Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 76 to 77 of 77

Thread: The cost of WalMart Nation

  1. #76
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    first of all, there is a difference between whether the US Congress should legislate who ABC can have as a sponsor for a TV show (where in the Constitution or any federal document does the government have control over private advertising on media? Freedom of the Press comes to mind) and a study on the costs or benefits of certain public/private collaboratives. I referenced a study which outlines the costs of a certain profitable business' operation to our tax base- and extrapolated it to all businesses that operate with such a model.

    To your question about the validity of "democratic studies"
    I don't knock out any study ... though some souces are more balanced than others. Facts are facts...when presented as such (though few sources present pure facts). What I haven't seen are facts of any kind which refute the findings of this study, or show that WM-style pay structures are actually NOT costing taxpayers money.

    If we're to invalidate work by one party, we must invalidate the work of both - which makes recent voted on THE REFUGE invalid, in fact most of the work being done on Terry Schiavo, social security, homeland security, etc. are invalid as they are Republican led and organized efforts in an imbalanced Congress.

    Simply because a study is funded by a party or a branch of congress doesn't make it wrong or untrustworthy. If that were so, then everything we hear from GW and the Republicans about social security, should be eliminated from the debate as well...leaving us with NO sources of information (knock out both sides and what are you left with?

    Again, I ask you to present a solution, not simply attack the foundation or facts you don't agree with.

  2. #77
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    First, let me say, that I'm not one of those, "truth is all relative" types. I agree, facts are facts. However, some studies are more balanced than others. The General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office are two groups known for putting forth facts with no attempt to "spin" them to suit a certain idealogy. Interestingly, neither of those groups authored the study in question. I would not have even mentioned it except that many pages ago I pointed out the false premise behind the democrat's "study". The assumption that every single one of the employees, at every single Wal-Mart, is the sole means of support for an entire family simply is not true. You yourself agreed that that was not the case, "(many WM workers and others are in school)". When a "study" is based on such a false assumption, it is obvious that the authors are not really searching for the truth, they are only attempting to reach a conclusion that they have already pre-determined. Despite the fact that the study is based upon a false assumption, you continue to make statements like, "until then, current studies and research stand." So a "study" you yourself agree is based on a false assumption must "stand"? What kind of sense does that make? You keep asking Melonie to support her statements with facts, well remember this post?
    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    How many need government assistance? What percentage of workers at a typical Wal-Mart get government assistance? All I've seen is they, "might be eligible" they "could be eligible".
    I never got an answer. I could go on, but arguing over the validity of studies is sort of like math and math is boring.

    As far as your statement, "If we're to invalidate work by one party, we must invalidate the work of both - which makes recent voted on THE REFUGE invalid, in fact most of the work being done on Terry Schiavo, social security, homeland security, etc. are invalid as they are Republican led and organized efforts in an imbalanced Congress." There is a difference between votes in congress and studies done by one or both parties. Congress is free to allow oil drilling in THE REFUFE with or without a "study" showing it is beneficial. Now, of course, we'd all like to believe that congress makes well-informed decisions after fully comtemplating all sides of an issue. Of course, we'd like to believe in the Easter Bunny too. Congress, just like voters on election day, are free to vote in ignorance. It may not be great government, but it doesn't "invalidate" anything.

    "Simply because a study is funded by a party or a branch of congress doesn't make it wrong or untrustworthy. If that were so, then everything we hear from GW and the Republicans about social security, should be eliminated from the debate as well..." No, but it does raise the issue of credibility. Let's say there were two studies done on air quality. One done for a lobbying group for the steel industry, the other done by the EPA. You mean you'd give equal credance to them both?

    Lastly, you asked me, "to present a solution, not simply attack the foundation or facts you don't agree with." Okay, I'll give it a try.

    First, I don't see a problem. The "study" is junk science, and you yourself agreed it doesn't reflect reality. But here goes:

    Eliminate the minimum wage law. If I'm willing to work for $3.50 an hour, what business is it of the government? The government doesn't regulate the price of lettuce at the grocery store, why does it regulate the price of labor? The minimum wage law does two things. First it increases teenage unemployment. It costs money to train workers, lots of money. Businesses aren't willing to make that investment in teenagers which is why teenage unemployment is so high. Second, it distorts the marketplace for labor. Know who the Number One proponents of raising the minimum wage are? Unions. Why? Very few, if any, union workers make minimum wage. The reason unions fight for raising the minimum wage is that they know their own high wages are not reflective of what a truly free market would pay. By raising the costs of every other business, they hope that their own employers can somehow survive and continue to pay those fat union wages.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Similar Threads

  1. G String Nation (gstringnation.com)
    By robabs in forum Services
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-30-2007, 12:43 PM
  2. Heatwave in much of the nation
    By PhaedrusZ in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-09-2007, 08:05 PM
  3. Fast Food Nation
    By trin0101 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-18-2007, 10:55 AM
  4. Walmart
    By Kaylinn in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 04-02-2007, 07:54 PM
  5. Walmart
    By Deogol in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-25-2005, 10:33 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •