i was asking you to define living wage which you are clearly unable to do
wages that i choose to pay my employees are overheard
a mystical yet undefinable "living wage" is not
insurance coverage that i choose to give my employees is overhead
insurance coverage that i don't choose to give my employees is not
paid vacation i decide to give my employees is overhead
magical vacation courtesy of the european experiment is not
fast food does not require any specialized skills so wages and benefits are not competitive. it's not very complicated
Sorry, the law now says you have to cover your employees with health insurance. Tough shit. Cry about it to another asshurt burger pimp. Just because it hasn't been that way until now, doesn't mean the way it was was the right thing then. I believe health care should be universal, a human right, not just for someone who happens to have the right kind of job. Also, if an employee is sick he should be able to take a day or two off without worrying if a bill might not get paid now because they are losing 2 days pay. Afraid of your employee gaming the system? Require paperwork from the doctor (which they can go see if they are insured) stating that the employee was actually sick. Personally I would want healthy people handling food, but I am kinda kooky, huh?
Living wage? A wage that allows a person to pay for their basic necessities. If your employees qualify for food stamps, then guess what? They are not being paid a living wage.
If you are willing to do the right thing like get a job, show up for 40 hours every week and do that job to the best of your ability, you should be able to make rent, buy food and see a doctor. I don't care if you shine shoes for a living, flip burgers, wash cars. If you work, you should be able to live. Should you be able to live anywhere you want? No. I never said that the stockboy should have the same 5 bedroom house as the store owner. Never said that, so your "incentive" argument is full of shit. We need people to flip burgers, we need people to mow lawns, we need people to do these things, just because they don't turn an outrageous profit from it doesn't mean they have to live in third world conditions. If you don't think we are headed to third world status because of income inequality, you are foolish.
The era from 40 years ago where you could get a job, be a loyal employee and work there for 30 years, retire on a pension are over. Back then a CEO didn't make 700-800 times what their employees made. Being an honest, hard working employee doesn't get you any job security anymore. So this bootstrap and incentive bullshit is just that, bullshit.
I am done with this conversation because you haven't made a legitimate argument in any of this and if this is all a devil's advocate/trolling situation, then, whatever.
Bye.
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
The_Hook_Up said:
PatrickCrazy said:
i was asking you to define living wage which you are clearly unable to do
wages that i choose to pay my employees are overheard
a mystical yet undefinable "living wage" is not
insurance coverage that i choose to give my employees is overhead
insurance coverage that i don't choose to give my employees is not
paid vacation i decide to give my employees is overhead
magical vacation courtesy of the european experiment is not
fast food does not require any specialized skills so wages and benefits are not competitive. it's not very complicated
Sorry, the law now says you have to cover your employees with health insurance. Tough shit. Cry about it to another asshurt burger pimp. Just because it hasn't been that way until now, doesn't mean the way it was was the right thing then. I believe health care should be universal, a human right, not just for someone who happens to have the right kind of job. Also, if an employee is sick he should be able to take a day or two off without worrying if a bill might not get paid now because they are losing 2 days pay. Afraid of your employee gaming the system? Require paperwork from the doctor (which they can go see if they are insured) stating that the employee was actually sick. Personally I would want healthy people handling food, but I am kinda kooky, huh?
Living wage? A wage that allows a person to pay for their basic necessities. If your employees qualify for food stamps, then guess what? They are not being paid a living wage.
If you are willing to do the right thing like get a job, show up for 40 hours every week and do that job to the best of your ability, you should be able to make rent, buy food and see a doctor. I don't care if you shine shoes for a living, flip burgers, wash cars. If you work, you should be able to live. Should you be a!ble to live anywhere you want? No. I never said that the stockboy should have the same 5 bedroom house as the store owner. Never said that, so your "incentive" argument is full of shit. We need people to flip burgers, we need people to mow lawns, we need people to do these things, just because they don't turn an outrageous profit from it doesn't mean they have to live in third world conditions. If you don't think we are headed to third world status because of income inequality, you are foolish.
The era from 40 years ago where you could get a job, be a loyal employee and work there for 30 years, retire on a pension are over. Back then a CEO didn't make 700-800 times what their employees made. Being an honest, hard working employee doesn't get you any job security anymore. So this bootstrap and incentive bullshit is just that, bullshit.
I am done with this conversation because you haven't made a legitimate argument in any of this and if this is all a devil's advocate/trolling situation, then, whatever.
