Discounting the racists and other bigots means dismissing the great majority of them. And malice & tyranny are the core of conservatism; the only ones who genuinely want to “make the world a better place” are the sort who think torment, oppression and death are good for the character. Conservative “benevolence” is indistinguishable from malice.
Most of them however just want to oppress and kill other people for the sake of personal profit, or for the sheer joy of doing so.
From the people I know, the moderate Republicans are more apt to respect the rights of others unless it negatively impacts them personally where the Democrats are more apt to think their rights are more important. The mild Democrats and Republicans are about the same, they respect the rights of others as long as it does not hurt anyone.
The Far left and Far rights, they are kind of chaotic and opinionated. Both groups of those do not listen much to reason
I agree. Shunpicker’s ex-friend could probably work past sleeping with Shunpicker’s wife easier than sucking Donald’s dick. But tell us, how do you feel about it?
I am aware of your views on the subject, but it’s not as inaccurate as you claim. What would Walmart do if its employees could not afford adequate food, rent, clothing, transport to work, healthcare etc on the wages being paid? The “public subsidy” results in a much larger pool of available workers for their stores able to subsist at the wages offered. Without the subsidy, the economics simply don’t work as well for Walmart and they’d have to increase their wages). Walmart thus materially benefits.
I would argue that Republicans (broadly speaking) are more apt to ignore infringements of the rights of other unless it negatively impacts them personally, where the Democrats (also broadly speaking) are more apt to act to remedy perceived inequalities of civil rights even where it doesn’t impact on them personally.
This is very true. The problem is that the Far left remain a fringe of the Democratic party with minimal influence, whereas the Far right are running the Republican party. That was not always the case, but it is unfortunately true right now.
I was just pulling your leg. I know what you mean.
That’s one POV. Another is that the government isn’t subsidizing Wal-Mart; Wal-Mart is subsidizing the government.
People need $X to live on. Wal-Mart offers $Y. $Y < $X. $X - $Y = $Z, therefore the government pays $Z in benefits. If Wal-Mart didn’t offer $Y, the government would have to pay $X instead of $Z, and $X > $Z.
You are correct that the public subsidy increases the pool of available workers. Shifting the cost to Wal-Mart decreases the pool of available jobs in the same way. Wal-Mart will only hire those who are worth $X, and all those who are worth $Y are out of luck.
It’s a trade-off either way.
Regards,
Shodan
Really? I’m pretty sure there are some conservatives that MANY conservatives admire that are more than happy to debate the hell out of you. One off the top of my head is Ben Shapiro. Now, he’s not a big fan of Trump (I don’t think he voted for him), but he does recognize when Trump does things that align with his brand of conservatism.
I’d like to see anybody here hold their own with him in a Q/A session. And I can guarantee he won’t cite the bible or call you a bad person. His arguments are heavily statistic based.
The difference is that you’ve got to go hunting to find the Far Left group, but the Far Right group dominates the House Republican Caucus.
That would only make any sense if walmart was not getting anything out of the arrangement, like a labor pool.
And your contention that walmart will only hire people worth $x ignores everything there is about economics and labor.
Walmart will hire the employees that it needs to staff its stores. It will pay the wage demanded by workers to staff the store. If there are not enough that will work for $x, then they will pay $x+whatever it takes to staff their stores.
Or get along with fewer staff, shut down the stores, raise prices, or some combination thereof. Labor demand is not independent of labor cost.
Regards,
Shodan
Right - Walmart utterly relies on backing by government welfare to subside its model of paying low wages. If not for welfare it would be forced to either pay better wages or start lopping off bits of its business. (And “raising prices”? That won’t help unless they raise wages too.)
And seriously, your presented position was that Walmart was doing these people a generous favor by bothering to pay them at all - that Walmart’s wages are charity. It was a spectacularly stupid thing to say. You should own that proudly - or at least back off trying to defend it.
Wal-mart also materially benefits from police, the streets, the military etc. Wal-mart has no obligation other then following the law. Adults are responsible for developing their own economic value. It’s not the failure of a store when adult citizens lack that economic value.
I think this perspective requires a person to define “economic value” in a way that deliberately doesn’t account for the presence of an economy.
In real life, “economic value” just means “you managed to get a job paying X amount.” If you have two people with exactly the same skills and qualifications and only one skilled job opening, then the person who gets the job has high economic value and the person who settled for working at Walmart for lack of better opportunities has no economic value - and it’s entirely their own fault and we can, should, and must blame them for being lazy-asses. Unlike their peer over there with the good job; he is an upstanding member of society.
So, you are saying that without the govt subsidies, they would have less staff, fewer stores, and higher prices?
I’m glad that we finally agree on something.
Well, except that walmart helps to write the laws that the are obligated to follow. As Shodan points out, without the govt subsidies, they would be not be as large and profitable as they are now. Would you agree that stores should be responsible for developing their own economic value, rather than being subsidized by the govt?
I would also tend to agree with this. I have also generally noticed more authoritarian thinking on the right, but also more discussion of exceptions; the conservatives I know tend toward fairly draconian regulations, with the understanding that ‘the right people’ will still be given what they need. Anti-abortion as a rule, but doing what’s best for their family if it should come to them, no to immigration, but exceptions granted for exceptional cases, no social welfare, but an understanding that private charity will help those who are truly deserving, usually spiritually as well as physically.
Your mileage may vary, and certainly the left has its share of authoritarians, but they are less likely to carve out spaces for themselves (at least openly)
Oh? So people have no agency or control of their own lives? Everything is in the power of the giant corporations or the government? Someone should have mentioned that to Bill Gates when he started Microsoft or the countless other folks who make a success of themselves instead of waiting for some mana from wal-mart as they monitor the self check out lines.
We all help write the laws that we are sort of suppose to follow when politically convenient. We are all indirectly at the very least subsidized by the government as well as being impacted positively or negatively by a plethora of other externalities. So what?
The whole fallacious the government is subsidizing the WalMarts meme is an intellectually dishonest attempt to publicly shame a company via a deliberate and cynical misunderstanding of basic moral axioms.
Welcome to the wonderful world of excluded middle! (And blatantly stupid examples.) Have a nice day!
In the real world, not delusional fantasy, society quite literally cannot sustain everyone climbing to the top simultaneously. It’s literally impossible. So pointing at everyone at once and yelling “I expect you all to have started your own business and have ten minions who work for you, and refuse to accept that anyone needs to be a minion!” is literally broken logic.
As in an example I’ve heard, it’s like tossing a bottle of booze to ten hobos (aaand fight!) and afterwards telling each one of the bloody bruised losers that if they’d only tried hard enough and killed enough other people, they would be the one getting drunk tonight. And while that’s technically true for each individual hobo, it isn’t the case that if all the hobos had tried hard enough there would be ten happy hobos each sitting with their own bottle. The “you just didn’t try hard enough!” argument can be used to shame people, but it’s utterly incoherent and insane to believe it’s a guideline for a society where everyone does okay.
So what? There will always be economic inequality. You don’t mitigate the negative ramifications of that with counterproductive policy solely enacted to get the votes of the dumb.
So you’re bouncing all over the place because not a single one of your positions withstands scrutiny. But that’s okay, you’re wrong even if you’ll never admit you are.
If I knew a person who “argued” like you in real life, I would refuse to put up with it. Less because of the conservationism, more because of the so-called argument style.