Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    1:03 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Greedy Corporation Tricks: What Are The Methods Used To Rip Off The 99%? Back to Topics
SemiSteve
Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:20,318
Points:469,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2014 6:53:36 PM


Post all the ways used by big corporations and the 1% to rip off the rest.

Everything from making products more chincy, failing to stand behind them, deceptive packaging and ads, squeezing ever more out of workers while giving them less and less for their efforts, avoiding costs to properly dispose of polluting by-products, out-and-out fraud, to manipulating the government for profit: (ie: ripping off the taxpayers), etc, etc, etc.

This should be informative and enlightening....

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 2/24/2014 6:54:35 PM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:9,447
Points:1,407,825
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Feb 20, 2015 1:09:04 AM

Here is an example of how predatory home loans work. First the lender offers a loan to a person who can’t really afford it. In this case 63 woman lives off a small pension and disability. She is single woman who lives by her self and was sold is a 150,000 three bedroom home that the lender found for her. The home she was given a loan on was in need of repairs but passed the lenders inspection, an inspection that the lender will not show to the home owner. The house has a cracked foundation, broken window seals, and gaps in the doors and window. This woman was not aware of the expense involved in owning a home and the lender did not make it clear to her that the mortgage is not the only expense of owning a home, unlike renting. When the lender was contacted their response was “you can borrow more money from us to fix your house.

I think this lender should be put out of business because in the end the rest of us will end up paying for it in one way or another.

Unaffordable home lone



[Edited by: johnnyg1200 at 2/20/2015 1:11:53 AM EST]
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,318
Points:469,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 4:04:56 PM

The greedy super rich selfishly use the power of their money to manipulate the government to enrich themselves further.

This goes against the entire concept of our nation, a nation where all are equal in the eyes of the government. A nation built on the premise that each of us has the same chance to have our views and concerns represented in government.

The USA was not founded on the principle that the richest should have more power in government than the poorest.

But little by little that is what we have become.

The greed of the powerful is choking our economy, reducing our quality of life, and endangering our future.

The best way for common citizens of this nation to counter this destructive trend is to get informed, contact representatives and vote accordingly.
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,626
Points:1,677,705
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 16, 2015 3:48:58 PM

Finally Steve we can agree on something - yes it is not a simplistic picture. Yes it is hard to change your lifestyle. But the fact still remains that is is a whole series of choices that people make that result in the outcome in life they have.

To say that people dont make these choices is just not factual at all. To say that they make bad choices is factually true also. We all make bad choices but some of us don not make a lifelong habit of it. Most of us make a series of choices where the good results outweigh the bad to the point we are better off than any people in the history of the world to date have ever been.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,318
Points:469,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 16, 2015 2:18:27 PM

People who are born and raised on the dole mostly end up on the dole because they don't know any better. You can say it is their fault but that is not really the whole picture.

The problem is systemic. It is caused by bad policy.

Such as the low minimum wage that big corporations fight tooth and nail to preserve.
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,626
Points:1,677,705
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 16, 2015 11:13:36 AM

Steve I guess you missed the context of how that phrase was used. Try adding a dose of sarcasm and rereading the post. You are the one who implies (hell no - lives eats and breathes) that BIG EVIL CORPORATE BUSINESS RICH FAT CATS ARE GONNA STEAL EVERYTHING from the poor starving downtrodden masses of common good folks just trying to get by on the scraps left over.

What I ams saying is that in most all cases the reason people find themselves in a unpleasant situation is a matter of choices they have made their entire life. Some folks because of choices their parents made have a easier or more difficult time but it is still a matter of choice.

Or are you trying to say that people really are mindless dumb robots that do whatever the latest TV commercial tell them to do.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,318
Points:469,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 16, 2015 10:40:24 AM

"the evil corporations"

Your words, fly. Not mine.

And yet you hold me to them as if I said what you made up and attributed to me.

If your argument held water you would not need to use a straw man.

Corporations are not human. But some seem to care more for them than those who are exploited by them. Mostly because they are invested in them and growing their own fortune is more important than caring about fellow humans.
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,918
Points:156,415
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2015 12:07:47 AM

The bottom line is as we globalized our economy, wages stagnated, and middle class shrunk.

If you did not spend your career in the private sector it went unnoticed.

For those in the private sector it happened very slowly in economic down cycles, it was hardly noticed by most.

The economic engine that drove our economy is gone, sure there will be some that can get an education and enjoy a middle class status, but the current economical situation will never support as many at the level it once did.

If you plan to send kids to collage that wife better start working as soon as you can avoid the cost of day care.

The average age of a car in 1970 was 3years old, today it is nearing 12.

flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,626
Points:1,677,705
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2015 10:41:06 PM

Steve you said -
.
"Fly wake up and look at a calendar.

Most households are now supported by at least two jobs. Nobody wants to live in the 50's. The Lone Ranger is part of history.

People in the 50's had all the latest stuff. They did it on one income and they had time off for good behaviour."

I dont have to look at the calendar Steve I know what year it is but you dont seem to want to look at reality either.

No Steve not everyone who lived and worked back then had all the latest and greatest stuff. Not then not in the 60's, 70's 80's 90's or any decade.

People back then and up until today were and are willing to live on less than they make and skip some luxuries in order to live within their means. Not everyone has a wife who has a job outside the home especially where I live now. Your whole premise is nonsense.

Yes the average home was around 1,000 - 1,200 sq ft back then. Its not that there weren't big houses back then but people chose not to buy them. The average home now is somewhere in excess of 2,200 sqft.

