Walmart food drive

213 posts / 0 new
Last post
KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

It is about the judgement that some people that cast at Walmart and the people that shop there.

I don't think thats what this debate was about at all. I think it was about the food drive for walmart employees and what it says about how much they are paid.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"KimPossible" wrote:

I don't think thats what this debate was about at all. I think it was about the food drive for walmart employees and what it says about how much they are paid.

The impression that I got was that they are a horrible awful company for not paying at least $25,000 a year per employee. My point is that many, many companies do not.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

The impression that I got was that they are a horrible awful company for not paying at least $25,000 a year per employee. My point is that many, many companies do not.

Bonita, you are all over the place, these last few back and forth posts were about this statement you made:

Other people who do shop at Walmart are not the scum of the earth either though which is how some people come across.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

I'm just wondering if Walmart paid their cashiers $12 an hour why would anyone bother trying to go to college and get a better job or try to learn a skill? In this area to get a job that pays $12 an hour you need to have at least some kind of experience or skill, an entry level person isn't paid that much. Why would anyone try to do a harder job if they could get paid just as much for something like a cashier that doesn't take as much skill?

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I'm just wondering if Walmart paid their cashiers $12 an hour why would anyone bother trying to go to college and get a better job or try to learn a skill?

ummm, because you can make a lot more?

I think it would be totally stressful trying to raise my family on 12 dollars an hour. I'm glad I had an opportunity for something better.

Plus lets remember, while they are a large employer, they can't employ everyone. going to college gives you more options than just being a cashier at walmart.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"elleon17" wrote:

Not every job is meant to pay and support a family. Not every job is meant to last a lifetime. It is not Walmart (or any other lower paying company...and there are plenty) to be forced to increase wages in this manner.

If all jobs go to a living wage, then where is the starting point for people entering the marketplace?

If you aren't making enough, get a second job (I have before) and work your butt off to improve your situation. If you find a great paying job as a cashier with another company, give your notice to walmart and be thankful for the experience they gave you that probably got you that job. Even the worst paying companies usually offier incentives, training and such to move up with them.

As for server jobs and the $2 and hour. No they don't have to raise the rates. Serving is a sales position predicated on commission (tips). You provide great service, sell well and you will typically make good money. I waited tables for 7+ years and it is a good/honest living. If I lost my job I would immediately go back to doing that to provide income for my family till I found another position.

Actually, no serving is not considered a "commision-based" position. If at any point there is a shortfall, the employer has to pick up the difference. IOW, servers have to paid minimum wage whether it comes from their employer or their customers. For example, let's say it's a slow night. One server worked for 2 hours but only made $6 in tips. $4 + $6 = $10. $10/2 hours = $5. The employer would have to pay the difference (somewhere around $4 in my example.) Not saying it usually happens just what is supposed to happen if it does.

It's irrelevant in CA; servers have to be paid at least minimum wage; tips are on top of that.

There's no shame in working at Walmart.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I'm just wondering if Walmart paid their cashiers $12 an hour why would anyone bother trying to go to college and get a better job or try to learn a skill? In this area to get a job that pays $12 an hour you need to have at least some kind of experience or skill, an entry level person isn't paid that much. Why would anyone try to do a harder job if they could get paid just as much for something like a cashier that doesn't take as much skill?

Because things worked out so well in Detroit.

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

Bonita, who said anything about Walmart shoppers being scummy? Perhaps you meant to say another thought? Freudian slip?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"mommytoMR.FACE" wrote:

Bonita, who said anything about Walmart shoppers being scummy? Perhaps you meant to say another thought? Freudian slip?

I am stepping away from this. I know what I mean, but I do not know how to say it in a non insulting way. You shop where you want to, and I will shop where I want to, and we will all be good.

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I am stepping away from this. I know what I mean, but I do not know how to say it in a non insulting way. You shop where you want to, and I will shop where I want to, and we will all be good.

Ok.

Offline
Last seen: 4 months 4 hours ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

Actually, no serving is not considered a "commision-based" position. If at any point there is a shortfall, the employer has to pick up the difference. IOW, servers have to paid minimum wage whether it comes from their employer or their customers. For example, let's say it's a slow night. One server worked for 2 hours but only made $6 in tips. $4 + $6 = $10. $10/2 hours = $5. The employer would have to pay the difference (somewhere around $4 in my example.) Not saying it usually happens just what is supposed to happen if it does.