Sorry, the law now says you have to cover your employees with health insurance. Tough shit.
No, that's incorrect. Coverage is mandated for anyone working at a business with 50+ and doing 30+ hours a week. And guess what many businesses large and small are doing? Moving full-time workers to part-time positions, cutting back or not expanding past 50 workers, or just saying fuck it, it's cheaper it pay the penalty than pay for medical. But I'm sure none of this was brought up before all this legisation was passed, right? Think of who benefits from all of this and it sure as hell ain't workers.
Living wage? A wage that allows a person to pay for their basic necessities. If your employees qualify for food stamps, then guess what? They are not being paid a living wage.
If you want entire industries to completely disappear from America forever, this is the way to go about doing it. Under this scheme, businesses either significantly raise their prices to adjust for higher wages, go out of business, or the government steps in on some cradle to the grave deal. No thanks.
If you are willing to do the right thing like get a job, show up for 40 hours every week and do that job to the best of your ability, you should be able to make rent, buy food and see a doctor. I don't care if you shine shoes for a living, flip burgers, wash cars. If you work, you should be able to live.
If you do work that others feel is valuable enough to pay for, you should get paid whatever they feel it's worth. If you work at a job that a high school kid could perform, you're going to get paid what a high school kid gets paid.
Should you be able to live anywhere you want? No. I never said that the stockboy should have the same 5 bedroom house as the store owner. Never said that, so your "incentive" argument is full of shit.
Please shoe me where I said anything about living conditions. I said the incentive to work your way up and innovate is significantly diminished if you are guaranteed to have all your necessities taken care of.
The era from 40 years ago where you could get a job, be a loyal employee and work there for 30 years, retire on a pension are over. Back then a CEO didn't make 700-800 times what their employees made. Being an honest, hard working employee doesn't get you any job security anymore. So this bootstrap and incentive bullshit is just that, bullshit.
That's because a guaranteed pension was not and never was a sustainable proposition. Being an honest, hard working employee never guaranteed you anything. Being a valuable employee did though.
I am done with this conversation because you haven't made a legitimate argument in any of this and if this is all a devil's advocate/trolling situation, then, whatever.
Bye.
I've not inserted a single opinion on this whole living wage and whatever matter and just stated what would happen if things went one way or the other. I'm being a realist about the whole situation instead of propsing some utopian ideas that have absolutely no grounding in reality and I'm not the one making a legitimate argument? Ok.
Right, so based on your own criteria as an employer you've determined value. That's great, feel free to do what you want based on that. I'm not saying that being hard working and honest is not valuable. I'm saying that merely being hard working and honest does not cut it all the time and arguably will count less and less as emerging markets seize even more and more of our low skilled labor jobs.
If you're saying that industry and conscientiousness aren't always enough I'd probably agree. That said, most employees just get to fulfill the function they've been hired for. I know the American dream dares you to strive for more but not everyone gets the chance and of those who do not everyone gets the recognition .
I've not inserted a single opinion on this whole living wage and whatever matter and just stated what would happen if things went one way or the other. I'm being a realist about the whole situation instead of propsing some utopian ideas that have absolutely no grounding in reality and I'm not the one making a legitimate argument? Ok.
I hate to break it to you, but everything you've stated is opinion and conjecture based on theories that the economic crises of the past 5 years have proven to be absolute bullshit.
There is no factual evidence to prove that raising wages causes inflation, even though it's the big bogeyman that financial analyst types always roll out when they need to defend the low wages that are paid to employees compared to the exorbitant wages that are paid to executives. To give one example that flies in the face of neoliberal philosophy, for the past 10 years Brazil has adopted a policy of steadily increasing the minimum wage (towards something closer to a living wage) while expanding social programs that alleviate extreme poverty - programs such as food stamps and universal health care. As a result, Brazil has been experiencing the most significant social change since it abolished slavery, with something like 40% of its population moving out of extreme poverty. And the inflation rate hasn't gone up, and industry didn't shut down because they couldn't afford to pay the new minimum wage. In fact, industry has boomed because, as it turns, if you pay people a better wage they have more money to spend on things. The best part is that this was only made possible by giving the middle finger to the IMF and World Bank twats and their Washington Consensus policy - the very same group of people who are now stripping the US and European countries of everything they have, all for the sake of "economic stability" and the sanctity of the "free market."
