Walmart employee Thanksgiving donations at Canton store cause controversy

  • Thread starter Thread starter seekerz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
For a single mom with two kids walmart wages are not enough to lift her out of poverty. for a married mom with two kids and a husband who works they probably are.
Click to expand...
Her marital state should not dictate whether her wage is just or not. And even assuming a 100% marriage rate, have you seen the divorce rates lately?

Look at the federal poverty level for a family of 4, (the average size of a traditional family unit) is Walmart paying at least that much? That is the real question.
 
Start your own store, pay your employees what you think is fair, and try and run wal-mart out of business.🤷
 
seekerz said:
Her marital state should not dictate whether her wage is just or not. And even assuming a 100% marriage rate, have you seen the divorce rates lately?

Look at the federal poverty level for a family of 4, (the average size of a traditional family unit) is Walmart paying at least that much? That is the real question.
Click to expand...
Just shows the problem of trying to impose a " living wage" Both womenwork the same job and revieve the same wage but for one it is a living wage and the other it is not Let’s throw a single woman with no children in the mix She is also paid a living wage
 
estesbob said:
Just shows the problem of trying to impose a " living wage" Both womenwork the same job and revieve the same wage but for one it is a living wage and the other it is not Let’s throw a single woman with no children in the mix She is also paid a living wage
Click to expand...
Read that quote I posted above. According to Catholic doctrine, a living wage includes dependents, so the federal poverty level for a family of 4 is an appropriate standard. For someone without dependents, that would mean a higher wage than simply a bare living wage…you can go higher, but as an employer you can’t morally go lower.
 
seekerz;11418583 said:
Read that
(“http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11418478#post11418478”) I posted above. According to Catholic doctrine, a living wage includes dependents, so the federal poverty level for a family of 4 is an appropriate standard. For someone without dependents, that would mean a higher wage than simply a bare living wage…you can go higher, but as an employer you can’t morally go lower.
Click to expand...
What if they have a family of 8?
Click to expand...
 
estesbob said:
What if they have a family of 8?
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter. You can make it a family of 16 or 20 if you want. The wage should be enough to meet the needs of all.

A truly Catholic economic system (as opposed to the usury-based monstrosity we have now) would be biased toward larger families (“be fruitful and multiply”)
 
Country_Gal said:
How many anti Walmart people here still shop there for low prices?
Click to expand...
I don’t. I also don’t buy clothing from companies that use sweatshops and I’m currently working on electronics and other items - that one is harder to do. For these types of companies, money talks. I’d rather spend a few dollars more and buy something made in the USA, from a local business, or from a company that provides its workers with decent, humane employment.
 
seekerz;11418583 said:
Read that
(“http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11418478#post11418478”) I posted above. According to Catholic doctrine, a living wage includes dependents, so the federal poverty level for a family of 4 is an appropriate standard. For someone without dependents, that would mean a higher wage than simply a bare living wage…you can go higher, but as an employer you can’t morally go lower.
Click to expand...
Of course, you can’t LEGALLY take the number of dependents into account. You cannot pay a man with six children and a wife at home a dime more than you can pay an equally qualified man with only himself to support. You would have EEOC all over you if you tried to do it.

The Popes have said it’s moral to take the family needs into account. The law prevents it. This society has chosen rights over morals.
Click to expand...
 
alexandratm said:
I don’t. I also don’t buy clothing from companies that use sweatshops and I’m currently working on electronics and other items - that one is harder to do. For these types of companies, money talks. I’d rather spend a few dollars more and buy something made in the USA, from a local business, or from a company that provides its workers with decent, humane employment.
Click to expand...
:amen:
 
10 Points for Economic Life by the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops
  1. The economy exists for the person, not the person for the economy.
  2. All economic life should be shaped by moral principles. Economic choices and institutions must be judged by how they protect or undermine the life and dignity of the human person, support the family, and serve the common good.
  3. A fundamental moral measure of any economy is how the poor and vulnerable are faring.
  4. All people have a right to life and to secure the basic necessities of life (e.g., food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, safe environment, economic security.)
  5. All people have the right to economic initiative, to productive work, to just wages and benefits, to decent working conditions as well as to organize and join unions or other associations.
  6. All people, to the extent they are able, have a corresponding duty to work, a responsibility to provide for the needs of their families and an obligation to contribute to the broader society.
  7. In economic life, free markets have both clear advantages and limits; government has essential responsibilities and limitations; voluntary groups have irreplaceable roles, but cannot substitute for the proper working of the market and the just policies of the state.
  8. Society has a moral obligation, including governmental action where necessary, to assure opportunity, meet basic human needs, and pursue justice in economic life.
  9. Workers, owners, managers, stockholders and consumers are moral agents in economic life. By our choices, initiative, creativity and investment, we enhance or diminish economic opportunity, community life, and social justice.
  10. The global economy has moral dimensions and human consequences. Decisions on investment, trade, aid and development should protect human life and promote human rights, especially for those most in need wherever they might live on this globe.
From this document from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul.
 
