Where America's jobs went

[Cancel 2016.2]

So tell us genius, how can WalMart be the most efficient/strongest/fittest company when in reality they required a government BAILOUT????

WHAT bailout of Wal Mart? They have had no bailout you half wit.

According to a 2004 report released by U.S. Representative George Miller, one 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,000 per year because of the need for federal aid (such as housing assistance, tax credits, and health insurance assistance) for Wal-Mart's low-wage employees.

The above is not a bailout you half wit.

In the END, the BEI Co. was the most efficient/strongest/fittest company. They were able to use their leverage and size to end up with the lowest price on tea.

No moron, it was the weaker of the two, which is why they required government subsidies. Keep on spinning though...

But what you fail to acknowledge; the founders did not put the lowest price ahead of protecting their local, community based economies.

Our founders wanted a DECENTRALIZED government. They did not want taxation without representation. To pretend that the Boston Tea Party was somehow designed to support the local economies is absurd. Very little of the tea being consumed was locally produced. Most of what was consumed was smuggled in from the Dutch East India company you half wit.

Our founding fathers did NOT support or subscribe to what is YOUR description of conservatives.

Our founding fathers most certainly wanted a decentralized government. They feared what a federal government could do if it did not have controls put upon it. Controls that today's liberals want to eliminate. Controls that prevent the liberals from implementing their aristocracy of government that they love so much.

 

[The Dude]

this is truely funny
if BFGED got laid off from the mom and pop ace hardware it might be understandalble.

Again, freak this baby couldn't get into college. He is not equipted to debate economics like you want him to. Wal Mart bailout, fucking priceless
demtard talking point, if facts don't exist make them up

 

[Bfgrn]

WHAT bailout of Wal Mart? They have had no bailout you half wit.



The above is not a bailout you half wit.



No moron, it was the weaker of the two, which is why they required government subsidies. Keep on spinning though...



Our founders wanted a DECENTRALIZED government. They did not want taxation without representation. To pretend that the Boston Tea Party was somehow designed to support the local economies is absurd. Very little of the tea being consumed was locally produced. Most of what was consumed was smuggled in from the Dutch East India company you half wit.



Our founding fathers most certainly wanted a decentralized government. They feared what a federal government could do if it did not have controls put upon it. Controls that today's liberals want to eliminate. Controls that prevent the liberals from implementing their aristocracy of government that they love so much.

SO...subsidizing the BEI is a bail out, but subsidizing Wal Mart's low wages is not a 'bail out'?

HOW MUCH of WalMart's 'tea' is locally produced?

If our founding fathers wanted a decentralized government, WHY would they support big centralized corporations?

You say 'They feared what a federal government could do if it did not have controls put upon it'

The ACTUAL people who boarded the ships in the Boston harbor expressed their fears, didn't you READ what I posted freak?

The colonists, however, were unswayed by the prospect of legal, affordable tea. Instead they invoked the specter of monopoly, insisting that the East India Company would soon grow too powerful to resist. Colonial merchants would be ruined, the company would tighten its grip on the marketplace, and average consumers would be left at the mercy of a mercantile leviathan. As one writer noted at that time:

The scheme appears too big with mischievous consequences and dangers to America, [even as we consider it only] as it may create a monopoly; or, as it may introduce a monster, too powerful for us to control, or contend with, and too rapacious and destructive, to be trusted, or even seen without horror, that may be able to devour every branch of our commerce, drain us of all our property and substance, and wantonly leave us to perish by thousands.1

 

[The Dude]

poor people benefit the most from wal mart you economic moron.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

SO...subsidizing the BEI is a bail out, but subsidizing Wal Mart's low wages is not a 'bail out'?

They are NOT subsidizing Wal Mart you half wit. They are subsidizing those unskilled workers. You do understand that not every job is designed to be a 'supports the family' type of job in and of itself? You do realize those mom and pop shops you are harping on about paid LESS in terms of total compensation to their workers? Those mom and pop shops of old tended to pay minimum wages, no benefits. They too were not designed to be a sole source of family income. They are designed for supplemental income to families via teens working, second incomes for spouse, supplemental incomes...

If our founding fathers wanted a decentralized government, WHY would they support big centralized corporations?

First moron, corporations are NOT the government. If you cannot even comprehend that basic fact, then you are a fucking idiot. Second, we have rules AGAINST monopolies (other than the government run monopolies you love).... for the very reason we don't want power consolidated in the hands of one provider. Third, it was a DEMOCRAT in the White House that repealed Glass Steagall. A law put in place by FDR to prevent the consolidation of the banking sector. Those laws are necessary. Yet even AFTER witnessing what happened as a result of the repeal, even WITH a DEM President and DEM supermajorities in Congress.... NOTHING was done to put Glass Steagall back in place and break up the big banks. Why? Because those big banks have lined the pockets of those politicians YOU trust to be ethical and look after our every interest.