I've not inserted a single opinion on this whole living wage and whatever matter and just stated what would happen if things went one way or the other. I'm being a realist about the whole situation instead of propsing some utopian ideas that have absolutely no grounding in reality and I'm not the one making a legitimate argument? Ok.
I hate to break it to you, but everything you've stated is opinion and conjecture based on theories that the economic crises of the past 5 years have proven to be absolute bullshit.
There is no factual evidence to prove that raising wages causes inflation, even though it's the big bogeyman that financial analyst types always roll out when they need to defend the low wages that are paid to employees compared to the exorbitant wages that are paid to executives. To give one example that flies in the face of neoliberal philosophy, for the past 10 years Brazil has adopted a policy of steadily increasing the minimum wage (towards something closer to a living wage) while expanding social programs that alleviate extreme poverty - programs such as food stamps and universal health care. As a result, Brazil has been experiencing the most significant social change since it abolished slavery, with something like 40% of its population moving out of extreme poverty. And the inflation rate hasn't gone up, and industry didn't shut down because they couldn't afford to pay the new minimum wage. In fact, industry has boomed because, as it turns, if you pay people a better wage they have more money to spend on things. The best part is that this was only made possible by giving the middle finger to the IMF and World Bank twats and their Washington Consensus policy - the very same group of people who are now stripping the US and European countries of everything they have, all for the sake of "economic stability" and the sanctity of the "free market."
Thank you.
Blows my mind that there are people here arguing for Wal-Mart and low wages.
sorry, are we talking about the US or a rapidly growing emerging market country here? the US has had stagnant growth for decades while brazil has been growing. brazil doesn't have trillions of dollars of debt coupled with tens of trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities caused by the very social programs you're touting. brazil is able to afford these things because they're growing. simple as that. hate to point out the obvious but this is a great example of correlation not being causation. when you're able to learn from other country's fuckups re: social programs, it's also a lot easier to tailor your own brand new programs to avoid shitstorms.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
I'm about as Libertarian as it gets, but still don't like social programs, especially in a country built on slavery, being categorically labeled as "fuckups".
b/w
Wish someone would finally realize that they're giving themself a not so invisible handjob up in here.
I'm about as Libertarian as it gets, but still don't like social programs, especially in a country built on slavery, being categorially labeled as "fuckups".
notice how there's a "re:" there. kinda changes the meaning. given the current state of social programs in the US, we've clearly gone through many fuckups and refuse to fix them. we implemented them and expanded them in a fucked up way.
Wish someone would finally realize that they're giving themself a not so invisible handjob up in here.
NAME NAMES
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
You, my man. I generally understand where you are coming from with your macro viewpoints, but there are certain protections the public needs in place to keep the corporate quest for profit turning this whole world into slave-driven stripmall hell. You always hear about people not willing to give up liberty for safety. Well, along those lines, I'm not willing to give up culture for wealth. And in America, Walmart strips culture like no other.
sorry, are we talking about the US or a rapidly growing emerging market country here? the US has had stagnant growth for decades while brazil has been growing. brazil doesn't have trillions of dollars of debt coupled with tens of trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities caused by the very social programs you're touting. brazil is able to afford these things because they're growing. simple as that. hate to point out the obvious but this is a great example of correlation not being causation. when you're able to learn from other country's fuckups re: social programs, it's also a lot easier to tailor your own brand new programs to avoid shitstorms.
Brazil is able to afford these things because in 2002, when Lula became president, one of his first actions was to pay off the IMF and World Bank loans the country had, which were tied to the type of conditions now being forced upon countries like Greece, Portugal, and Spain and being carried out voluntarily by countries like England. These conditions were the basic austerity measures you're seeing - cut back on social programs, privatize assets (not that the US has much left to privatize) and things of that nature. Not only Brazil, but all of Latin America had adhered to these notions (better known as the Washington Consensus, since they were the conditions economists in Washington had decided nations had to meet in order to receive loans from the IMF and the World Bank) and the result was stagnation through the 80s and 90s in the whole region. Brazil isn't able to afford these things because it's growing, it is growing because of these programs. Even at the height of the financial crisis its internal economy kept going strong because of these programs, and its greatest period of growth came AFTER these programs were put in place. In order to grow Brazil had to throw all the neoliberal rules out the window. Other countries, like Mexico, Bolivia and Argentina, have been taking similar measures and having similar results in terms of alleviating poverty and sustaining growth. Even The Economist, the bastion of neoliberal policy, agrees that this is the best way to pull a country out of a financial crisis - through spending, not through cutting back on programs.