It's irrelevant in CA; servers have to be paid at least minimum wage; tips are on top of that.

There's no shame in working at Walmart.

I don't think that is reality, the whole employer-making-up-the-slow-day thing. I used to be a waitress (decades ago, I confess) and know a lot of people who've done it, and have never heard of that happening.

I agree there's no shame in working at Walmart, there is only shame in Walmart underpaying employees. They also have a long history of employee abuse, like bullying people into working overtime without overtime pay. I think when many of these practices were exposed they had to stop doing them.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

I don't think that is reality, the whole employer-making-up-the-slow-day thing. I used to be a waitress (decades ago, I confess) and know a lot of people who've done it, and have never heard of that happening.

I agree there's no shame in working at Walmart, there is only shame in Walmart underpaying employees. They also have a long history of employee abuse, like bullying people into working overtime without overtime pay. I think when many of these practices were exposed they had to stop doing them.

I don't think it's the reality either. In a 40 hour week, a server has to earn a min. of $290 including tips. If this isn't happening, a server could file a complaint with the DOL; I assume most of those effected don't. I'm glad it's a non-issue here.

Employees rarely file complaints. That's why places like Walmart get away with employee abuse.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I would rather help someone out short term while they are going to college to better themselves and have them have good paying jobs the whole rest of their lives and to have them work as a cashier for their entire live barley making it by.

To clarify, I have no problem with someone being a cashier long term if that is their desire. If so they accept that it is not a great paying job.

To be clear: You would rather pay Walmart employees the equivilant of $4/hour in the form of aid than cut into Walmart's $12 billion profits.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

To be clear: You would rather pay Walmart employees the equivilant of $4/hour in the form of aid than cut into Walmart's $12 billion profits.

four dollars an hour * 1,500,000 employees (Bonita used the .75 of employees as her base for statistics earlier)

= 6,000,000 per hour we pay to help offset Wal-Mart's low wages

Sign me up!

Not

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

To be clear: You would rather pay Walmart employees the equivilant of $4/hour in the form of aid than cut into Walmart's $12 billion profits.

I would rather help someone out for 1-3 years while they are going to college or learning a trade and working a lower paying job then to require every business to pay double the minimum wage for their life.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

Yep Walmart is the evil villain because they make a profit, yet companies like Google with 60 billion in revenue are using taxpayer dollars to fund exotic trips on private jets. Maybe everyone should stop using Google?

Few Americans would care that a successful tech company with substantial travel demands and nearly $60 billion in revenue over the past year maintains a fleet of private jets that guzzle fuel by the millions of gallons. But Google uses campaign contributions to strong-arm federal lawmakers into hamstringing everyone else with restrictive environmental regulations, while Google execs cavalierly jet off to exotic vacation spots around the globe on the taxpayers’ dime.

Google has snagged a few favors from Uncle Sam to lower the cost of maintaining its jet fleet along the way, too.

Since 2007, the private airplane fleet owned by Google execs has been housed in a hangar at NASA’s Ames Research Center just outside Google’s Mountain View, Calif. headquarters. The taxpayer-funded hangars are intended for aircraft performing scientific research to assist NASA, but it appears that Google’s jets perform very little actual scientific research (unless calculating the circumference of Mai Tai umbrellas on the beaches of Babelthuap somehow qualifies).

In addition to the publicly subsidized hangar space, Google received another money saving perk courtesy of U.S. taxpayers: Millions of dollars’ worth of jet fuel at below-market prices from NASA and the Department of Defense. Google officials spent an estimated $29 million on jet fuel at the facility, roughly $10 million less than what they would have paid on the open market.

Perhaps that explains why Google execs have flown to the nation’s capital more than 100 times in the past 6 years?

It should come as no surprise that the Google executives who benefited from government-owned hangar space and federally subsidized jet fuel also happen to be among the largest contributors to political campaigns in the United States. The company itself routinely ranks among the top-10 organizations for federal campaign contributions. Google’s PAC, along with its executives, employees, and those individuals’ immediate family members, contributes hundreds of thousands of dollars each election cycle. In 2008 alone, Google PAC gave $817,855 to President Obama’s campaign; in 2012, Google PAC nearly matched its previous total, giving $801,770.

Google is Flying High and Polluting the Air with Government-Bought Fuel | TheBlaze.com

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Yep Walmart is the evil villain because they make a profit, yet companies like Google with 60 billion in revenue are using taxpayer dollars to fund exotic trips on private jets. Maybe everyone should stop using Google?

