Where America's jobs went

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.

So someone quit a better paying job to go to work for walmart for less money??? But you are still dodging the point. If they are working for walmart they have no marketable skills. What were they doing before? How much were they costing the tax payers then?

First walmart costs 1.4 jobs for every 1 they create. Now there are 5 people applying for every 1 job at walmart.

So there are 4 more people without skills making zero money. Call me crazy, but which is better, 5 people without skills and making no money, or 4 people without skills making no money and 1 making minimum wage and getting benefits?

And I am still waiting for an explanation of the name calling? What about my question is biased and arrogant??
 
WHAT would you call taxpayers being on the hook?

Reply by Liberty=Mandated to be made a part of.

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.

I agree with you here.

Tax payers aren't represented very well.

At all.
 
Last edited:
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 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Wow.... the above is truly sad. No one.... and I do mean NO ONE, ever suggested the founding fathers didn't create our government. No ONE suggested they didn't dedicate their lives to it.

What we ARE saying, is that they deliberately created a federal government that was DECENTRALIZED. They FEARED what would happen if Congress was provided with TOO MUCH power. THAT is why they created checks and balances. THAT is why the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence were written as they were.

So once again, I have actually taken the time to answer your question..... Do try to return the favor.....

IN ONE WORD, DID THE FOUNDING FATHERS CREATE A DECENTRALIZED OR CENTRALIZED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

Since you are an idiot, I will spot you on this...... it begins ..... DECENTRALIZE_

Can you fill in the last 'D' on your own? (well damn, I guess I gave you the entire answer... lets see if you can piece it together)
 
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.

That is not Wal-Mart's fault nor is it its duty. Those SAME 200 employees would STILL be costing the federal taxpayers that $420k if they were working for Mom and Pop shops. They would likely cost MORE given that Wal Mart at least offers SOME health insurance (granted it is a minimalist plan) whereas the mom and pop shops typically offered NO benefits.
 
That is not Wal-Mart's fault nor is it its duty. Those SAME 200 employees would STILL be costing the federal taxpayers that $420k if they were working for Mom and Pop shops. They would likely cost MORE given that Wal Mart at least offers SOME health insurance (granted it is a minimalist plan) whereas the mom and pop shops typically offered NO benefits.

Bullshit.
 
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.

most people call this the scale of production. the more a person can produce, whether it's sales, manufacturing, or service, the more desirable that person is to a company as an employee. Now, since profits can provide a company with the opportunity to grow, expand, and hire more people that produce. this is how the world works.

why do you hate people that want to work?
 
Wow.... the above is truly sad. No one.... and I do mean NO ONE, ever suggested the founding fathers didn't create our government. No ONE suggested they didn't dedicate their lives to it.

What we ARE saying, is that they deliberately created a federal government that was DECENTRALIZED. They FEARED what would happen if Congress was provided with TOO MUCH power. THAT is why they created checks and balances. THAT is why the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence were written as they were.

So once again, I have actually taken the time to answer your question..... Do try to return the favor.....

IN ONE WORD, DID THE FOUNDING FATHERS CREATE A DECENTRALIZED OR CENTRALIZED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

Since you are an idiot, I will spot you on this...... it begins ..... DECENTRALIZE_

Can you fill in the last 'D' on your own? (well damn, I guess I gave you the entire answer... lets see if you can piece it together)

Our founding fathers not only created a government, they GOVERNED.

Ever hear of the saying, actions speak louder than words? So HOW they actually governed is how THEY actually interpreted the documents they authored.

Our founding fathers believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Eighteenth-century laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*State (not federal) courts heard cases where corporations or their agents were accused of breaking the law or harming the public.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents
 
Last edited:
Our founding fathers not only created a government, they GOVERNED.

Ever hear of the saying, actions speak louder than words? So HOW they actually governed is how THEY actually interpreted the documents they authored.

Our founding fathers believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Nineteenth-century laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*State (not federal) courts heard cases where corporations or their agents were accused of breaking the law or harming the public.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents

Well,,,,

There's a lot to be said about the 19th century.

Let's go back to the 18th century.

Can you reflect on the 18th century with the same focus concerning corporations?

I mean,,,, how did the founders writings and original mandates (as it were) form a cornerstone to the things you bring up in the 19th century.
 
Well,,,,

There's a lot to be said about the 19th century.

Let's go back to the 18th century.

Can you reflect on the 18th century with the same focus concerning corporations?

I mean,,,, how did the founders writings and original mandates (as it were) form a cornerstone to the things you bring up in the 19th century.

I mislabeled the regulations as 19th. They are 18th century regulations.
 
That probably makes you biased and arrogant, huh?

No...

Although someone applying to Walmart needs no skills, that doesn't mean that people with skills aren't applying for work at Walmart. The current job market offers one opening for every five people looking for work. That creates a situation where engineers sell shoes.

You choose to dismiss and disparage people who don't meet your definition of 'successful'. It is brought on by your wealth = virtue upbringing.
 
No...

Although someone applying to Walmart needs no skills, that doesn't mean that people with skills aren't applying for work at Walmart. The current job market offers one opening for every five people looking for work. That creates a situation where engineers sell shoes.

You choose to dismiss and disparage people who don't meet your definition of 'successful'. It is brought on by your wealth = virtue upbringing.

Oh, so I am biased because I don't consider an engineer working for walmart to be a successful engineer? Well......is he?

If you will look back, most of the times I discussed skills I specifically said "marketable skills". If someone cannot find a job where their skills are worth something, they are doing unskilled work and will be paid accordingly.

I was brought up in a most virtuous home. Your attempts to say otherwise have been laughable. But I also recognize that unskilled labor will never pay much. Nor should it.
 
Over regulation by the gov't has had a big hand in sending jobs overseas, but you won't take credit for that one, will you?

These corporations that you hate so much and want to use as a scapegoat? Now you want them to stay? Isn't that convenient? I guess having your cash-cow and ready-made scapegoat disappear makes your blame game a bit tough, doesn't it?

As long as you see corporations as the adversary, and your liberal gov't policies make our gov't work against big business too, they will continue to bail out.

A bigger factor is the low wages oppressed chinese slaves command. Your overregulation argument is composed of red herring and bullshit.
 
You choose to dismiss and disparage people who don't meet your definition of 'successful'. It is brought on by your wealth = virtue upbringing.


Yes. Winterborn and his ilk are a particularly malignant and anti-social group of traitors to humanity.
 
Unemployment for college grads is less than 6%
engineering is the degree most in demand
you have to be one shitty engineer to be working at wallmart.
BFGED knows dem talking points good, not so much on economic data and how to use it.

Couldn't BFGED use the same walmart rant on Caterpiller which he sold goods for?
 
Our founding fathers not only created a government, they GOVERNED.

Ever hear of the saying, actions speak louder than words? So HOW they actually governed is how THEY actually interpreted the documents they authored.

Our founding fathers believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Eighteenth-century laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*State (not federal) courts heard cases where corporations or their agents were accused of breaking the law or harming the public.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents

Thanks for once again proving that the founders believed in a DECENTRALIZED government
 
Back
Top