|
fapjack
Title



Registered: 07/26/07
Posts: 16,574
Loc: Central New Jersey
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: Enlil]
#18915640 - 10/01/13 11:11 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: There is no such thing as an "overabundance of freedom" when discussing a competent adult human being.
What about a king that kills 100 subjects everyday he feels bored, or someone that beats his wife every time she over cooks his steak?
--------------------
|
Uzziel
O_o


Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 11,689
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: Enlil]
#18915643 - 10/01/13 11:12 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
Uzziel said: So you can insult my reading and math skills but not give an explanation? Because my numbers are correct, so lets go ahead and hear why I am wrong and why YOUR skills aren't poor.
Your failed math: 2.2 million x 2000 hours a year x $1 is 4.4 billion, plus you have to add in the additional payroll taxes that go with that.
Your reading fail: The math above assumes a $1/hour pay raise. That is NOT a "living wage." A living wage would take far more than $1/hour pay raise and easily force the company to raise prices. It was an entirely different point in an entirely different paragraph.
40 hours a week, 160 a month. 1920 hours yearly x 1 x 2.2million = $4224000000. There, I used 2.2 million instead of 2 million employees which was outdated. So you failed at math too. So you pretty much just insulted yourself as well.
And you agree it isn't livable. Great. Nothing further to discuss.
|
psi
TOAST N' JAM


Registered: 09/05/99
Posts: 31,456
Loc: 613
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: Enlil]
#18915646 - 10/01/13 11:12 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
psi said:
That must be why Costco went out of business.
Costco didn't go out of business, dude. Check your facts before you start posting shit.
You never really gave a serious response to the Costco counterexample. Costco pays its employees significantly more than Walmart does, yet it's also known for having low prices and appears to be in no danger of going out of business even though its profit margins are roughly half those of Walmart according to the site you linked. How do you account for this?
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,505
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: fapjack]
#18915649 - 10/01/13 11:13 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
That is dearth of freedom. The king and the husband have infringed on the freedom of others.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,505
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: psi]
#18915662 - 10/01/13 11:17 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psi said: You never really gave a serious response to the Costco counterexample. Costco pays its employees significantly more than Walmart does, yet it's also known for having low prices and appears to be in no danger of going out of business even though its profit margins are roughly half those of Walmart according to the site you linked. How do you account for this?
There is no comparison between the two, really. Costco doesn't rely on the same business model at all. They have far fewer employees and largely rely on a model based on limited selection and high quantities. It's an apples/oranges comparison.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
psi
TOAST N' JAM


Registered: 09/05/99
Posts: 31,456
Loc: 613
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: Enlil]
#18915667 - 10/01/13 11:19 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
They both operate retail stores that sell groceries and household items, unlike say McDonalds.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,505
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: Uzziel]
#18915682 - 10/01/13 11:22 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Uzziel said: 40 hours a week, 160 a month. 1920 hours yearly x 1 x 2.2million = $4224000000. There, I used 2.2 million instead of 2 million employees which was outdated. So you failed at math too. So you pretty much just insulted yourself as well.
OMG, you still fail at math. 
I can't imagine why you're using a 48 week year for your calculations unless it's because you're hell-bent on trying to prove me wrong...
The standard is to use a 2000 hour year because that's 52 weeks minus a 2 week vacation period....but hey, if walmart people get 4 weeks a year, more power to them.
And you've still completely disregarded the payroll taxes...clearly because you've never run a business.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: Uzziel]
#18915697 - 10/01/13 11:25 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Uzziel said: so you pretty much just insulted yourself as well.
Except that there's 52 weeks in a year.
52 X 40= 2080 hours. Not 1920 as you suggested, which is a mere 48 weeks.
Surely a company as deviant as Walmart would never give 4 weeks off to the poor schlubs that work there.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Uzziel
O_o


Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 11,689
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
I didn't bother giving a full 52 weeks because most lower employees DON'T get 40 hour work weeks to begin with if you want to begin to start getting exact then yes, you are more correct and I am wrong.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,505
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: Uzziel]
#18915779 - 10/01/13 11:43 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The bottom line is that the goal of a business is to make money for the owner(s)...not the employees. If Walmart can get someone to do the job for $6, why should they pay them $7 instead?
I would bet dollars to donuts that NOT ONE of the people arguing for higher wages at Walmart will volunteer to pay an extra grand for his/her next car out of the kindness of his/her heart.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Uzziel
O_o


Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 11,689
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: Enlil]
#18915787 - 10/01/13 11:45 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Bottom line? You want to start talking bottom line?
Bottom line its fucking inhumane to treat people like they are just a number and don't deserve better than poverty.
What the fucking fuck.
|
jewunit
Brutal!


Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 34,264
Loc: Ohio
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: Enlil]
#18915806 - 10/01/13 11:49 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It's not really something I like arguing since I don't necessarily think there is a "right" stance. I would like to point out that you or I paying a $1,000 extra dollars is a lot different than a multi-national corporation raising wages. You were earlier disregarding arguments because of apples to oranges comparisons, so I don't think it's wise to make one yourself.
I do think large business with an abundance of profit should pay people more. I understand the work isn't challenging, that it doesn't require any particular skill set, that any dolt cant do it, etc. I've worked jobs like that. I just think they should because they can. Excessive wealth is just unnecessary. I understand the argument on the other side as well. It's just not something I particularly agree with.
E: "A $1,000 extra dollars" What the fuck that has to be the most redundant shit I've typed in a long time
-------------------- !
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,505
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: Uzziel]
#18915809 - 10/01/13 11:49 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
People working for Walmart get paid what they deserve. If they deserved more, they'd go work someplace else that paid better. They don't, because they don't deserve more.
The whole point of a free market is to even the playing field for competition. If some loser can demand a higher pay rate than he deserves simply because the government wants to be paternalistic (on my dime), that fucks the better qualified employee over because he gets no bonus for being the better employee since it had to go to pay the loser next to him.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
nicechrisman
Interdimensional space wizard



Registered: 11/07/03
Posts: 33,241
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: Enlil]
#18915819 - 10/01/13 11:51 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- "Cosmic Love is absolutelely ruthless and highly indifferent: it teaches its lessons whether you like/dislike them or not." John C. Lily
|
Uzziel
O_o


Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 11,689
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: Enlil] 1
#18915827 - 10/01/13 11:53 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
No, you wanted to talk bottom lines and I gave it to you. Walmart can afford to pay people liveable wages and they just don't. They'd rather keep them in poverty because they are just numbers to them unlike how their commercials say we care about our employees BLAH BLAH BLAH.
You can talk free market all you want, it doesn't make them any less of a giant asshole.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,505
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: jewunit]
#18915828 - 10/01/13 11:53 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
jewunit said: I would like to point out that you or I paying a $1,000 extra dollars is a lot different than a multi-national corporation raising wages.
The difference, if there is one, favors you and I spending $1,000 extra. The corporation has even less of an incentive to pay extra for labor because:
1. It is an ongoing cost that permanently increases the cost of labor throughout the business, 2. The corporation has a duty to serve the best interests of the owners who don't usually have any say in the day to day operations.
For you and I, we can spend an extra $1,000 for the fuck of it and it costs only that $1,000...and it only impacts US negatively. For a corporation, they're taking money out of someone else's pocket to do so, and it's an ongoing expense.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,505
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: Uzziel]
#18915834 - 10/01/13 11:55 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Uzziel said: No, you wanted to talk bottom lines and I gave it to you. Walmart can afford to pay people liveable wages and they just don't. They'd rather keep them in poverty because they are just numbers to them unlike how their commercials say we care about our employees BLAH BLAH BLAH.
You can talk free market all you want, it doesn't make them any less of a giant asshole.
What does that make you? You're here on the internet...that's a luxury...why aren't you spending that money to feed the poor? By your logic, doesn't that make you just as much of an asshole as they are?
If you don't like people trying to better their own lives and placing their desires over the desires of others, then you're in the wrong world, kid.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
Edited by Enlil (10/01/13 12:08 PM)
|
jewunit
Brutal!


Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 34,264
Loc: Ohio
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: Enlil]
#18915843 - 10/01/13 11:57 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The difference is a lot more than that and you know it. One example is a one time payment from an individual, another is an increase in a regular payment from a corporation. There just not the same thing.
Would I willingly give a car salesman $1,000 for a car for no reason? No, of course not. Would I give $1,000 to a humanitarian cause because I thought it was worth it? If I was in a position to do so I absolutely would.
But again, I think it's a foolish comparison.
-------------------- !
|
Uzziel
O_o


Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 11,689
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: Enlil]
#18915845 - 10/01/13 11:57 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I do donate to charity and I do volunteer. Get your head out of your ass.
I also aint a kid, so keep your insults at bay.
Its so bad that I want better for millions in poverty compared to a handful of people? Wow.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,505
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: R U OK with this? [Re: Uzziel]
#18915853 - 10/01/13 12:00 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You clearly don't donate enough if you can still afford internet access. You should be living with the bare minimum so you can give all of the rest to charity.
That's what you expect Walmart to do.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
|