Google is Flying High and Polluting the Air with Government-Bought Fuel | TheBlaze.com

Where did anyone comment on what they felt about google? Did someone say Walmart is evil...unlike that angel of a company google.

So weird.

This would be like you commenting on how the healtchare website sucks...and as my counter argument to that I say "Hey well here's another ****ty website"

??

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"KimPossible" wrote:

Where did anyone comment on what they felt about google? Did someone say Walmart is evil...unlike that angel of a company google.

So weird.

This would be like you commenting on how the healtchare website sucks...and as my counter argument to that I say "Hey well here's another ****ty website"

??

Just seems a little hypocritical that's all. Everyone is so down on Walmart all the time and self righteous about never stepping foot in Walmart and yet no one is complaining about companies that take taxpayer money or ship jobs to China. Makes sense lets worry that some employee at Walmart might receive food stamps while corporate jets are taking people to the Bahamas on government funded fuel while we shop on Google.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"KimPossible" wrote:

Where did anyone comment on what they felt about google? Did someone say Walmart is evil...unlike that angel of a company google.

So weird.

This would be like you commenting on how the healtchare website sucks...and as my counter argument to that I say "Hey well here's another ****ty website"

??

It was stated on the website debate that websites that take a long time is an industry standard. Yes, there are a few great companies that go above and beyond for their employees but most companies are no different than Wal-Mart.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Everyone is so down on Walmart all the time and self righteous about never stepping foot in Walmart and yet no one is complaining about companies that take taxpayer money or ship jobs to China.

Everyone I know complains about these things. Corporate welfare is a scourge. Unions have been fighting against shipping jobs to countries with worse labour records since they started.

I suggest joining your relevant union and helping fight these awful things. Don't forget to shop local.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Just seems a little hypocritical that's all. Everyone is so down on Walmart all the time and self righteous about never stepping foot in Walmart and yet no one is complaining about companies that take taxpayer money or ship jobs to China.

That started happening on such a large scale because of walmart's price bullying practices. Their choices were find a place to manufacturer or go out of business. Because you HAD to be able to sell to walmart as they aquired such a large portion of the consumer base and walmart insisted on unreasonably low prices. If you don't like companies going to china, don't buy crap at walmart for crazy cheap prices.

Its ok..you don't have to believe me. I'm sure you won't!

ETA: here's a good Frontline episode about it though if you are interested. Its from a while ago, but its good for historical reference on how we got here.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/

ETA:
Or alternatively you can just read the transcript

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/etc/script.html

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

It was stated on the website debate that websites that take a long time is an industry standard.

well thats a dumb argument (if it was actually used to say that the healthcare site was fine that is)...and i didn't make that argument.

Yes, there are a few great companies that go above and beyond for their employees but most companies are no different than Wal-Mart.

Oh i disagree with that. You are basing the fact that they are 'all the same' on what exactly? Some companies are worse than others.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"KimPossible" wrote:

Oh i disagree with that. You are basing the fact that they are 'all the same' on what exactly? Some companies are worse than others.

Speaking only of wages, just look at the article above about Target. Wal-Mart pays the same as most of their competitors. There are a few exceptions, but most companies pay about the same.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Speaking only of wages, just look at the article above about Target. Wal-Mart pays the same as most of their competitors. There are a few exceptions, but most companies pay about the same.

Okay....if we are talking only about wages thats fine, i can agree with that. But in regards to all these accusations about being hypocritical because I or other dislike one store more than another...there are a heck of a lot more reasons than just wages that i like wal mart less.

But in regards to wages Walmart has the largest profits by far, the largest ability and cushion to change. They also employ an enormous amount of people. If you don't see these as reasons to respect them even less, thats fine but I do! I have to draw a line somewhere, i can't just stop shopping all together. But I do buy local a lot, and i will often pay more for things in order to not buy them at any big box store.

Not all the time...but i try pretty hard I think. Heck of a lot better than just saying "Well they all do it....its fine" and giving them all of my business IMO.

And before any one goes on about people who can't afford to do that, thats not what i'm saying. I actually do think people should try, at whatever level they are at though, to be as conscientious as they can.

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

Bonita, Youtube has a free documentary about Walmart... I suggest you watch it. Before I watched it, I disliked Walmart because of it's disorganization, the lack of cleanliness, and the lack of satisfactory customer service. I never knew the logistics of the corporation, and how exactly they run things. It's quite informative.