Things like universal health care, food stamps, and increasing the minimum wage to keep it up with inflation and provide a basic living standard to everyone who works are meant to act as a form of income redistribution - what some people like to call socialism, as if it's a bad thing. Brazil is still incredibly unequal in terms of wealth distribution, but the growth for the past decade has gone more towards the bottom 80-90% of the population. Compare this with the US, which has been following all the neoliberal/reaganite notions of "trickle down economics" and for the past 3 or 4 decades has seen all of its wealth and growth go towards the very top of the social pyramid, while a huge chunk of its population slips into poverty. The US has huge financial problems, none of which were caused by its social programs, but they have everything to with how the financial crisis was handled in 2007 and how Republicans and Democrats have been acting in Congress ever since.
When it comes to corporations like Walmart, there is no moral or ethical argument to be made in defense of how they pay and treat their employees - the same way you can't morally justify the fact that people are denied health care in America. The economic argument is the only one people use, but it's built on a foundation of bullshit and misinformation.
I grew up in Brazil in the 80s, when its economy was in the shit, and then moved to the US and got to watch its economy head in the same direction - by carrying out many of the same measures that led Brazil into a financial hole. It's mind boggling to think that in the 80s we looked at the US as if it was living in the future, like it was the country you become after your economy is set straight, and now we realize everything that is happening in Europe and the US happened in Brazil about 20-30 years ago.
anyway, good luck to you. I'm sure that if the US keeps on following the philosophy you believe in for another generation it will have a hard time climbing out of the hole it has dug for itself.
we have protections in place. it's called voting and not giving business to places you don't agree with. now clearly if the rest of the united states was the soulstrut demographic we wouldn't have any evil corporations but that's just not how it is. if people choose to not exercise their freedoms in this country, it's on them.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
PatrickCrazy said:
we have protections in place. it's called voting and not giving business to places you don't agree with.
dude, what aren't you getting? you're comparing apples and oranges. if the US had the economic potential and demographics of brazil then yes, some of the things you are talking about would be potential without disrupting much. if you throw in some of the more ______ (insert whatever here) suggestions in this thread to the US right now, it would be extremely disruptive and i'd argue that it would hurt the people it would supposed to help.
i haven't given my opinion on social programs at all in this thread but people are getting all up in arms over somehow. if that's how the people of brazil have chosen to reform their country, that's wonderful. freedom to choose is a great thing. i'm just pointing out that given how our country currently is, magically throwing around money isn't going to do anything
A city council, through zoning laws, could make it very difficult for new Walmarts to pop up anywhere but on the outskirts of town.
When I lived in Eugene, OR, there was a whole lot of thwarting of bloated corporate businesses going on up there.
PatrickCrazy - 11 January 2013 03:48 PM
we have protections in place. it's called voting and not giving business to places you don't agree with.
wow, so people can vote for a city council that will do something like that and then even if they do grant zoning to a corporation, they could choose not to go to it and in the event that a majority of their fellow citizens agree with them (something like voting!), the corporation would be forced to shutdown that location? no way.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
In my scenario, the Walmart never gets put in place to be shut down by a relative boycott.
And voting doesn't mean shit when big bank ultimately comes in and says listen to big business instead of the people. That's exactly what happened here in Austin a few years ago. People voted, people refused to shop there, but still now we have a big ugly Walmart in place where Northcross Mall used to be.
In my scenario, the Walmart never gets put in place to be shut down by a relative boycott.
And voting doesn't mean shit when big bank ultimately comes in and says listen to big business instead of the people. That's exactly what happened here in Austin a few years ago. People voted, people refused to shop there, but still now we have a big ugly Walmart in place where Northcross Mall used to be.
i'm not saying it's a perfect process but if elected officials clearly go against the will of their constituents and still get reelected, what message does that send to them?
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
PatrickCrazy said:
HarveyCanal said:
In my scenario, the Walmart never gets put in place to be shut down by a relative boycott.
