Oracle Of JPP 714
nazi/racist hunter
rw extremists are their own worst enemies their own words insult themselves.
Capitalism Has Destroyed / Is Destroying American Family Values
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
non sequitur. I posited that people are simply choosing not to get married, so those who do are more likely to stay married.
Are you disputing the link between the use of leaded gasoline and the crime rate? This link has been well established in studies all over the world, not just the USA. Crime rates dropped about one generation following the phase-out of leaded gasoline virtually wherever data is available.
I believe the pressures of capitalism are the culprit. Since it is more difficult to achieve the 'American Dream' of owning a comfortable home with secure retirement and healthcare, fewer people are choosing to form traditional families.
Teens don't want to screw up their lives by trying to start a family without the economy to support one. Times are tougher. Relentless capitalism eliminates opportunities for the disadvantaged. Most people are not born with a silver spoon in their mouth like Trump or Romney. Even Ted Cruz had many advantages handed to him upon birth. Private HS, Princeton, Harvard, etc. He was on the rich trajectory to become a multi-millionaire power junkie.
I am saying the use of leaded or unleaded gasoline does not explain drops and rises in the crime rate during the periods when unleaded gas was used or not used.
If there are such pressures then it makes less sense for women to choose to have children without a spouse because of finances and child care. An increasing percentage of women are obviously choosing to have family, just without getting married.
I guess the capitalistic pressures are even worse in European nations because their out of wedlock birth rate is higher than the U. S. France (53.7%), Sweden (54.4), Denmark (46.8%).
In the 1980s-1990s when the teen rate was much higher those teens were in the same situation. They were most likely high school drop-outs who had no spouse or no significant source of income. It is not like the higher teen birth rate was among teenagers born with a silver spoon in their mouth. You make the mistaken assumption that they were making rational decisions to choose to use contraception based on their ability to earn a good living.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
Fair enough. I agree with that.
Logic and human reproduction only partly coincide.
Perhaps there are other reasons for that statistic in Europe. And I wonder what the long-term trends in Europe might indicate.
Regardless of what is happening there, it is apparent that family values in the USA appear to be in decline and under stress, and the pressures of capitalism are a factor causing some of it.
How do you know that?
Certainly some of them are. The conservative position has been abstinence. The liberal position has been to make birth control methods more widely available. Liberals won that one. BC is more widely available and is being used by some.
Fair enough. I agree with that.
Logic and human reproduction only partly coincide.
Perhaps there are other reasons for that statistic in Europe. And I wonder what the long-term trends in Europe might indicate.
Regardless of what is happening there, it is apparent that family values in the USA appear to be in decline and under stress, and the pressures of capitalism are a factor causing some of it.
How do you know that?
Certainly some of them are. The conservative position has been abstinence. The liberal position has been to make birth control methods more widely available. Liberals won that one. BC is more widely available and is being used by some.
Do these Liberal Democrats statements on WMDs ring any bells in that empty dumb skull of yours? The notion that Bush went it alone is the stupidity and pabulum idiots swallow and parrot:
Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction
Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
-- President Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address), Jan. 27, 1998
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.""Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
-- Sen. John Edwards (D, NC) Feb. 24, 2002
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." "
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D, MA) Sep. 27, 2002
"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
-- State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) Oct. 2, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
-- Senator John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002
"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
-- Sen. Harry Reid (D. NV) Oct. 9, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
-- Ex President Bill Clinton, Jul. 22, 2003 (Interview with CNN Larry King)
I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening.
-- Rep. Richard Gephardt (D, MT) Nov. 2, 2003
True. Then why did the increase in out of wedlock births occur? Did women become less rational? I think it is more intentional because the increase in out of wedlock births occurred primarily among older women and not teenagers.
All of those nations are also primarily capitalist, so why doesn't that explain why their out of wedlock birth rate is higher than the U. S.? The increase in out of wedlock births is a world-wide trend but varies by region. It appears the economic system has less effect than social disapproval. It is still very low in places like China, India, North Africa, and parts of Asia where disapproval is high.
https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/out-wedlock-births-rise-worldwide
The demographics of teen births has remained essentially unchanged in recent years. It differed in the 1950s, for example, when teen births were primarily among married women.
True, but even when were going through Bush's abstinence phase teen birth rates continued to drop.
Many times changes occur (divorce, marriage, teen birth, crime) due to societal changes that cannot be readily explained. Factors like gun control, sex education, availability of birth control, and economic system do not explain most of these events.