Here is the link: Walmart: The High Cost Of Low Prices FULL MOVIE - YouTube

Now I will admit, I have shopped there more times than I've wanted lately, because they do have low prices on some things compared to Target. I needed a stainless steel small pot to steam veggies and Target was just too expensive and didn't have the size I wanted. And the discount stores didn't have any either (like Homegoods, Marshalls, etc). Walmart did. I loathe giving my money to them but I had to unless I ordered something from Amazon, but I needed it right away in this case. And Walmart knows that.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"mommytoMR.FACE" wrote:

Bonita, Youtube has a free documentary about Walmart... I suggest you watch it. Before I watched it, I disliked Walmart because of it's disorganization, the lack of cleanliness, and the lack of satisfactory customer service. I never knew the logistics of the corporation, and how exactly they run things. It's quite informative.

Here is the link: Walmart: The High Cost Of Low Prices FULL MOVIE - YouTube

Now I will admit, I have shopped there more times than I've wanted lately, because they do have low prices on some things compared to Target. I needed a stainless steel small pot to steam veggies and Target was just too expensive and didn't have the size I wanted. And the discount stores didn't have any either (like Homegoods, Marshalls, etc). Walmart did. I loathe giving my money to them but I had to unless I ordered something from Amazon, but I needed it right away in this case. And Walmart knows that.

And of course we know that anything posted on YouTube is pure fact....

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

This was an actual documentary that happens to be on youtube. I watched it years ago on tv.

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

And of course we know that anything posted on YouTube is pure fact....

Yeah because I'm an idiot, Gloria.

ETA: documentaries are factual.

"Jessica80" wrote:

This was an actual documentary that happens to be on youtube. I watched it years ago on tv.

Thanks for clarifying that for Gloria. A lot of people don't realize YouTube plays movies and documentaries and other stuff.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"mommytoMR.FACE" wrote:

unless I ordered something from Amazon

Just speaking to this, there is an Amazon distribution center near where I live. They offer a lot of jobs, but they are very low paying jobs. They pay about a half to a third of what most other factories in the area pay and less than Walmart pays for full time work.

(Not really relevant, but just wanted to put it out there)

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Just speaking to this, there is an Amazon distribution center near where I live. They offer a lot of jobs, but they are very low paying jobs. They pay about a half to a third of what most other factories in the area pay and less than Walmart pays for full time work.

(Not really relevant, but just wanted to put it out there)

How much less than Walmart? Because federal minimum wage is $7.25. According to glassdoor, amazon warehouse pays $10-$13.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"mommytoMR.FACE" wrote:

How much less than Walmart? Because federal minimum wage is $7.25. According to glassdoor, amazon warehouse pays $10-$13.

I know several people that work there and make $8/hour. Walmart workers make around $8.25. I know it is not a huge difference, but it stands out because the kind of work it is. Most other factory workers locally make twice that were as it is more normal for retail workers to make that amount.

ETA - I apologise, I just went and looked at local wanted ads. They are hiring right now and had wanted ads out. It appears that they have raised their wages. I know when they opened the Warehouse it was all over the news that 200 jobs were coming at that they paid $8/hour and that is what people that worked there made. The wanted ad has the wage now at $11.50-$13/hour so that is great.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

I went back and did a through search to see what happened. I think in the begining when they first opened they went through a temp agency and those jobs paid $8 an hour.

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I went back and did a through search to see what happened. I think in the begining when they first opened they went through a temp agency and those jobs paid $8 an hour.

Interesting because temp agencies usually pay more.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"mommytoMR.FACE" wrote:

Interesting because temp agencies usually pay more.

Not the ones that I am familiar with. While I was a college student I worked at a factory for two summers through a temp agency. Granted that was several years ago, but I made $7.25/hr while the union workers working along side me were making $15/hr.

ETA - For reference, that was in NY where I grew up.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Is everyone who works for Wal-Mart in college or a trade school? That's awesome! Wink

Offline
Last seen: 4 months 4 hours ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Not the ones that I am familiar with. While I was a college student I worked at a factory for two summers through a temp agency. Granted that was several years ago, but I made $7.25/hr while the union workers working along side me were making $15/hr.

ETA - For reference, that was in NY where I grew up.