And voting doesn't mean shit when big bank ultimately comes in and says listen to big business instead of the people. That's exactly what happened here in Austin a few years ago. People voted, people refused to shop there, but still now we have a big ugly Walmart in place where Northcross Mall used to be.
i'm not saying it's a perfect process but if elected officials clearly go against the will of their constituents and still get reelected, what message does that send to them?
In my estimation, elected officials in this country go against the will/reason of the people in favor of the will/reason of big business about 98% of the time, across the board.
They clearly don't represent us...and voting them out just to have the next clown come in to continue the practice doesn't work.
That's why I take the emphasis off of the vote itself (which keeps getting swept under the rug) and put it on the so-called integrity of the individual keyholders.
Comments
Sorry, the law now says you have to cover your employees with health insurance. Tough shit. Cry about it to another asshurt burger pimp. Just because it hasn't been that way until now, doesn't mean the way it was was the right thing then. I believe health care should be universal, a human right, not just for someone who happens to have the right kind of job. Also, if an employee is sick he should be able to take a day or two off without worrying if a bill might not get paid now because they are losing 2 days pay. Afraid of your employee gaming the system? Require paperwork from the doctor (which they can go see if they are insured) stating that the employee was actually sick. Personally I would want healthy people handling food, but I am kinda kooky, huh?
Living wage? A wage that allows a person to pay for their basic necessities. If your employees qualify for food stamps, then guess what? They are not being paid a living wage.
If you are willing to do the right thing like get a job, show up for 40 hours every week and do that job to the best of your ability, you should be able to make rent, buy food and see a doctor. I don't care if you shine shoes for a living, flip burgers, wash cars. If you work, you should be able to live. Should you be able to live anywhere you want? No. I never said that the stockboy should have the same 5 bedroom house as the store owner. Never said that, so your "incentive" argument is full of shit. We need people to flip burgers, we need people to mow lawns, we need people to do these things, just because they don't turn an outrageous profit from it doesn't mean they have to live in third world conditions. If you don't think we are headed to third world status because of income inequality, you are foolish.
The era from 40 years ago where you could get a job, be a loyal employee and work there for 30 years, retire on a pension are over. Back then a CEO didn't make 700-800 times what their employees made. Being an honest, hard working employee doesn't get you any job security anymore. So this bootstrap and incentive bullshit is just that, bullshit.
I am done with this conversation because you haven't made a legitimate argument in any of this and if this is all a devil's advocate/trolling situation, then, whatever.
Bye.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
If you want entire industries to completely disappear from America forever, this is the way to go about doing it. Under this scheme, businesses either significantly raise their prices to adjust for higher wages, go out of business, or the government steps in on some cradle to the grave deal. No thanks.
If you do work that others feel is valuable enough to pay for, you should get paid whatever they feel it's worth. If you work at a job that a high school kid could perform, you're going to get paid what a high school kid gets paid.
Please shoe me where I said anything about living conditions. I said the incentive to work your way up and innovate is significantly diminished if you are guaranteed to have all your necessities taken care of.
That's because a guaranteed pension was not and never was a sustainable proposition. Being an honest, hard working employee never guaranteed you anything. Being a valuable employee did though.
I've not inserted a single opinion on this whole living wage and whatever matter and just stated what would happen if things went one way or the other. I'm being a realist about the whole situation instead of propsing some utopian ideas that have absolutely no grounding in reality and I'm not the one making a legitimate argument? Ok.
And what's your definition of valuable?
Dude.
I hate to break it to you, but everything you've stated is opinion and conjecture based on theories that the economic crises of the past 5 years have proven to be absolute bullshit.
There is no factual evidence to prove that raising wages causes inflation, even though it's the big bogeyman that financial analyst types always roll out when they need to defend the low wages that are paid to employees compared to the exorbitant wages that are paid to executives. To give one example that flies in the face of neoliberal philosophy, for the past 10 years Brazil has adopted a policy of steadily increasing the minimum wage (towards something closer to a living wage) while expanding social programs that alleviate extreme poverty - programs such as food stamps and universal health care. As a result, Brazil has been experiencing the most significant social change since it abolished slavery, with something like 40% of its population moving out of extreme poverty. And the inflation rate hasn't gone up, and industry didn't shut down because they couldn't afford to pay the new minimum wage. In fact, industry has boomed because, as it turns, if you pay people a better wage they have more money to spend on things. The best part is that this was only made possible by giving the middle finger to the IMF and World Bank twats and their Washington Consensus policy - the very same group of people who are now stripping the US and European countries of everything they have, all for the sake of "economic stability" and the sanctity of the "free market."