J_Peterson said:
If you need to receive food stamps despite having a job, then you are not being paid a fair wage (i.e. living wage). Companies have the responsibility to pay their worker a living wage. Are people really okay with the government essentially subsidizing Wall Mart?

Work was created for people. Thinking that people were created for work is an error.
Click to expand...
Excellent.

Wal-Mart’s a Corporate Goof-Off.

Do you recall Burger King a few months ago, trying to figure out how its workers could afford to live? after having done the math and seen the awful circumstances their pay generates?
 
Ridgerunner said:
Of course, you can’t LEGALLY take the number of dependents into account. You cannot pay a man with six children and a wife at home a dime more than you can pay an equally qualified man with only himself to support. You would have EEOC all over you if you tried to do it.

The Popes have said it’s moral to take the family needs into account. The law prevents it. This society has chosen rights over morals.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how the law prevents it it unless companies use the poverty level as their wage ceiling. Nothing prevents one of (if not the) largest and most successful companies in the world, and the country’s largest private employer, from paying its employees ***more ***than the amount needed to keep a family of 4 out of poverty. There aren’t that many families around which are larger, and those could benefit from assistance programs run by the company.

The Church clearly takes into account the characteristics of the employer/company, in just wage determination. I don’t see how Walmart is prevented by the law from helping its poor itself instead of expecting the government or its other employees to take that responsibility. It’s a crying shame. 😦
 
Get off of the computer, quit complaining, and do something about it if you don’t like the situation.
 
seekerz;11418583 said:
Read that
(“http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11418478#post11418478”) I posted above. According to Catholic doctrine, a living wage includes dependents, so the federal poverty level for a family of 4 is an appropriate standard. For someone without dependents, that would mean a higher wage than simply a bare living wage…you can go higher, but as an employer you can’t morally go lower.
Click to expand...
Yes, an employer could morally go lower. Every job in this country is not intended to be the main source of income for a family of four. That’s why there’s a minimum wage.

But, let’s say that Walmart agreed with you. The federal poverty level for a family of four is $23,550 or $11.32 per hour. So Walmart raises its starting salary to $11.32 - that’s 156% of the minimum wage, which means that the labor portion of the cost of doing business goes up by 50%. Walmart might decide that, out of the goodness of its corporate heart, it will only lay off 25% of its workforce and pass the rest of the cost increase on to customers. Is anyone the winner here?
Click to expand...
 
seekerz said:
I don’t see how the law prevents it it unless companies use the poverty level as their wage ceiling. Nothing prevents one of (if not the) largest and most successful companies in the world, and the country’s largest private employer, from paying its employees ***more ***than the amount needed to keep a family of 4 out of poverty. There aren’t that many families around which are larger, and those could benefit from assistance programs run by the company.

The Church clearly takes into account the characteristics of the employer/company, in just wage determination. I don’t see how Walmart is prevented by the law from helping its poor itself instead of expecting the government or its other employees to take that responsibility. It’s a crying shame. 😦
Click to expand...
You have this backwards. Walmart does not expect the government to take responsibility for assisting their employees, the employees do that by not training themselves for better employment.

Part-time minimum wage jobs are typically entry-level or second jobs. France tried to lower the minimum wage for students a while back because there were no jobs for students. Of course the unions didn’t like that. Jobs that pay well are going to crowd out people who need part time work.

What do you think would happen to prices if all the employees suddenly made $15.00 minimum per hour? The cost of living would go up, unless the government artificially held prices low (like in the former USSR).

Ultimately, the “Invisible Hand” determines prices.

The problem today is that people expect part-time and minimum wage jobs to cover the cost of living. And the government ensures that people can continue in low-experience, low-expectation jobs by subsidizing them.

And how do you determine a job should support a family of 4. Why not a family of 8? What if both parents are working, should they get half?

People who have families have the responsibility to provide for them, not Wal*Mart corporate welfare.

And here Wal*Mart is being demonized for trying to help some of its less fortunate employees.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top