StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 09:08 AM) Clearly there's a difference between sweatshop pay and a retail job. When did this country get so damned high and mighty about $8.75 an hour?! Not everyone can make 100k a year. Not everyone chose a proper career path to be able to do that. Sometimes 8.75 starting is the best someone can do, and that's just life. It's not societies responsibility to make sure those people get paid 50k a year becasue that's what middle class is. I'm asking you to define that difference. Where is the cutoff? And no one is demanding that everyone makes $50k, just that we work towards improving things for the working poor instead of status quo or worse.

If you're sure you can find studies supporting your case, go and find them. Arguing by assertion doesn't make a strong case. Walmart is the target because they're the largest retail store in the world and therefore have the largest buying power and the largest affect on the industry. They're not alone, but they're #1.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 03:30 PM) I think that's probably a good comparison. Uno's and Giordano's both down here just don't get it right. Wrong sausage mostly, but wrong sauce and spices as well. Man do I miss Chicago pizza! You'd think they would just have a universal recipe. Uno's in Florida is awful. It's really a shame.

General Be-TRAY-us was from the minds of Obama and Rahm.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 08:04 PM) And how can the rate of unemployment be due to Walmart when it doesn't exist there? How many times do I have to explain it? Manufacturing was once a good career for lower-skilled workers to move into. A Walmart job could be considered a stepping stone between a literal McJob and something more. Walmart is a big part of manufacturing going overseas. Their purchasing power allows them to dictate price cuts to their suppliers, and the price cuts they dictate force the suppliers to look to cheap, exploitable overseas labor. Walmart's market share forces others to follow similar patterns or go out of business to Walmarts "always low prices". And why not take a look at the report I posted showing that Walmart didn't add any jobs to Chicago when it came in? And that, nationally, they eliminate 1.4 jobs for every 1 they create. And that they cause others to go out of business, leaving them the only game in town. Do you see why it's cyclical? It's low pay. Most employees are part-time. There's no advancement. They eliminate other opportunities. They become the only store available, so their employees only shop there. By the way, where's your cutoff for "better than nothing" rationale? Are sweatshops ok because, hey, $.50 a day is better than the $0 they were making before? If not, where is the acceptable point and how do you determine it?

Hey, nice false dichotomy! But now with Walmart in town, the owners of those Mom & Pop stores are going to be unemployed, soon. Maybe they can get a nice job at Walmart! This, basically, is what I've been driving at: And a link to the study done by Loyola and UIC: http://www.luc.edu/curl/pdfs/Projects/WalM...port2009122.doc So it drives out other jobs and replaces them with lower-paying, lower-benefits dead end jobs. Why, exactly, is this a positive for everyone?

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 05:33 PM) I do have a hard time accepting that every job in America should be one that can support a family. There are people who want to work part time. There are people who are looking for a second job, etc. We're not talking about people only needing to work part time here, but people having to work two, three jobs to get by. The program may be good but may also be exploited. It's good to provide assistance to those in need, but it's bad to allow a company to consistently underpay employees and shove them off to the government assistance line.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 05:10 PM) Well, it's not poverty unless you're assuming there's a family of 4 being provided for with that income. I paid for part of my first year of college on a $5.15/hr job (2000-2001). As someone else said, you're not going to do much better working at a fast food joint anyways. We're not talking about building an entire industry full of professional level jobs here. That's just not going to happen. This is the best alternative (especially adding in the fact that they're also providing these neighborhoods with an actual source of decent food) And besides, as I've said from the beginning, in the areas I'm talking about, ANY job = wealthy. You're viewing this on a national scale, which isn't realistic. You're saying that Wal-mart isn't necessarily a good thing because they don't provide enough. You need to compare it to what's already in these poor areas, which is basically nothing. 40% unemployment man. That's a ridiculous amount. Again, everything you're talking about, your forgetting that we're starting at a baseline of zero here. These people i'm talking about HAVE NOTHING and MAKE NOTHING. So who cares that Wal-mart ships jobs overseas or that their also on government assitance (as if that fact is going to change even when they get a job)? It's a net gain on all fronts, hence why I'm a big fan of it. Do you honestly not see how every other sentence in that paragraph contradicts the previous one? They're at a baseline of zero because of jobs going overseas. Jobs have gone overseas thanks in large part to Walmart. So, Walmart coming in after destroying any real job opportunities for domestic low-skilled workers and offering them retail jobs isn't some great net gain. And, yes, if there were actually jobs available that paid a decent wage (oh, say, all of the manufacturing/ factory jobs we've shipped away in order to drive down prices!), they wouldn't be on government assistance. It is far from a net gain on all fronts, and simply asserting that doesn't make it true. edit: you're assuming that the high rate of unemployment isn't due, at least in part, to Walmart.