Thank you.
Blows my mind that there are people here arguing for Wal-Mart and low wages.
b/w
Wish someone would finally realize that they're giving themself a not so invisible handjob up in here.
NAME NAMES
Brazil is able to afford these things because in 2002, when Lula became president, one of his first actions was to pay off the IMF and World Bank loans the country had, which were tied to the type of conditions now being forced upon countries like Greece, Portugal, and Spain and being carried out voluntarily by countries like England. These conditions were the basic austerity measures you're seeing - cut back on social programs, privatize assets (not that the US has much left to privatize) and things of that nature. Not only Brazil, but all of Latin America had adhered to these notions (better known as the Washington Consensus, since they were the conditions economists in Washington had decided nations had to meet in order to receive loans from the IMF and the World Bank) and the result was stagnation through the 80s and 90s in the whole region. Brazil isn't able to afford these things because it's growing, it is growing because of these programs. Even at the height of the financial crisis its internal economy kept going strong because of these programs, and its greatest period of growth came AFTER these programs were put in place. In order to grow Brazil had to throw all the neoliberal rules out the window. Other countries, like Mexico, Bolivia and Argentina, have been taking similar measures and having similar results in terms of alleviating poverty and sustaining growth. Even The Economist, the bastion of neoliberal policy, agrees that this is the best way to pull a country out of a financial crisis - through spending, not through cutting back on programs.
Things like universal health care, food stamps, and increasing the minimum wage to keep it up with inflation and provide a basic living standard to everyone who works are meant to act as a form of income redistribution - what some people like to call socialism, as if it's a bad thing. Brazil is still incredibly unequal in terms of wealth distribution, but the growth for the past decade has gone more towards the bottom 80-90% of the population. Compare this with the US, which has been following all the neoliberal/reaganite notions of "trickle down economics" and for the past 3 or 4 decades has seen all of its wealth and growth go towards the very top of the social pyramid, while a huge chunk of its population slips into poverty. The US has huge financial problems, none of which were caused by its social programs, but they have everything to with how the financial crisis was handled in 2007 and how Republicans and Democrats have been acting in Congress ever since.
When it comes to corporations like Walmart, there is no moral or ethical argument to be made in defense of how they pay and treat their employees - the same way you can't morally justify the fact that people are denied health care in America. The economic argument is the only one people use, but it's built on a foundation of bullshit and misinformation.
I grew up in Brazil in the 80s, when its economy was in the shit, and then moved to the US and got to watch its economy head in the same direction - by carrying out many of the same measures that led Brazil into a financial hole. It's mind boggling to think that in the 80s we looked at the US as if it was living in the future, like it was the country you become after your economy is set straight, and now we realize everything that is happening in Europe and the US happened in Brazil about 20-30 years ago.
anyway, good luck to you. I'm sure that if the US keeps on following the philosophy you believe in for another generation it will have a hard time climbing out of the hole it has dug for itself.
So now this is a comedy thread?
i haven't given my opinion on social programs at all in this thread but people are getting all up in arms over somehow. if that's how the people of brazil have chosen to reform their country, that's wonderful. freedom to choose is a great thing. i'm just pointing out that given how our country currently is, magically throwing around money isn't going to do anything
When I lived in Eugene, OR, there was a whole lot of thwarting of bloated corporate businesses going on up there.
wow, so people can vote for a city council that will do something like that and then even if they do grant zoning to a corporation, they could choose not to go to it and in the event that a majority of their fellow citizens agree with them (something like voting!), the corporation would be forced to shutdown that location? no way.
And voting doesn't mean shit when big bank ultimately comes in and says listen to big business instead of the people. That's exactly what happened here in Austin a few years ago. People voted, people refused to shop there, but still now we have a big ugly Walmart in place where Northcross Mall used to be.
In my estimation, elected officials in this country go against the will/reason of the people in favor of the will/reason of big business about 98% of the time, across the board.
They clearly don't represent us...and voting them out just to have the next clown come in to continue the practice doesn't work.
That's why I take the emphasis off of the vote itself (which keeps getting swept under the rug) and put it on the so-called integrity of the individual keyholders.
They are clearly the weak link in the chain.
"If you support gay rights, please do not donate"... those guys?
Suggest they wear those plastic Wal-Mart bags on their heads.