I can't say for sure, but I'm guessing that had more to do with the union than the temp agency.

elleon17's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 1981

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

Actually, no serving is not considered a "commision-based" position. If at any point there is a shortfall, the employer has to pick up the difference. IOW, servers have to paid minimum wage whether it comes from their employer or their customers. For example, let's say it's a slow night. One server worked for 2 hours but only made $6 in tips. $4 + $6 = $10. $10/2 hours = $5. The employer would have to pay the difference (somewhere around $4 in my example.) Not saying it usually happens just what is supposed to happen if it does.

It's irrelevant in CA; servers have to be paid at least minimum wage; tips are on top of that.

There's no shame in working at Walmart.

To me it was always a commission based sales job, the more I sold, the better service I provided, the more money I made. YOu are correct in the fact that the company has to make up the difference to minimum if you bring in less than that, but in all the restaurants I worked over several years I never saw that happen once. If you sell real estate, you don't have a minimum salary usually (sometimes a draw), I guess my point is not every job, including many high paying ones, do not have stable base salaries and shouldn't be forced to either. Its a choice to work a job for pay whatever it may be, or the risk that comes with tips, commissions, etc.

I never said there was shame in working at Walmart.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Here's the thing that blows my mind. When Conservatives talk about wanting to reduce government spending and benefits to help support poor people, the first thing that comes up is "Well they need to get a job!" Okay, fair enough, but then when we point out that lots of people have full time jobs that don't pay enough to keep them off government benefits, the answer is "Well jeez, they shouldn't expect to be able to actually live off the money they make from that job!" Do you see the disconnect? The truth is, not everyone is going to go to college or go to trade school, or become a manager. And that's actually an okay thing. Not everyone can be lawyers and doctors and managers (and I don't mean that in a "well la-di-da, not EVERYONE can be a lawyer Ms. Fancypants" kind of way LOL) I mean that our economy couldn't support it. The truth is, if you want to continue having WalMarts and McDonalds and places like that, you need people who are willing to work in the service industry. I think especially in our current economy, we tend to think of it like WalMart (and other employers of that same ilk) are doing people a big favor, like "Well they should just be grateful to have ANY job." But let's not forget that it's a two way street, and WalMart needs to also have employees in order to keep their stores up and running. If everyone went to trade school and moved on from their WalMart job (even assuming that was possible for all people) then WalMart would be severely understaffed.

I've worked in retail. It's not glamorous but it is honest work, and it is necessary to the structure of our economy. We need people in all levels and positions. There is absolutely no reason that people who work full time for a company that NETS $17BB a year should have to go without basic necessities. Assuming you agree with that, then you can either support companies paying their employees a living wage, or you can support the government (i.e. us tax payers) making up the difference in government aid. What you can't do (if you want to be logically consistent) is be opposed to both companies paying a living wage AND people receiving assistance. That is not a fair or logical stance to take.

On a side note, I am genuinely curious how politicians like Paul Ryan are going to reconcile their political positions towards the working poor towards the positions being put out by the new Pope. Those of you that are Catholic, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Pope supposed to be infallable - meaning that basically from Gods mouth to the Pope's ears? I am sincerely sincerely curious if this new Pope will change things, at least for openly Catholic Conservatives who have based their political stance on their faith in the Past (again, like Paul Ryan.) And for the record, I am becoming a fan of the new Pope. I mean, we don't see eye to eye on all things, but in my (humble!) opinion, he's a very good man who is doing admirable things.

Pope Francis 'Evangelii Gaudium' Calls For Renewal Of Roman Catholic Church, Attacks 'Idolatry Of Money'

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

On a side note, I am genuinely curious how politicians like Paul Ryan are going to reconcile their political positions towards the working poor towards the positions being put out by the new Pope. Those of you that are Catholic, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Pope supposed to be infallable - meaning that basically from Gods mouth to the Pope's ears? I am sincerely sincerely curious if this new Pope will change things, at least for openly Catholic Conservatives who have based their political stance on their faith in the Past (again, like Paul Ryan.) And for the record, I am becoming a fan of the new Pope. I mean, we don't see eye to eye on all things, but in my (humble!) opinion, he's a very good man who is doing admirable things.

Pope Francis 'Evangelii Gaudium' Calls For Renewal Of Roman Catholic Church, Attacks 'Idolatry Of Money'

I could be wrong, but I do not believe Paul Ryan is Catholic. There is about as much in common with my Religion and Catholics as there is in my religion and Muslims. Nothing against either, just pointing out they are not the same, even if they both call themselves Christian.