The U. S. did not suddenly become a capitalist nation in the 1960's when increases began in drugs, crime, divorce and did not become less capitalistic in the 1990s when they all began to decline. These factors were not high in the early 20th century when capitalism had much less regulation.
Last edited:
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
We have a lot of poor people who were prompted by Welfare to a) have children, and b) not be married. And you may rightly claim that this isn't capitalism doing this, it is socialism. To which I would argue that our capitalism depends on this socialism. If it were not for some way to keep very poor people from revolting, the greatest capitalists would not be able to operate at the level they do, using their vast powers to starve the government of revenue as they add tremendous amounts to their own pockets.
Capitalism exploded in the 60's due to the advent of TV. Shows were wholesome at first, but later began to become more and more controversial as capitalism pushed each venture for more and more of the profits. Capitalism pushed TV profiteers to bring us disgusting stuff which directly contributed to the decline in American families. Before TV, American families sat down to have dinner together. Now, even if families do sit down for dinner together, often the only discussion is over what to watch. And mostly people will be eating on their own, celebrating the strongly marketed 'conveniences' of modern media.
Capitalism has become relentless in the search for profits, and doesn't care what the ethics of some products are or what negative effect they might have on society. Families pay the price. We have so many young people who get really strange ideas from the media and then they become anti-social. Well, it's kind of hard to have a functional family when your teenager announces that you are full of *&^% and storms out of a loving dinner conversation, as the 7-year old who copies everything the older sibling does, mimics the teen and pretends to be all huffy as well, leaving the room empty and silent.
Our family values must be really bad when we get smart teens who can score well on school testing if they apply themselves, throwing it all away getting F's because they want to be tough kids who are good at shop lifting and think that will be a much easier life. And then if you try to mention it to them they tell you that YOU are the fool and THEY know everything because that's what their friends do.
Try to tell someone like that they they might not want to incur a criminal record at such a young age because it might make it difficult for them to get a good job later on in life.
Good luck with that.
We have a lot of poor people who were prompted by Welfare to a) have children, and b) not be married. And you may rightly claim that this isn't capitalism doing this, it is socialism. To which I would argue that our capitalism depends on this socialism. If it were not for some way to keep very poor people from revolting, the greatest capitalists would not be able to operate at the level they do, using their vast powers to starve the government of revenue as they add tremendous amounts to their own pockets.
Capitalism exploded in the 60's due to the advent of TV. Shows were wholesome at first, but later began to become more and more controversial as capitalism pushed each venture for more and more of the profits. Capitalism pushed TV profiteers to bring us disgusting stuff which directly contributed to the decline in American families. Before TV, American families sat down to have dinner together. Now, even if families do sit down for dinner together, often the only discussion is over what to watch. And mostly people will be eating on their own, celebrating the strongly marketed 'conveniences' of modern media.
Capitalism has become relentless in the search for profits, and doesn't care what the ethics of some products are or what negative effect they might have on society. Families pay the price. We have so many young people who get really strange ideas from the media and then they become anti-social. Well, it's kind of hard to have a functional family when your teenager announces that you are full of *&^% and storms out of a loving dinner conversation, as the 7-year old who copies everything the older sibling does, mimics the teen and pretends to be all huffy as well, leaving the room empty and silent.
Our family values must be really bad when we get smart teens who can score well on school testing if they apply themselves, throwing it all away getting F's because they want to be tough kids who are good at shop lifting and think that will be a much easier life. And then if you try to mention it to them they tell you that YOU are the fool and THEY know everything because that's what their friends do.
Try to tell someone like that they they might not want to incur a criminal record at such a young age because it might make it difficult for them to get a good job later on in life.
Good luck with that.
more ism's in play
in this case, it is retardism.
We have a central bank setting rates and fiat currency expanded by the whims of politicians and their banker buddies
that isn't capitalism. Blaming all the problems of central planning on capitalism shows you are a retard practicing retardism
in this case, it is retardism.
We have a central bank setting rates and fiat currency expanded by the whims of politicians and their banker buddies
that isn't capitalism. Blaming all the problems of central planning on capitalism shows you are a retard practicing retardism
I think societal factors unrelated to the availability of welfare affect out of wedlock birth rate because many very poor nations have a very high rate (Latin America) and other poor nations have a very low rate (India, Nigeria) and there is little welfare in any of those nations. The same applies to developed nations. Countries with high out of wedlock rates such as Sweden, France, and the UK have long had a social welfare system which does not explain a large increase in rates over time.
The founders did not trust corporations. They made them buy a corporate charter that limited their lifespan, drew boundries about what they could deal in. They also could lose their charters if they did harm. Corporations were absolutely not people.