Also those poverty levels are national rates. Now consider that we're talking about urban Chicago. And also consider that the poverty rate is that low because of government assistance, i.e. we all get to pay for Walmart's employees through taxes because Walmart doesn't actually pay them enough or give them benefits.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 03:26 PM) I'm addressing it! I'm arguing that you can't perpetuate a cycle of poor when you're being offered more than you were previously. Even if you consider 8.75 per hour a wage below the poverty line (which I don't), it's still putting that person in a better position. That's my point. Wal-mart is providing not only those people, but also the city, financial incentives, which apparently the union just ignores. No, you're not. Maybe because you simply refuse to understand it. 8.75 is poverty. Do you not consider $18200 a year poverty? Or is it not poverty because those making that much can rely on government assistance to get by? And, through their business practices, they drive out any sort of higher-paying job for low-skilled workers. They're stuck in retail making poverty level wages. You haven't even begun to address that. Walmart "saves the poor money" by shipping the jobs they could get paying more than $8.75 overseas. That is the problem. And if you're going to consider Walmart goods as low price for yourself (I'm assuming you're better than poverty and pay more in taxes than any refunds, services, etc.), you need to factor in all of those tax breaks and the government assistance all of their employees need. They've found an economically brilliant way of exploiting that system.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 03:06 PM) as per usual, you give no argument, you just like to categorize/label responses. "Straw man! Shifting goal posts! Look at me, I see what you're doing!" I said 8.75/hr is better than 0. You responded by saying that's just continuing a perpetual cycle. When I asked why, you answered because Walmart doesn't pay good enough wages. I'm still waiting for you to answer how in some of these areas, with crazy high unemployment (40%), where Walmart will provide a job to those that don't have one, how exactly is it perpetuating the cycle for poor people? They're being paid a wage that they weren't being paid before. Edit: I should say they're being offered that wage. They actually have to apply for a job and get it. that is not my position and that's not what I'm advocating. You erected a strawman of what I was saying to easily knock it down. You keep ignoring what I'm actually saying. If you keep committing glaring logical fallacies instead of addressing someone's argument, I'll continue to point that out to you. It's hard to have a discussion when you won't honestly address what the other person is saying or keep trying to shift your arguments. 8.75 is poverty. Walmart moving in and paying 8.75 isn't going to break poverty and it isn't going to give additional marketable skills or significant advancement opportunity. That's why is simply perpetuates the cycle. Walmart's business practices are a major factor in non-poverty level jobs for low-skilled workers going overseas, and there's a variety of other reasons why, generally, Walmart has a negative effect for the poor in this country. If I have time later tonight, I'll try to expand on that. But, in the mean time, can you actually address the issue I brought up instead of lying about what I'm saying?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 01:48 PM) I'm just shocked, literally shocked, that you're advocating that being unemployed, making ZERO dollars of income, is the same situation as having a job, that may or may not be a s***ty job (as if any retail job is a GREAT job), that pays 8.75 an hour. Shocked. Next time I talk to your boss i'll be sure to remind him that a raise of 8.75 is insignificant. I'm sure he'd be happy not to have to pay that out. I'm just shocked, literally shocked, that you cannot follow an argument without turning it completely into a strawman.