Bill would have WalMart fire anyone worth less than $12.50?

Works for me...

pineinthegrass wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: It beats $8.50/hr....

Comparing private-sector wages to public/government wages is the usual apples-and-oranges comparisons anyway...But you knew that.

No I did not know that. Care to explain why it's apples-and-oranges?

Do your own research... Google "private sector wages vs public wages"

LadyJazzer wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: It beats $8.50/hr....

Comparing private-sector wages to public/government wages is the usual apples-and-oranges comparisons anyway...But you knew that.

No I did not know that. Care to explain why it's apples-and-oranges?

Do your own research... Google "private sector wages vs public wages"

You are the one that made a claim without providing a link to support it. You complain all the time when others do that so why should I do your homework for you?

But I did a Google search anyway and most everything that comes up is about comparing private sector wages public sector wages. So your apples-and-oranges does not apply there either.

pineinthegrass wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: It beats $8.50/hr....

Comparing private-sector wages to public/government wages is the usual apples-and-oranges comparisons anyway...But you knew that.

No I did not know that. Care to explain why it's apples-and-oranges?

Do your own research... Google "private sector wages vs public wages"

You are the one that made a claim without providing a link to support it. You complain all the time when others do that so why should I do your homework for you?

But I did a Google search anyway and most everything that comes up is about comparing private sector wages public sector wages. So your apples-and-oranges does not apply there either.

Federal Government Nation's Biggest Creator of Low-Wage Jobs: Time for Obama to Act It's probably a really really bad source, but you decide...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/ ... 39685.html

pineinthegrass wrote: You are the one that made a claim without providing a link to support it. You complain all the time when others do that so why should I do your homework for you?

It's not "MY homework"...You're the one that asked the question... Have fun.

Rick wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: It beats $8.50/hr....

Comparing private-sector wages to public/government wages is the usual apples-and-oranges comparisons anyway...But you knew that.

No I did not know that. Care to explain why it's apples-and-oranges?

Do your own research... Google "private sector wages vs public wages"

You are the one that made a claim without providing a link to support it. You complain all the time when others do that so why should I do your homework for you?

But I did a Google search anyway and most everything that comes up is about comparing private sector wages public sector wages. So your apples-and-oranges does not apply there either.

Federal Government Nation's Biggest Creator of Low-Wage Jobs: Time for Obama to Act It's probably a really really bad source, but you decide...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/ ... 39685.html

The US taxpayers currently subsidize Walmart's low wages (and by association, their corporate profits) around $900,000 per store per year since many of their workers qualify for SNAP, health care and other federal and state subsidies. Is it unreasonable to require employers to pay sufficient wages so that their workers are out of poverty?

Something the Dog Said wrote: The US taxpayers currently subsidize Walmart's low wages (and by association, their corporate profits) around $900,000 per store per year since many of their workers qualify for SNAP, health care and other federal and state subsidies. Is it unreasonable to require employers to pay sufficient wages so that their workers are out of poverty?

Thank heavens California has passed a law that fines companies like WalMart an amount for each employee they dump on the poverty system that is roughly the amount that it would have cost them to pay them fairly, and cover their healthcare. I hope that starts a trend that spreads all over the U.S.

Something the Dog Said wrote: The US taxpayers currently subsidize Walmart's low wages (and by association, their corporate profits) around $900,000 per store per year since many of their workers qualify for SNAP, health care and other federal and state subsidies. Is it unreasonable to require employers to pay sufficient wages so that their workers are out of poverty?

Do you mind producing a link for that?

Last time you brought this up you claimed full time (40 hrs) Walmart workers were near poverty line and I showed very few would be (unless they were the sole provider of a large family), but I see you've dropped the full time part.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Another important consideration is that businesses such as Regal and Walmart, who combine low wages with no benefits pass on the costs to the taxpayer by forcing their employees to supplement their existence with food stamps, inability to pay medical bills, etc. Even if Regal or Walmart employee a worker 40 hours per week, that translates to just over the poverty level or below in most cases, qualifying that employee for taxpayer benefits. Essentially Regal and Walmart are using taxpayer subsidies to reward their executives with multimillion dollar bonuses, while Costco and other companies who pay their employees with livable wages and benefits reward the taxpayer instead.

mymountaintown.com/forum/6-the-courthous...care?start=20#280255

If Walmart ends up not building the three new stores that were planned, isn't it going to cost taxpayers even more to continue to subsidize people with no jobs?

And why just pick on Walmart and other big box stores? If the Washington DC city council is really concerned about a living wage, why don't they raise their local minimum wage to $12.50 so everyone can have a "living wage"? I just don't get why only some employers get singled out.

Good point Pine, so it is OK for a mom and pop to screw over their employees but we will make Wal-Mart pay? (Some employers are more equal than others?)
Or do the legislators realize a $12.50 min wage would hurt the local economy and just want to hit Wal-Mart because they donate to conservative politicians?