As corporations became richer and more powerful, they eroded the protections we set up against them.
As corporations became richer and more powerful, they eroded the protections we set up against them.
It was originally done at the colonial and then state level. When corporations became richer and more powerful the federal government started passing anti-trust laws (1890). They were considered legal persons for purposes of making contracts (1819), holding property.......
The Constitution does not say free speech applies only to persons, but that Congress shall pass no laws abridging free speech (regardless of whether it applies to persons, organizations, corporations......)
Oracle Of JPP 714
nazi/racist hunter
Capitalism rides on the vehicle of greed. Capitalism is like a parasite feasting on the host until it consumes the host and dies of starvation.
Yup! At least the crappy form of capitalism we've allowed to develop in the US is that.
We can make changes that can incorporate the useful parts of the system.
But we have this virus called American conservatism which almost prevents any meaningful change.
Lunatic.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Frank,
We need conservatives to balance our liberal views and make sure we don't get too full of ourselves. America is great with diversity of views.
The problem seems to be that most conservatives are blind to the reality that we do not have to choose between capitalism and socialism. And we have not done that. We have plenty of socialism mixed in with our capitalism just like all other industrialized nations. Our challenge is to get the mix right.
Most conservatives are lost trying to imagine that we have to choose one or the other. They are totally hooked on this Conservative Myth that if you let some socialism in, then it grows and infects your capitalism and then takes over. That's just ridiculous. We are always going to have some capitalism and some socialism. We already do, and we are never going to have choose between the two.
We have to tax the rich more to pay for government assistance programs for the poor and disadvantaged. This gives everybody some spending money so they can participate in an active economy.
If you keep everybody strapped then the economy is stuck on sluggish. The economy has meager demand for product, can't expand nor create jobs, nor increase wages. The rich have all the money, and everybody else is just fighting over table scraps. It becomes a ridiculous muted lackluster economy.
If you want a lackluster economy, just starve the government of revenue, then claim you have to cut programs. That will do it.
And then we can sit and watch as the rest of the world surpasses us.
We need conservatives to balance our liberal views and make sure we don't get too full of ourselves. America is great with diversity of views.
The problem seems to be that most conservatives are blind to the reality that we do not have to choose between capitalism and socialism. And we have not done that. We have plenty of socialism mixed in with our capitalism just like all other industrialized nations. Our challenge is to get the mix right.
Most conservatives are lost trying to imagine that we have to choose one or the other. They are totally hooked on this Conservative Myth that if you let some socialism in, then it grows and infects your capitalism and then takes over. That's just ridiculous. We are always going to have some capitalism and some socialism. We already do, and we are never going to have choose between the two.
We have to tax the rich more to pay for government assistance programs for the poor and disadvantaged. This gives everybody some spending money so they can participate in an active economy.
If you keep everybody strapped then the economy is stuck on sluggish. The economy has meager demand for product, can't expand nor create jobs, nor increase wages. The rich have all the money, and everybody else is just fighting over table scraps. It becomes a ridiculous muted lackluster economy.
If you want a lackluster economy, just starve the government of revenue, then claim you have to cut programs. That will do it.
And then we can sit and watch as the rest of the world surpasses us.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Liberalavenger,
No, I disagree with that. Pure capitalism is all that, but we don't have pure capitalism. We have a mixture of capitalism and socialism. We just need to get the balance correct.
Conservatives argue for no socialism, have a very unfounded and unrealistically great fear of socialism. What they don't realize is that without socialism to appease the impoverished masses, they would rise up and topple the system which allows the rich to be so rich. Our socialism keeps the poor placated so the rich can rob the government blind. Their propaganda keeps many under-advantaged fooled into voting against their own better interests.
No, I disagree with that. Pure capitalism is all that, but we don't have pure capitalism. We have a mixture of capitalism and socialism. We just need to get the balance correct.
Conservatives argue for no socialism, have a very unfounded and unrealistically great fear of socialism. What they don't realize is that without socialism to appease the impoverished masses, they would rise up and topple the system which allows the rich to be so rich. Our socialism keeps the poor placated so the rich can rob the government blind. Their propaganda keeps many under-advantaged fooled into voting against their own better interests.
Fascistic leftists would not agree with this. But you are correct on this point.
Conservatives correctly believe that the best way to achieve prosperity for all of our citizens is to reduce massive government overreach and keep the Federal Government within its constitutional duties; to protect our nations interests and borders, oversee and protect our legal system and to manage and protect copyright and trademarks.
