Friendly reminder that Walmart has staff members specifically to help their low-end workers apply for assistance programs.
Question for all of your least favorite family members: If Walmarts employees need assistance programs while working full time at Walmart, then who is benefitting more from social safety nets? Walmart or the worker?
Alternatively, if they were to have a minimum wage above the poverty line, wouldn’t that fix the glitch?
… who is benefitting more from social safety nets? Walmart or the worker?
For those who can think critically: Walmart, because they don’t pay a living wage for full-time workers
For those who can’t think critically: the worker, because they’re ‘double-dipping’ by working full-time and are putting their hand out to receive government benefits.
i think that’s giving them too much credit. i would be surprised if the non-critical thinkers even tried to answer the question. i would expect them to deflect/change the topic/rant about something loosely related.
I’ve always believed if a full time employee is collecting benefits the company they work for should be charged 110% of what ever they receive.
That risks creating a perverse incentive that in turn makes Walmart stop helping workers get government assistance without paying them a living wage.
Much better to tie the fines to the profits of the company, the one thing they wouldn’t sacrifice for ANYTHING.
Cant you just feel America being made great again?!!!?
Can’t you?
make it greater, daddy sigh make it greater
Weren’t a lot of companies downplaying/renaming their DEI efforts already?
But why does government have “DEI” in favor of old people?
Like old people make up 90% of Congress, Supreme court, Presidency.
Can we roll back these “DEI” that helps old demented people?
And why is there a “DEI” program for convicted felons?
The last one is a good program. Convictions make getting a job difficult, which makes recidivism more likely. It’s a good investment in society. It lowers crime, and putting people in prison is expensive. Between security, infrastructure, etc.
In a sane economic environment, DEI hires are generally a benefit to the company. In the sense that, a wider range of perspectives is often better in a globalized world. Trump is pushing us towards a depression, and it will cost everyone money. Which I guess isn’t that big of a deal since the ocean current is collapsing already anyway.
Maybe the aliens will show up and offer to fix global warming if we accept queer space communism. But Musk would just say something racist to them and the idiots would all chatter in agreement about how great chasing after money is.
So we’ll be left to our fate I guess.
I would say our government is mostly fine, and the problem that needs fixing is the out of control ageism that pervades the corporate world. Our government probably only looks old given the skewed view that culture gives, along with ageism directed at the workforce, pushing older people to the margins.
Especially as life extension comes online…
If you think this is neat, check out what corporations do if large populations simply stop buying.
Pity Walmart is the only game in town for mpst places because of corrupt officials.
What do they do?
Close down stores is my guess.
One reason DEI programs exist is because without those programs, companies may be vulnerable to lawsuits for traditional discrimination. “Really think carefully about the risks in all directions on this topic,”
Yep, rainbow capitalism isn’t about doing good, it’s just another cost benefit analysis to them.
I really wish conservatives understood that it’s the profit motive, not the secret gay cabal.