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 01:36 PM) Supports a perpetual system?! It's 8.75 times BETTER than what they currently have. How is that perpetuating the cycle? Seems to me it's breaking the cycle. And they should be given breaks because they're the only game in town offering a BILLION dollars of investment into the city (and hundreds of millions of new tax revenue every year). You guys are arguing as if the situation now is perfect. The city is losing money left and right and a lot of the poorest areas of the city lack ANY interest in commercial development. Actually, 0 times anything is still zero. And 8.75 is still poverty level. But, I'll just repeat: They don't really pay a livable wage and their purchasing practices drive all the decent-paying, lower-skilled jobs overseas. So they're stuck working crappy Walmart jobs for little pay and little or no benefits while being instructed on how to best maximize their federal and state subsidies. Walmart drives out other employment opportunity for low-skilled workers. They're stuck making poverty-level wages and relying on government support while Walmart makes large profits. That's why it's a perpetual poverty cycle. edit for your edit: Edit: and what "burden" is the tax payer being levied with? Reduced property taxes due to large tax breaks; incredibly high amounts for government assistance for Walmart employees because they'd rather instruct their employees on how to use government benefits than to actually provide said benefits or increased pay.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 01:28 PM) I consider an $8.75/hr job more liveable than $0.00/hr lack of a job. But maybe I'm crazy. And who cares if they get tax breaks? They'd bring in hundreds of millions of dollars a year in new tax revenue, not to mention the tens of thousands of jobs they'd create. It supports a perpetual cycle of poverty and shovels a lot of the cost burden onto the tax payer while Walmart rakes in big bucks. Why should they be receiving large tax breaks on both real estate tax and on paying their workers? A lot of stores sell crap with little regard for how or where it was manufactured. Walmart is one of them.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 12:51 PM) If you had heard the 9th ward alderman this morning on the radio I bet you'd change your mind. His ward has the biggest "food desert" in the city, 40% unemployment, the most crime in the city, the worst health in the city, ZERO hope. You have a huge company offering to pay MORE than minimum wage for jobs (1 BILLION to the city). They've signed a neighborhood benefit agreements (requiring them to hire locals) and they've signed a public works agreements (promised to use unions to build the stores). There's not a single argument against them at this point. It's politics, and the poorest of poor in the city are being hurt by it. Sure there's an argument against them. They don't really pay a livable wage and their purchasing practices drive all the decent-paying, lower-skilled jobs overseas. So they're stuck working crappy Walmart jobs for little pay and little or no benefits while being instructed on how to best maximize their federal and state subsidies. Walmart passes the buck on to the taxpayer*. They also sell a whole lot of crap with bad manufacturing practices and exhibit little to no care for how and where their products are produced, so long as they get them cheap, cheap, cheap! *edit: and as rex points out, they rely on huge tax breaks to come in and build in the first place.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 12:30 PM) That's fair. I was arguing against this ridiculous statement: That's a fair point. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/23/gen...T1&iref=BN1

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 12:34 PM) Which is why those areas should allow Wal-mart to come in, but at least here in Chicago, they can't, because the unions suck. Yes, Walmart is the answer to the problems of impoverished areas. LOL.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 12:02 PM) Please. I complain about my bosses all the time. That doesn't change how I perform my job duties. Is your job in the military? If not, it really isn't comparable.

You don't need a big-box supermarket to sell non-crap food.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 08:39 AM) The remarkable thing is...if a "fresh fruits and vegetables program" actually worked, it would save a lot more money than it cost, because after a few years you'd start slashing away at health care costs and increasing productivity. Maybe. The areas where this is truly a problem probably have low rates of people who can actually afford medical care.

In the military command structure, yeah, this is definitely deserving of being fired. The question is if it will impact the mission too much.

This should be a blowout with all the wide open shots they've missed.

So how many goals has USA had stolen from them by terrible officiating?

I'm enjoying the announcers on ESPN radio.

ESPN 3 has it but it's not compatible with whatever ISP my work has.