(11-25-2024, 03:27 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:

(11-25-2024, 11:47 AM)TDOSS Wrote: That has nothing to do with the discussion.

Personal anecdotes are useless in a discussion of such wide-ranging scope. If you're trying to make the discussion about you or me, I am not interested in that. There is no point in changing the discussion into that. 

If you want to talk about Walmart, I'll gladly give my view. You seem to have a very favorable view of Walmart. I will gladly represent the unfavorable view. I have read extensively about Walmart. Walmart has not been good for America. Many American lives have been ruined by Walmart.

Walmart pays it's workers so little that many of them qualify for social assistance. Our tax dollars are being used to support Walmart workers, who are treated terribly. Thus, Walmart enjoys this indirect massive government subsidy. Couldn't operate without it. There is a high burn-out rate among Walmart workers. Walmart relies on government assistance programs to support it's workers. Walmart workers are treated horribly. They are often expected to have zero life and be on-call 24-7. When stores get more traffic, on-call workers are called in. If they refuse the call, their hours are dropped or they are fired. If store traffic drops, workers are sent home. They never know if they are going to get enough hours to pay rent or not. It's a horrible insecure way to live. If they do not accept being treated like this, Walmart will happily fire them and oppress others.

Working at Walmart is a good way to have no life, no savings, build no wealth, and be left with nothing at retirement age and forced wot work when others can enjoy retirement. Just look around at any Walmart. You'll see some very old people working there. They aren't doing that because they enjoy it. They have insufficient savings nor benefits. Walmart is happy to take advantage of their misfortune. Walmart sucks.

Not true at all and you would know otherwise if you actually knew or talked to people that work for Walmart.

Your "talking point" is just another leftist rant that thinks that companies that hire non-skilled labor should pay them a so-called "living wage" in order to support themselves.  There are many cases where people start off at the bottom in many of these jobs, learn from their experience, go on to earn a relatively good living in management positions either at the company that hired them or elsewhere.

The two Walmart stores fairly near me has job openings for people to start at $15+ per hour.  That's a pretty good wage for a bottom-end starting position for somebody that is "un-skilled".  It's up to the person to work hard, learn and advance to a better paying job.

Regardless of how you think of it, the post was genuine.

People on the left care about America. Our views are just as important as any. Simply disregarding them out of hand is purposely shutting out valid views from your fellow citizens without giving it due consideration. The truth is very few people who work at Walmart end up with a good life. Most burn out and move on. Of those who stay, only a few ever rise. The vast majority do not benefit from working there. Working at Walmart is a dead-end job for most.

Here is an example of how insensitive Walmart can be to workers:

Walmart would take out life insurance policies on it's workers. It would not tell them. If the worker died, Walmart collected the money.

Quote:"One of Wal-Mart’s long list of worker abuses–“dead peasants” insurance where it takes out life insurance policies on its low-level workers and collects the cash when they die–got a kick in the head in federal court. 

That’s because the estate of one dead worker, Douglas Sims, sued for damages, saying Wal-Mart robbed his heirs of money that was rightfully theirs. Lower federal courts agreed and, on Jan. 5, so did the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
It sent the case back down to lower courts to determine how much money Sims’ widow, Deborah, should get.

More than 100 companies, led by Wal-Mart, created the “dead peasants” policies. Legal changes in 1998 led Wal-Mart to halt the practice, but not before it had insured all but 3,500 of the 350,000 potential workers it covered, the suit says.

The Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers (PACE) has campaigned against Wal-Mart’s “dead peasants” insurance and brought the issue to Congress. Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, introduced legislation last year outlawing the practice, but it has gone nowhere.

“By ruling against Wal-Mart, the appeals court is sending a message to other companies that it is unethical, at the very least, for them to take out life insurance on their employees and be the beneficiaries,” said PACE spokeswoman Lynne Baker."

---