They need do NOTHING else. When a bunch of dishonest corrupt legislators start realizing they can use our tax code to buy the votes of low information dullards, the system begins to break down and we end up with the bloated federal departments and budget deficits we have today.
Government is NOT the answer; free markets are.
It is not a myth that we should not choose between one or another; we should choose LIMITED government as envisioned by the genius of our founders and abide by the constitutional limitations imposed by the Constitution.
No we don't; and arguments claiming this are made in ignorance and naivete. People participate in an economy when they are properly educated and the economy is allowed to prosper without the heavy hand of regulations, taxation and Government.
Communities are more than adequate to take care of those who may falter in their pursuit of economic well-being. Governments can only turn them into useless wards of the state.
The rich already pay the bulk of taxes in this country and liberals have been claiming that we just need to spend more to get to the promised land. Yet, after spending $50 trillion over the last five decades, all we have to show for it is MORE poverty and MORE dependent wards of the state. The worst evidence of this failure is in Liberal Democratic controlled urban sewers filled with the uneducated, the poor and the criminal.
Government is NOT the answer to ANYTHING other than defending borders and maintaining a legal system that separates us from third world shit holes.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello cawacko,
That's like saying you think non-union people should be able to benefit from the hard work, dedication, sacrifices, and commitment of union members, without paying any dues.
Basically, conservatives who want to oppose unionization are only being the lapdogs for big money crony capitalism and stinking up the swamp. They are doing the dirty work of greedy corporations which seek to dismantle the hard fought gains from unions.
The need for unions is as great as it ever was. Millions of workers for large and profitable corporations are on public assistance because they are paid so little they cannot rise above poverty. This is a form of corporate welfare. Without these programs greedy corporations would have to pay workers more. But they know they are safe because ending such programs would cause a revolt and destroy the economy.
Amazon workers report that they are afraid to even drink enough water because if they do they will have to go to the bathroom. why are they so afraid to go to the bathroom? Because they are not allowed enough time to go to the bathroom. If they try, they fall behind others who hold out. They are all graded on their level of productivity. If they fall behind they are written up and eventually fired for being human.
And you don't think there is a need for unions any more.
How about Walmart workers? They don't get enough hours to make ends meet, but they have to be on call all the time and thus unavailable for other jobs. Walmart sends them home of store customer traffic drops off. They are only called in if customers walk in the door. It is inhumane how chintzy these people are treated. Sick pay? Forget it. Vacations? Get real. Health care? They can't afford it. Maternity leave? It's not required by law so they get fired for being pregnant or having a pregnant wife. If they do not answer the call they stop getting called. It's like a soft lay-off. They never know if they are working or not. What a terrible life.
No need for unions, indeed.
The ideal Walmart worker would live next door and be able to answer the call in 5 minutes.
The ideal Amazon worker is a machine.
That's like saying you think non-union people should be able to benefit from the hard work, dedication, sacrifices, and commitment of union members, without paying any dues.
Basically, conservatives who want to oppose unionization are only being the lapdogs for big money crony capitalism and stinking up the swamp. They are doing the dirty work of greedy corporations which seek to dismantle the hard fought gains from unions.
The need for unions is as great as it ever was. Millions of workers for large and profitable corporations are on public assistance because they are paid so little they cannot rise above poverty. This is a form of corporate welfare. Without these programs greedy corporations would have to pay workers more. But they know they are safe because ending such programs would cause a revolt and destroy the economy.
Amazon workers report that they are afraid to even drink enough water because if they do they will have to go to the bathroom. why are they so afraid to go to the bathroom? Because they are not allowed enough time to go to the bathroom. If they try, they fall behind others who hold out. They are all graded on their level of productivity. If they fall behind they are written up and eventually fired for being human.
And you don't think there is a need for unions any more.
How about Walmart workers? They don't get enough hours to make ends meet, but they have to be on call all the time and thus unavailable for other jobs. Walmart sends them home of store customer traffic drops off. They are only called in if customers walk in the door. It is inhumane how chintzy these people are treated. Sick pay? Forget it. Vacations? Get real. Health care? They can't afford it. Maternity leave? It's not required by law so they get fired for being pregnant or having a pregnant wife. If they do not answer the call they stop getting called. It's like a soft lay-off. They never know if they are working or not. What a terrible life.
No need for unions, indeed.
The ideal Walmart worker would live next door and be able to answer the call in 5 minutes.
The ideal Amazon worker is a machine.
Having unions is a different manner than being forced to join the union to keep your job.