How Much Money is Enough?

[intelligentjetsfan]

One of the most profitable corporations in the world and they still offer low wages and poor/no health benefits. And even then its not enough; despite making record profits they feel the need to attempt this.....

Court outlaws Wal-Mart de Mexico worker vouchers

MEXICO CITY, Sept 5 (Reuters) - Mexico's Supreme Court ruled that the country's top retailer, Wal-Mart de Mexico, violated the constitution by paying workers in part with vouchers only redeemable in the chain's outlets, the court said on Friday.

Wal-Mart de Mexico (WALMEXV.MX: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), also known as Walmex and a unit of U.S. retail giant Wal-Mart Stores Inc (WMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), gave store coupons as part of salaries, harking back to exploitative labor practices of over a century ago, the court said.

During the long dictatorship of President Porfirio Diaz, which ended in 1911, wealthy landowners and businessmen paid employees with special currency only valid in company stores.
The stores, which sold goods to poor workers at inflated prices, were banned in the constitution after labor uprisings sparked the Mexican Revolution in 1910.

"A labor contract that requires workers directly or indirectly to buy items in certain stores violates the constitution and will be declared null and void," the court said in a statement.

A Walmex employee brought the complaint to the court about giving workers coupons as part of their pay. The practice also used to be common in the United States, especially in the mining industry.

"It is similar to the practices carried out in old-time stores where workers also received their salaries in the form of vouchers to be redeemed in the stores owned by the boss," the court said.

Walmex had no immediate comment.
Critics often accuse Walmex and its parent company of paying low salaries and of being hostile to unions.

The Mexican unit of Wal-Mart employs over 150,000 people across the country at its more than 1,000 retail outlets ranging from supermarkets to clothing stores and restaurants. (Reporting by Mica Rosenberg and Chris Aspin; Editing by Derek Caney)

[intelligentjetsfan]

Walmart has historically recorded unbelievable profits so I find it interesting that its simply not enough. Besides offering poor wages and horrible health care coverage, they thought it was not enough. They needed to attempt to partially pay their workers with vouchers that can only be redeemed at their stores.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

Walmart has historically recorded unbelievable profits...

Because of the EITC.

And foodstamps.



Walmart would have been bankrupt a decade ago were it not for the government handouts that Republicans made possible.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

Because of the EITC.

And foodstamps.



Walmart would have been bankrupt a decade ago were it not for the government handouts that Republicans made possible.

Conservative gospel;

welfare for poor = unacceptable

corporate welfare = we call it capitalism.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

Conservative gospel;

welfare for poor = unacceptable

corporate welfare = we call it capitalism.

Corporate welfare as you well know comes from lobbying and money which is most certainly going to liberal democrats. Take a look at the Health care law which was a giveaway to Unions, hospital corporations and attorneys at the expense of the poor and the elderly.

The premise that liberals support welfare for the poor and conservatives support welfare for the rich is simply a left wing lie which you constantly propagate.

Conservatives believe our society will be stronger and better with a less intrusive government that creates unneeded drag on our economy and more people over all will prosper when they make choices in their own best interest. Liberals believe self-interest doesn’t address the needs of society and the hand of regulation and redistribution is needed to get the best overall economic results.

When you try to characterize Conservatives the way you do you come off as decidedly phony. Granted there are many mean spirited conservatives as there are tyrants on the liberal side who look at any one who earns a good living as inherently evil. Fortunately out of the scope of real power most Conservatives and Liberals simply want a better future for all through a different view of how to get there.

[Jetdawgg]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Corporate welfare as you well know comes from lobbying and money which is most certainly going to liberal democrats. Take a look at the Health care law which was a giveaway to Unions, hospital corporations and attorneys at the expense of the poor and the elderly.

The premise that liberals support welfare for the poor and conservatives support welfare for the rich is simply a left wing lie which you constantly propagate.

Conservatives believe our society will be stronger and better with a less intrusive government that creates unneeded drag on our economy and more people over all will prosper when they make choices in their own best interest. Liberals believe self-interest doesn’t address the needs of society and the hand of regulation and redistribution is needed to get the best overall economic results.

When you try to characterize Conservatives the way you do you come off as decidedly phony. Granted there are many mean spirited conservatives as there are tyrants on the liberal side who look at any one who earns a good living as inherently evil. Fortunately out of the scope of real power most Conservatives and Liberals simply want a better future for all through a different view of how to get there.

Both sides take money from corporations. The point I think that IJF is that it is the r's have a poorer way of distributing the monies to the people than the d's.

Look at the jobs records over the past 50 years or so that Clinton talked about at the convention. The d's have created many more jobs in less time than the r's.

