now... the walmart unskilled set get a wage bump to $10, to $20k per year. If you are the Ford worker or the teacher are you not going to take a look and demand to keep the same premium over the unskilled workers? I would. So should everyone get a forced 25% pay increase?
Posted by John B at 09/14/2006 @ 2:19pm
Whose "responsiblity" is providing further education? No hidden agenda on my part, John, I promise, no answer I've already decided is the "right" one, no trap being laid.
I'm really asking what you think.
Posted by NEW DAWN 09/14/2006
ND...
1) We need to revamp the education system in this country as great deal of the problem is the drop out rate and lack of quality educators. We start by paying teachers better - to attract better teachers, by providing the books/equipment they need, by making sure that a safe learning environment is provided... no matter where the school is located. Then you foster competition with private charter schools. Make them compete for the governments money.
2) For those already out of the education system we need to do something like Wisconsin did with their welfare system. They put a time limit on how long you could remain on welfare, but they also trained those on welfare with a skill set. That system is working.
3) For those not on welfare that also do not have a skill set, we need to provide training programs to help them elevate. Many companies do this on their own... including Walmart by the way... for those whose companies do not... let them use the same training system used for those on welfare.
Please note... all of this is easier said than done as there is always resistance to change... especially if the changes are big... which at this point, they need to be.
Posted by John B at 09/14/2006 @ 2:27pm
John B. -
Nope.
And I feel you - that is a problem. When minimum wage raises are discussed, I always think - wait, won't that unbalance the economy unless everyone gets the same wage bump?
I think the anger at Wal-mart is often misplaced and put forth by by extremists as "But look at all the profit they make - how will paying their employees more hurt them (even the door-greeters that John and I agree don't really earn much more than eight bucks or so, nor should they by comparison to other, more-skilled trades)? They can afford to pay more, so they should..."
That I definitely do not agree with.
My beef (when I have one) with Wal-Mart has never really been about the low wages so much as the other highly questionable practices they... practice.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/14/2006 @ 2:29pm
The only disagreement I have with your last post was the bit about charter and public schools competing for the government's money.
I get your point, but my (admittedly) knee-jerk reaction is that placing schools in a position of playing against one another as competitors can too easily lead to shortcuts and compromising principles and standards so that someone can "win".
Probably not well-thought out on my part, but I invite further discourse on the topic.
Maybe I'll learn something!
Posted by New Dawn at 09/14/2006 @ 2:33pm
As for the charter/private schools vs. public... yes, it could lead to cutting... which is why there needs to be checks and balance... which is what the district school boards are supposed to be doing.
The problem I see (kneejerk as well) with no/little competition is that it plays to the lowest common denominator. We have to cut out the crap of "well john may feel bad because he is not learning as fast as the other kids, therefore we will slow down to John's pace"... and with competition that will tend to be eliminated.
Posted by John B at 09/14/2006 @ 2:48pm
And I won't be pulled back in to debating something that I did not say. I never mentioned "mandated by Federal law".
Posted by NEW DAWN 09/14/2006 @ 2:11pm
Actually it's "debating something that you WILL not say".
So you don't favor a Federally mandated "living wage"?....that's interesting.
(Oops, here he goes... next up--NEW DAWN- "I favor it, I just didn't MENTION it, you liar!".....okay, so you DO favor it...and round and round and round he goes)
How about two simple questions....that you WILL not answer-
1. Do you favor a Federally mandated "living wage"?
2. If so, what is the exact figure in dollars and cents that it should be (as of 9/14/2006)?
Posted by Mask at 09/14/2006 @ 2:53pm
BTW, given the story from AP....should something bump this from the "top of The Notion"....it's over.
Posted by Mask at 09/14/2006 @ 2:55pm
New Dawn... also on the education front... we need to begin the education process earlier.
Two of the guys I work with have had their kids in private schools since they were a year old. The oldest of the kids is five and will start kindergarten next year. She is already reading in English and Spanish. She is fluent in both languages. She is already able to do simple addition/subtraction.
The two younger kids are both 3 now and they are sponges. They both speak English and Spanish pretty well and are beginning to learn to read in both languages.
We need to get all kids into school early. Teach them languages from 1-3, reading 3-4, basic math at five. I think this would help in a variety of ways. Every child would have similar learning curves (with the exception of those kids with legitimate brain disorders)
Posted by John B at 09/14/2006 @ 2:56pm
And I won't be pulled back in to debating something that I did not say. I never mentioned "mandated by Federal law".
Posted by NEW DAWN 09/14/2006 @ 2:11pm
Actually it's "debating something that you WILL not say".
So you don't favor a Federally mandated "living wage"?....that's interesting.
(Oops, here he goes... next up--NEW DAWN- "I favor it, I just didn't MENTION it, you liar!".....okay, so you DO favor it...and round and round and round he goes)
How about two simple questions....that you WILL not answer-
1. Do you favor a Federally mandated "living wage"?
2. If so, what is the exact figure in dollars and cents that it should be (as of 9/14/2006)?
Posted by MASK 09/14/2006 @ 2:53pm
Good of you to admit you're putting words in people's mouths again.
I have never said I favor a federally mandated living wage, nor will I, because I don't. I said that what Wal-Mart pays definitely falls short of whatever such a thing might be.
I've been discussing it, because John B. brought it up and it bears discussing. I also agreed with John that "The problem with the "living wage" is that it varies depending on where the individual works. $10 an hour is not the same in NYC as it is in Lincoln, Nebraska. Thus, to have a federally mandated minimum wage is ridiculous."
And there is no "exact figure in dollars and cents that [a single wage] should be (as of 9/14/2006)" that fits every "door-greeter" or "paper-hat" job in every state in the country.
So, Mask, I've just stated my positions, answered both of your questions, and yet again exposed you as the patently dishonest debating partner and lying scum that you have been and still are.