You say 'They feared what a federal government could do if it did not have controls put upon it'

Yes, they did. Try reading the Federalist papers, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence.... their thoughts on the matter are very apparent.

The ACTUAL people who boarded the ships in the Boston harbor expressed their fears, didn't you READ what I posted freak?

Yes, you presented a piece by a random author who stated HIS opinions on what happened. You also conveniently IGNORE the preceding paragraphs to your once again cherry picked quote from his paper.

After Parliament repealed all the Townshend duties except the tax on tea, colonists seemed to ignore the assertion of the right to tax the colonies. Boycotts petered out, and colonial consumers began buying tea again. But not all that tea was taxed. A large portion -- by some estimates as much as 90 percent -- came from smugglers, who sold Dutch tea unburdened by the British duty.

Meanwhile Parliament was struggling to rescue a corporation it had deemed too big to fail: the British East India Company. The company was saddled with a large debt and even larger inventories. Its warehouses were stocked to the rafters with unsold tea (among other things), and lawmakers soon hit on a brilliant idea: lower the tax on company tea, permit its direct exportation to the colonies, and let the company undercut the smugglers.

as for the following.....

The scheme appears too big with mischievous consequences and dangers to America, [even as we consider it only] as it may create a monopoly; or, as it may introduce a monster, too powerful for us to control, or contend with, and too rapacious and destructive, to be trusted, or even seen without horror, that may be able to devour every branch of our commerce, drain us of all our property and substance, and wantonly leave us to perish by thousands.1

Try READING IT YOURSELF. TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS SAYING. They DID NOT WANT GOVERNMENT supported MONOPOLIES. THIS is the power of government that they feared. The power of the GOVERNMENT to decide the winners and losers. The power of the GOVERNMENT telling us WHO we had to buy from. The power of the GOVERNMENT to be bribed to support the policies of a corporation to the detriment of competition.

 

[Bfgrn]

poor people benefit the most from wal mart you economic moron.

Poor people could have benefited from the British East India Company's cheap tea, but they realized that they were cutting their own throats, just like when a Wal Mart moves into a community it wipes out local businesses and jobs.

For someone who 'claims' to have a college education, you have ZERO understanding that economies are ultimately measured in human terms.

 

[The Dude]

Poor people could have benefited from the British East India Company's cheap tea, but they realized that they were cutting their own throats, just like when a Wal Mart moves into a community it wipes out local businesses and jobs.

For someone who 'claims' to have a college education, you have ZERO understanding that economies are ultimately measured in human terms.

For a traveling snakeoil saleman for a big company that likely made you retire rich you are as ingnorant as they come.
You'r total economics game is straight from turbo-lib central.

I know more poor people shop and benefit from walmart than ever worked with you at ace or the local grocery where you got zero benefits.
You are as educated as your schooling, not much

 

[Bfgrn]

They are NOT subsidizing Wal Mart you half wit. They are subsidizing those unskilled workers. You do understand that not every job is designed to be a 'supports the family' type of job in and of itself? You do realize those mom and pop shops you are harping on about paid LESS in terms of total compensation to their workers? Those mom and pop shops of old tended to pay minimum wages, no benefits. They too were not designed to be a sole source of family income. They are designed for supplemental income to families via teens working, second incomes for spouse, supplemental incomes...



First moron, corporations are NOT the government. If you cannot even comprehend that basic fact, then you are a fucking idiot. Second, we have rules AGAINST monopolies (other than the government run monopolies you love).... for the very reason we don't want power consolidated in the hands of one provider. Third, it was a DEMOCRAT in the White House that repealed Glass Steagall. A law put in place by FDR to prevent the consolidation of the banking sector. Those laws are necessary. Yet even AFTER witnessing what happened as a result of the repeal, even WITH a DEM President and DEM supermajorities in Congress.... NOTHING was done to put Glass Steagall back in place and break up the big banks. Why? Because those big banks have lined the pockets of those politicians YOU trust to be ethical and look after our every interest.



Yes, they did. Try reading the Federalist papers, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence.... their thoughts on the matter are very apparent.



Yes, you presented a piece by a random author who stated HIS opinions on what happened. You also conveniently IGNORE the preceding paragraphs to your once again cherry picked quote from his paper.



as for the following.....




Try READING IT YOURSELF. TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS SAYING. They DID NOT WANT GOVERNMENT supported MONOPOLIES. THIS is the power of government that they feared. The power of the GOVERNMENT to decide the winners and losers. The power of the GOVERNMENT telling us WHO we had to buy from. The power of the GOVERNMENT to be bribed to support the policies of a corporation to the detriment of competition.