ETA - The fact that Mitt Romney was a Mormon actually hurt him in the last election among many people I know.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

On a side note, I am genuinely curious how politicians like Paul Ryan are going to reconcile their political positions towards the working poor towards the positions being put out by the new Pope. Those of you that are Catholic, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Pope supposed to be infallable - meaning that basically from Gods mouth to the Pope's ears? I am sincerely sincerely curious if this new Pope will change things, at least for openly Catholic Conservatives who have based their political stance on their faith in the Past (again, like Paul Ryan.) And for the record, I am becoming a fan of the new Pope. I mean, we don't see eye to eye on all things, but in my (humble!) opinion, he's a very good man who is doing admirable things.

Pope Francis 'Evangelii Gaudium' Calls For Renewal Of Roman Catholic Church, Attacks 'Idolatry Of Money'

I could be wrong, but I do not believe Paul Ryan is Catholic. There is about as much in common with my Religion and Catholics as there is in my religion and Muslims. Nothing against either, just pointing out they are not the same, even they both call themselves Christian.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I could be wrong, but I do not believe Paul Ryan is Catholic. There is about as much in common with my Religion and Catholics as there is in my religion and Muslims. Nothing against either, just pointing out they are not the same, even they both call themselves Christian.

Paul Ryan is Catholic. Remember that whole thing? About how he and Biden are both Catholic?

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

Oh and about papal infallibility, it does not mean that every time the pope says something he is infallible. Infallible statements are actually very rare. Two Ex Cathedra...and there are some other things that are considered moments of papal infallibility. But thats about it.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"KimPossible" wrote:

Oh and about papal infallibility, it does not mean that every time the pope says something he is infallible. Infallible statements are actually very rare. Two Ex Cathedra...and there are some other things that are considered moments of papal infallibility. But thats about it.

Does that include his official papal platform?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"KimPossible" wrote:

Paul Ryan is Catholic. Remember that whole thing? About how he and Biden are both Catholic?

Interesting, I had not realised that.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Does that include his official papal platform?

I'm not entirely sure on what you are considering his official papal platform. If the current Pope has said anything that might be considered infallible, it would be very specific things/statements..very little if anything that he has said would be considered infallible...which is true for pretty much every pope. I know of nothing that the current pope has infallibly said as of yet.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"KimPossible" wrote:

I'm not entirely sure on what you are considering his official papal platform. If the current Pope has said anything that might be considered infallible, it would be very specific things/statements..very little if anything that he has said would be considered infallible...which is true for pretty much every pope. I know of nothing that the current pope has infallibly said as of yet.

I thought that the document he just released (the Evangelii Gaudium) was considered his official papal platform on the subject of poverty. I'm just getting that from the HuffPo article I read about it (posted above) so I could be misunderstanding.

Pope Francis called for renewal of the Roman Catholic Church and attacked unfettered capitalism as "a new tyranny", urging global leaders to fight poverty and growing inequality in the first major work he has authored alone as pontiff.
The 84-page document, known as an apostolic exhortation, amounted to an official platform for his papacy, building on views he has aired in sermons and remarks since he became the first non-European pontiff in 1,300 years in March.

In it, Francis went further than previous comments criticizing the global economic system, attacking the "idolatry of money" and beseeching politicians to guarantee all citizens "dignified work, education and healthcare".

He also called on rich people to share their wealth. "Just as the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say 'thou shalt not' to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills," Francis wrote in the document issued on Tuesday.

"How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses 2 points?"

The pope said renewal of the Church could not be put off and said the Vatican and its entrenched hierarchy "also need to hear the call to pastoral conversion".

"I prefer a Church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a Church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security," he wrote.

In July, Francis finished an encyclical begun by Pope Benedict but he made clear that it was largely the work of his predecessor, who resigned in February.

Called "Evangelii Gaudium" (The Joy of the Gospel), the exhortation is presented in Francis' simple and warm preaching style, distinct from the more academic writings of former popes, and stresses the Church's central mission of preaching "the beauty of the saving love of God made manifest in Jesus Christ".