Fuck you, buddy.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/14/2006 @ 3:06pm
Posted by NEW DAWN 09/14/2006 @ 3:06pm
No....I think that's great.
You just distanced yourself from all the "living wage" proponents, who want to see it Federally mandated.....good for you.
But then....why did you send JOHN B to the IRS website "National"??? to determine what the definition of a "living wage" should be? If it varies from state to state, how do national numbers help?
Posted by Mask at 09/14/2006 @ 3:36pm
So, Mask, along with being a liar, you are also reading-challenged. Okay.
John said:
1) DEFINE a "living wage"
I responded with what was not a living wage definition, but grounds for further discussion:
#1 Try www.irs.gov for monthly National allowable living expenses for food, clothing, shelter, and other items (figured for the purposes of collection). I can live with those figures, grouped together, as reasonable living expenses, and from them, it can be figured that Wal-Mart wages (along with dozens of other companies' wages) often fall short of anything that could be described as a "living wage".
"National" was specified because it allows a look at the bigger picture (including all states, dipshit - since that's what "national" means, but you knew that), and in fact lends credence to one of John's other points:
1) The problem with the "living wage" is that it varies depending on where the individual works. $10 an hour is not the same in NYC as it is in Lincoln, Nebraska. Thus, to have a federally mandated minimum wage is ridiculous. To do what Chicago tried to do is still wrong in my opinion, but less so than at the federal level.
I agreed with John here.
So, John (who I was actually talking to) gets my points (and I his), but Mask chooses to remain willfully ignorant to the points we were discussing in order to continue his arguing-to-argue.
What a shocker.
And Mask went from
"Actually it's "debating something that you WILL not say".
and
"(Oops, here he goes... next up--NEW DAWN- "I favor it, I just didn't MENTION it, you liar!".....okay, so you DO favor it...and round and round and round he goes)"
and
"How about two simple questions....that you WILL not answer-"
to
"No....I think that's great."
when I proved you wrong.
So, Mask, yet again, I've just stated my positions, answered your questions, and yet again exposed you as the patently dishonest debating partner and lying scum that you have been and still are.
Why you continue to embarass yourself in the way you do is beyond me, Mask, but as always, I will not stand in the way of your continuing to do so.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/14/2006 @ 3:56pm
Sorry, NEW DAWN....again, congratulating you.
By indicating that you DON'T support a Federally mandated "living wage", but state mandates for them....you are putting yourself at odds with the typical "living wage" proponent.
They aren't running on a "state-by-state" campaign for "living wage"; they have state-by-state operations....but their goal is a NATIONAL "living wage" minimum.
But then, what do we take from this:
"it can be figured that Wal-Mart wages (along with dozens of other companies' wages) often fall short of anything that could be described as a "living wage".
I assume you mean JUST in Illinois? If so, good for you again. If no, then you're saying "nationally" that Wal-mart and "dozens of other companies" aren't supplying a living wage?
Yet, you don't favor a "national" living wage....hmmm. Going to have a LONG fight on your hand, going from state to state to state to state, to get Wal-mart and those "dozen others" forced to raise their wages, huh?
Posted by Mask at 09/14/2006 @ 4:11pm
Not my fight, liar.
I make my wage and that's that.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/14/2006 @ 5:33pm
Seems I remember reading a lot of blog posts about "All the companies that Bush has bankrupted"...yet the same people say AAR doing it is "no big deal"?!??!?
Posted by MASK 09/14/2006 @ 09:34am
then you go back and find them. Then we can talk specifically about what the posts you "remember"... say
Posted by Will C. at 09/14/2006 @ 8:09pm
Posted by MASK 09/14/2006 @ 11:12am
Nobody who "supports a living wage" can give you any specifics on it. If they do, they end up admitting that it's a "state-by-state" situation...ergo, requiring STATE, not Federal, solutions.
per capita income dummy. We've had this conersation before. And I don't ever recall admiting that it would require a state solution
Which of course negates a prime tenet of liberalism, that the Fed, not the state and local guys, should control wages.
the central tenents of liberalism are forming the more perfect union, establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
notice... your prime tenent isn't on the list
Posted by Will C. at 09/14/2006 @ 8:17pm
will you forever be full of shit Mask?
Posted by Will C. at 09/14/2006 @ 8:18pm
"It stands to reason that Wal-Mart might be an issue in internal Democratic power struggles. But on the campaign trail? Some Democrats seem to have forgotten that the stores, with their millions and millions of customers, are everywhere. There are more than 3,800 Wal-Marts in the United States, meaning there is no state and virtually no congressional district without a Wal-Mart. In the Pew poll, even liberal Democrats (62 percent) characterized Wal-Mart as a "good place to shop."
But there is no Wal-Mart in Hollywood. There is no Wal-Mart on the Upper East Side or Upper West Side of Manhattan -- indeed, in all of New York City. There is no Wal-Mart in Washington, DC. The political classes who live in those places, and who have a perhaps disproportionate effect on the thinking of some Democratic candidates, have no regular, first-hand contact with the company. So they think going after Wal-Mart will be a big boost for them. Sooner or later, they're likely to learn otherwise."
Don't listen to this...it's Byron York of the "National Review"...so it "must" be wrong....right?
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 08:58am
notice... your prime tenent isn't on the list
Posted by WILL C. 09/14/2006 @ 8:17pm
So a Federally mandated minimum wage is NOT a prime tenent of liberalism?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2006 @ 08:58am
So a Federally mandated minimum wage is NOT a prime tenent of liberalism?!?!??
Posted by MASK 09/15/2006 @ 08:58am
no
you read the list didn't you?
or are you just schtoopid?
Posted by Will C. at 09/15/2006 @ 8:35pm