I did read it myself. You seem to have a real problem comprehending what it meant. Maybe you can try to spin the words of other people who actually boarded those ships in the Boston harbor.

A pamphlet was circulated through the colonies called The Alarm and signed by an enigmatic “Rusticus.” One issue made clear the feelings of colonial Americans about England's largest transnational corporation and its behavior around the world:

“Their Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. They have levied War, excited Rebellions, dethroned lawful Princes, and sacrificed Millions for the Sake of Gain. The Revenues of Mighty Kingdoms have entered their Coffers. And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin. Fifteen hundred Thousands, it is said, perished by Famine in one Year, not because the Earth denied its Fruits; but [because] this Company and their Servants engulfed all the Necessaries of Life, and set them at so high a Price that the poor could not purchase them.”

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I did read it myself. You seem to have a real problem comprehending what it meant. Maybe you can try to spin the words of other people who actually boarded those ships in the Boston harbor.

A pamphlet was circulated through the colonies called The Alarm and signed by an enigmatic “Rusticus.” One issue made clear the feelings of colonial Americans about England's largest transnational corporation and its behavior around the world:

“Their Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. They have levied War, excited Rebellions, dethroned lawful Princes, and sacrificed Millions for the Sake of Gain. The Revenues of Mighty Kingdoms have entered their Coffers. And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin. Fifteen hundred Thousands, it is said, perished by Famine in one Year, not because the Earth denied its Fruits; but [because] this Company and their Servants engulfed all the Necessaries of Life, and set them at so high a Price that the poor could not purchase them.”

ROFLMAO.... AGAIN.... it shows that they did not want a GOVERNMENT telling them WHO to do business with. They did not want a GOVERNMENT that allowed the monopoly to form elsewhere to stay on our shores. They did not want the GOVERNMENT telling them who to do business with and who not to. They did not want taxation without representation.

AGAIN.... OUR FOUNDING FATHERS DID NOT WANT A CENTRALIZED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THAT IS FACT. Your continually pretending that the Boston Tea Party was all encompassing of our founding fathers is also quite pathetic. Not only do you fail to comprehend what the Boston Tea Party was about, you also fail to recognize the intents of OTHER founders who were NOT involved directly with the Boston Tea Party.

They DID NOT WANT GOVERNMENT supported MONOPOLIES. THIS is the power of government that they feared. The power of the GOVERNMENT to decide the winners and losers. The power of the GOVERNMENT telling us WHO we had to buy from. The power of the GOVERNMENT to be bribed to support the policies of a corporation to the detriment of competition.

 

[Bfgrn]

ROFLMAO.... AGAIN.... it shows that they did not want a GOVERNMENT telling them WHO to do business with. They did not want a GOVERNMENT that allowed the monopoly to form elsewhere to stay on our shores. They did not want the GOVERNMENT telling them who to do business with and who not to. They did not want taxation without representation.

AGAIN.... OUR FOUNDING FATHERS DID NOT WANT A CENTRALIZED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THAT IS FACT. Your continually pretending that the Boston Tea Party was all encompassing of our founding fathers is also quite pathetic. Not only do you fail to comprehend what the Boston Tea Party was about, you also fail to recognize the intents of OTHER founders who were NOT involved directly with the Boston Tea Party.

They DID NOT WANT GOVERNMENT supported MONOPOLIES. THIS is the power of government that they feared. The power of the GOVERNMENT to decide the winners and losers. The power of the GOVERNMENT telling us WHO we had to buy from. The power of the GOVERNMENT to be bribed to support the policies of a corporation to the detriment of competition.

Hey pea brain...Please tell me in one word what our founding fathers created and dedicated most of their adult life to? I will give you the first letter...

G _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 

[Liberty]

WHAT bailout of Wal Mart? They have had no bailout you half wit.

Bailout? Butt F*cking Gay Rudd Nobody shoot's himself again.

Also, why do the communist say they want to raise taxes on the very rich, and could care less about the fact GE didn't pay income tax last year.

Oh I'm sure one of you communist will come out and say that's not true, but it is.

 

[Liberty]

I mean they want the oil companys to pay more taxes, but GE get's a royal pass.

Not to mention, GE got some of that bail out money when they didn't need it.

 

[Liberty]

Hey pea brain...Please tell me in one word what our founding fathers created and dedicated most of their adult life to? I will give you the first letter...

G _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Someone really educated you to be as stupid as anyone I've ever heard.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bailout? Butt F*cking Gay Rudd Nobody shoot's himself again.

Also, why do the communist say they want to raise taxes on the very rich, and could care less about the fact GE didn't pay income tax last year.