Would that be considered infallable, or otherwise something that Catholics would be expected to follow? I don't know how it all works. I guess I thought that if the Pope put out something "official" then that was the Church's official stance. I realize that individual Catholics don't have to always agree with and follow the Church's official stance, but I thought that was still the deal. Can you explain it better? Genuine questions.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Here's the thing that blows my mind. When Conservatives talk about wanting to reduce government spending and benefits to help support poor people, the first thing that comes up is "Well they need to get a job!" Okay, fair enough, but then when we point out that lots of people have full time jobs that don't pay enough to keep them off government benefits, the answer is "Well jeez, they shouldn't expect to be able to actually live off the money they make from that job!" Do you see the disconnect? The truth is, not everyone is going to go to college or go to trade school, or become a manager. And that's actually an okay thing. Not everyone can be lawyers and doctors and managers (and I don't mean that in a "well la-di-da, not EVERYONE can be a lawyer Ms. Fancypants" kind of way LOL) I mean that our economy couldn't support it. The truth is, if you want to continue having WalMarts and McDonalds and places like that, you need people who are willing to work in the service industry.

The thing is even if you don't go to college and work in retail as a career, once you get some experience under your belt you are not going to be in an entry level position and you will move up the ladder and be paid more. Even at Walmart. The pay for entry level positions are not the same as someone who has more experience. If I start out at $8 and hour working at Walmart 10 years later I would not still be making $8 an hour. My niece started working at Walmart while she was going to college, graduated and moved through other positions and eventually became a store manager. Granted you wouldn't move up as quickly if you didn't get a degree, but there are other positions in customer service and different areas that are going to pay more than what you would start out at.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

The thing is even if you don't go to college and work in retail as a career, once you get some experience under your belt you are not going to be in an entry level position and you will move up the ladder and be paid more. Even at Walmart. The pay for entry level positions are not the same as someone who has more experience. If I start out at $8 and hour working at Walmart 10 years later I would not still be making $8 an hour. My niece started working at Walmart while she was going to college, graduated and moved through other positions and eventually became a store manager. Granted you wouldn't move up as quickly if you didn't get a degree, but there are other positions in customer service and different areas that are going to pay more than what you would start out at.

Not every person can move up the ladder. I mean, what, each store probably has 1 GM and then some assistant managers and shift managers? Compared to they probably have 100+ employees at each store. They can't all move up - there aren't enough positions, and even the ones that do still have to eat in the meantime while they wait for the opportunity. So my point stands, if you don't think that people should expect to live off of a full time job, then fine, but accept that they are going to need public assistance instead.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Not every person can move up the ladder. I mean, what, each store probably has 1 GM and then some assistant managers and shift managers? Compared to they probably have 100+ employees at each store. They can't all move up - there aren't enough positions, and even the ones that do still have to eat in the meantime while they wait for the opportunity. So my point stands, if you don't think that people should expect to live off of a full time job, then fine, but accept that they are going to need public assistance instead.

No they can't all move up. Most of them use it as an entry level job while they are going to school or get some experience and then quit and move on to something bigger and better. But I very much doubt many people stay at a cashier position for 10 years unless they are just lazy and not interested in advancing. There are a lot of jobs between starting out as a cashier and management with varying degrees of responsibility. There are also jobs such as in the back office that pay more that you can move into such as handling cash and receipts or human resources, managing computer systems, etc. There a lot more positions in a retail store than just the ones you see up front.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

No they can't all move up. Most of them use it as an entry level job while they are going to school or get some experience and then quit and move on to something bigger and better. But I very much doubt many people stay at a cashier position for 10 years unless they are just lazy and not interested in advancing. There are a lot of jobs between starting out as a cashier and management with varying degrees of responsibility. There are also jobs such as in the back office that pay more that you can move into such as handling cash and receipts or human resources, managing computer systems, etc. There a lot more positions in a retail store than just the ones you see up front.

I wouldn't call being on your feet all day, being the face of your company to their customers, handling your company's revenue intake, et cetera "lazy." And it's actually quite essential to the company's success. This is what I mean, I think it's amazing how we devalue people who are putting in an honest day's work.

But, whether they are lazy or not, they still have to eat for however long they are lounging around the cash register or the mop bucket, or whatever. If we agree that they still have to eat, and we agree that food costs money, then we agree that the money has to come from somewhere, right? So it can come out of Wal-Mart's $17BB deep pockets, or it can come from ours, but it's coming from somewhere. That's really my main point. I have no desire to research how many people use Wal-Mart as a mere stepping stone to greatness, I'm just arguing that while they are there and Wal-Mart is paying them peanuts, someone has to make up the difference.

Pages