“…since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats, 24. In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private sector jobs.
So what’s the job score? Republicans, 24 million; Democrats, 42 [million].”
http://www.politicalruminations.com/...ar-period.html


The American people see this and understand what is at stake here. The constant lying by the r's has caught up to them big time.The r's cannot even march out a former POTUS at their convention. That is just pathetic

[JetPotato]

Why don't you tell us? How much is enough? Exactly? At what specific point?

[sackdance]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

Why don't you tell us? How much is enough? Exactly? At what specific point?

You're not a Hollywood executive?

You're not a hedge fund manager?

And you don't need food stamps?

That's enough.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

Why don't you tell us? How much is enough? Exactly? At what specific point?

The point when you set historic record profits and yet still try to pay your employees with vouchers redeemable at your store only.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

Both sides take money from corporations. The point I think that IJF is that it is the r's have a poorer way of distributing the monies to the people than the d's.

Look at the jobs records over the past 50 years or so that Clinton talked about at the convention. The d's have created many more jobs in less time than the r's.

“…since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats, 24. In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private sector jobs.
So what’s the job score? Republicans, 24 million; Democrats, 42 [million].”
http://www.politicalruminations.com/...ar-period.html


The American people see this and understand what is at stake here. The constant lying by the r's has caught up to them big time.The r's cannot even march out a former POTUS at their convention. That is just pathetic

Bingo!

[shakin318]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

The r's cannot even march out a former POTUS at their convention. That is just pathetic

Why didn't the "r's" march out a former POTUS? Because the sitting president has been shamelessly blaming his own 4-year failure on that former POTUS -- and trying to link Romney to Bush. Putting W on the stage would have done nothing more than cause a lapdog media frenzy to further Obama/Biden's transparent and pussified narrative. Those two flaming assclowns are what's really "pathetic" here.

[Timmy®]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

Both sides take money from corporations. The point I think that IJF is that it is the r's have a poorer way of distributing the monies to the people than the d's.

Look at the jobs records over the past 50 years or so that Clinton talked about at the convention. The d's have created many more jobs in less time than the r's.

“…since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats, 24. In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private sector jobs.
So what’s the job score? Republicans, 24 million; Democrats, 42 [million].”
http://www.politicalruminations.com/...ar-period.html


The American people see this and understand what is at stake here. The constant lying by the r's has caught up to them big time.The r's cannot even march out a former POTUS at their convention. That is just pathetic

The republicans of yesteryear are all banned from their conventions since they'd only serve as reminders of what a laughingstock the party has become. Mitt has already been banned from the 2016 convention.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

Walmart has historically recorded unbelievable profits so I find it interesting that its simply not enough. Besides offering poor wages and horrible health care coverage, they thought it was not enough. They needed to attempt to partially pay their workers with vouchers that can only be redeemed at their stores.

Please stick to ruining children's minds in the classrooms because you know next to nothing about business or the real world.
Walmart's profit margin (have some in one account) is about 3.5% of sales. WOW. It does increaxse in net profit each year and pays a fair dividend but it is not exactly Exxon or JP Morgan. It is actually one of the poorer returning large companies. One that employs a lot of people. If the employees don't like working there they should go elsewhere. The same as any employee of any company.

[sackdance]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

The point when you set historic record profits and yet still try to pay your employees with vouchers redeemable at your store only.

You're going to bat for Mexican Wal-Mart employees ... why?

Don't forget to rap Apple's knuckles. And probably 95+% of world wide corporations. All are so so bad.

[Warfish]

How Much Money is Enough?

As long as it's done legally, there is no amount that is universally "enough".

Enough is in the eye of the individual.

It may be nothing, or it may be 100 Trillion dollars.

To each their own. It is not to me to judge the desires, or legal earnings, of another.

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by Warfish

As long as it's done legally, there is no amount that is universally "enough".

Enough is in the eye of the individual.

It may be nothing, or it may be 100 Trillion dollars.

To each their own. It is not to me to judge the desires, or legal earnings, of another.

No, clearly it isn't to you.

It's to our resident liberals.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by shakin318

Why didn't the "r's" march out a former POTUS? Because the sitting president has been shamelessly blaming his own 4-year failure on that former POTUS -- and trying to link Romney to Bush. Putting W on the stage would have done nothing more than cause a lapdog media frenzy to further Obama/Biden's transparent and pussified narrative. Those two flaming assclowns are what's really "pathetic" here.

Meanwhile, the democrats had to have their own nightmare of a former president (Carter) beamed in via recorded tape at the convention because to have him appear on stage with Obama would have done nothing more than cause a lapdog media frenzy to further Karl Rove's transparent and pussified narrative.