Oh I'm sure one of you communist will come out and say that's not true, but it is.

WHAT would you call taxpayers being on the hook?

One 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,000 per year because of the need for federal aid (such as housing assistance, tax credits, and health insurance assistance) for Wal-Mart's low-wage employees.

 

[WinterBorn]

WHAT would you call taxpayers being on the hook?

One 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,000 per year because of the need for federal aid (such as housing assistance, tax credits, and health insurance assistance) for Wal-Mart's low-wage employees.

And what would those 200 unskilled people cost the gov't without walmart paying them a wage and offering them health insurance ect? What would they cost us without any jobs?

 

[Bfgrn]

And what would those 200 unskilled people cost the gov't without walmart paying them a wage and offering them health insurance ect? What would they cost us without any jobs?

Wal-Mart creates less jobs than they destroy...for each new retail job created by Wal-Mart, 1.4 existing jobs have been lost at competing businesses. That means every new Wal-Mart store that opens reduces retail employment by about 150 jobs.

How can this be? The answer is that Wal-Mart relies on fewer employees to accomplish the same volume of sales as the businesses it competes with. As Wal-Mart grows, and competing businesses downsize and close, the resulting layoffs outnumber the job gains.

Indeed, over the last decade, even as Wal-Mart and other big-box stores multiplied dramatically and retail spending overall grew, retail employment in the U.S. remained flat. Today, retail workers receive a smaller share of the nation's total payroll than they did a decade ago.

Retail jobs are not the only jobs at stake, either. Wal-Mart has played a leading role in pushing millions of manufacturing jobs to low-wage countries, and, unlike independent retailers, which purchase many goods and services, like printing and accounting, locally, Wal-Mart stores provide very little support to other businesses in the community. Studies have found that only $14 of every $100 spent at a Wal-Mart store stays in the local economy.

 

[WinterBorn]

Wal-Mart creates less jobs than they destroy...for each new retail job created by Wal-Mart, 1.4 existing jobs have been lost at competing businesses. That means every new Wal-Mart store that opens reduces retail employment by about 150 jobs.

How can this be? The answer is that Wal-Mart relies on fewer employees to accomplish the same volume of sales as the businesses it competes with. As Wal-Mart grows, and competing businesses downsize and close, the resulting layoffs outnumber the job gains.

Indeed, over the last decade, even as Wal-Mart and other big-box stores multiplied dramatically and retail spending overall grew, retail employment in the U.S. remained flat. Today, retail workers receive a smaller share of the nation's total payroll than they did a decade ago.

Retail jobs are not the only jobs at stake, either. Wal-Mart has played a leading role in pushing millions of manufacturing jobs to low-wage countries, and, unlike independent retailers, which purchase many goods and services, like printing and accounting, locally, Wal-Mart stores provide very little support to other businesses in the community. Studies have found that only $14 of every $100 spent at a Wal-Mart store stays in the local economy.

Nice answer. Pity it was an answer to the question I asked.

 

[Bfgrn]

Nice answer. Pity it was an answer to the question I asked.

Then you need to give me names and addresses. I am not going to answer a question based on bias and arrogance.

 

[WinterBorn]

Then you need to give me names and addresses. I am not going to answer a question based on bias and arrogance.

First you claim that the employees at walmart make so little that they cost the taxpayers because of the gov't benefits they qualify for at the low wages.

Now you claim they cost 1.4 jobs for every 1 they create. Did those 200 walmart employees take a cut in pay to go to work for walmart? Did they leave better paying jobs to go to work making less at walmart? Of course they didn't. And these people obviously have no marketable skills. So I asked how much those people cost us if they didn't work for walmart.

What is biased and arrogant about that?? Please tell me. I mean, if you are going to avoid the discussion by simply spouting bullshit and calling names, at least have the dignity to try and explain what is biased and arrogant about my question.

 

[Bfgrn]

First you claim that the employees at walmart make so little that they cost the taxpayers because of the gov't benefits they qualify for at the low wages.

Now you claim they cost 1.4 jobs for every 1 they create. Did those 200 walmart employees take a cut in pay to go to work for walmart? Did they leave better paying jobs to go to work making less at walmart? Of course they didn't. And these people obviously have no marketable skills. So I asked how much those people cost us if they didn't work for walmart.

What is biased and arrogant about that?? Please tell me. I mean, if you are going to avoid the discussion by simply spouting bullshit and calling names, at least have the dignity to try and explain what is biased and arrogant about my question.

Did those 200 walmart employees take a cut in pay to go to work for walmart? Some of them probably did. If there is only ONE job for every five people looking, then there are people who lost better paying jobs. One thing we do know for sure...if they entered a job at Wal-mart without any skills, they will leave Wal-mart without any skills.