What has changed Steve - have families gotten bigger? No in fact they probably have gotten smaller. How many TV's did the average family have then Steve and phones and a host of other "nice to have" junk er er er stuff? NO Steve people choose to buy that stuff because they want all the luxury stuff and they want it right the heck now. It is their choice to get all that stuff --- it is not a requirement of life!

Steve I didn't live in a home with refrigerated AC until 1990. I didn't own more than one TV until about 2010. I still choose to live in what most would consider a small home. But we chose to have the wife stay home and work with the family. When she was no longer needed in that she chose to work outside the house for a wage for a few years. Steve we chose to live frugally but live well and invest and save.

Don't try and tell me that its required to have two incomes these days - its no more required now than it was then! Its all about choices we make and what we consider important. Yes if you want a big fancy house and multiple TV's and whoopee cell phones and newer cars that are fancy and shiny etc yes its gonna take two or more incomes to do it.
.
.
.
But Steve there a a lot of folks who think its more important to live within their means and save for the future. That hasn't changed everywhere. There are lots of folks who are willing to pass on todays toys in order to insure a better future. That has not changed either Steve.

But by all means continue to blame the fact people demand more than they can pay for on big business and the evil corporations. But sooner or later you might stop and think of who really makes the decisions to spend the money and how they spend it.

You might think that what I'm saying is to "go back in time" but it isn't that at all.
.
.
What I am saying is that people like you need to either learn to live within their means --- ------ or stop complaining about the fact they cant have everything they want without earning it.

[Edited by: flyboyUT at 1/31/2015 10:45:59 PM EST]
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,318
Points:469,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2015 10:13:19 PM

What do you think was happening to the wealth and fortunes of the richest at the same time that:

"Inflation came along and took a bite out of all of our buying power."?

Do you think the richest, whose fortunes grew by 700% since the 80's alone, lost buying power?

Here is what happened. The wealth of the middle class has eroded in proportion to the growth of the wealth of the super-rich.
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:32,142
Points:3,577,920
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2015 8:10:03 PM

SemiSteve said: "People in the 50's had all the latest stuff. They did it on one income and they had time off for good behaviour."

--Steve, I think that it's not relevant. There most certainly WERE 2 income households. Probably in the neighborhood of 1/3 of the families in my neighborhood, the mom worked. Most were either teachers, nurses or store clerks. Some other families that had good jobs and the mom was stay-at-home. But as I said, while I would say most Moms worked, it wasn't all. And where I grew up, it was a tremendously expensive place to live on my Dad's salary of a bit less than $10K. But then again, our house only cost $25K back then. The house I live in now was $35K brand new. Mostly it was higher level managers that lived in this neighborhood. Now the houses are more than 20x that price, and the neighborhood is populated with people like engineers, pharmacists, and other business professionals. Anyway, your point is not well taken. Inflation came along and took a bite out of all of our buying power. People wanted more out of life than one 800 sq ft, 2 br 1ba home. Now the average home is 4BR and 1800 sq.ft. Excessive? I think not. People want a bit more room and comfort. And there's a price to it.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,318
Points:469,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2015 7:51:09 PM

Fly wake up and look at a calendar.

Most households are now supported by at least two jobs. Nobody wants to live in the 50's. The Lone Ranger is part of history.

People in the 50's had all the latest stuff. They did it on one income and they had time off for good behaviour.

People today need two incomes to have all the latest stuff. And they don't get as much time off.

And as this transition has taken place from the 50's to now the richest have quietly made themselves astronomically rich.

You tell me who gave up something and who got more.

And please feel free to provide any links to show how the demise of the middle class is because all those people who lost jobs and careers didn't work hard enough.
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,918
Points:156,415
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2015 2:54:15 PM

MJ
said
"Healthcare workers are doing well due to our aging, overweight, obese, out-of-shape and physically/mentally unfit population."

touche'
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,626
Points:1,677,705
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2015 11:21:39 AM

Steve no one is forcing the 'two earner' household on anyone. The fact that people refuse to live within their means makes them want to work as a two earner household. I remember how my folks did it. small home with no frills (1200 sgft with 4 kids), no AC, only one 19 inch BW TV, one phone, one old patched together car (but paid for) and just a whole host of other things we didnt need and didnt waste money on that everyone thinks are essentials to life now.

The problem is way too many people today dont know what it means to live frugally and they dont want to because "they are owed - the gubbiment has to pay us".
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,821
Points:48,140
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2015 8:41:12 AM

Healthcare workers are doing well due to our aging, overweight, obese, out-of-shape and physically/mentally unfit population.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,318
Points:469,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2015 2:29:58 PM

By forcing an economy upon us which demands two earners per household America has stepped away from healthier food and towards strongly in ceased health care costs.

Health care, insurance, processed food suppliers, and Wall Street are doing well as the nation suffers the consequences.

Corporations: 1

People: 0
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,821
Points:48,140
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2015 9:16:04 AM

<<The problem is that for food suppliers the general rule is: The more processed the food is, the more profitable it is.>>

We sell many whole foods at minimal profit, break even or even a loss as a value add service for mid to upper income customers that also buy a lot of processed foods.

.

Lots of risk, expense and product loss due to spoilage, refrigeration, returns, rejects, short shelf life etc. These products occupy warehouse, truck, floor, shelf, freezer and cooler space that could be occupied by much more profitable processed foods.

More and more mid to upper income customers commute great distances, work long hours, long days, 2/3/4 jobs, so they don't have time, or make time to prepare whole food meals.

More and more of these customers are buying more and more frozen meals and sides they can pop in the oven or microwave when they get home.


[Edited by: MarkJames at 1/26/2015 9:16:18 AM EST]
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,918
Points:156,415
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2015 9:01:02 AM

MJ

I have to agree with you on this point.
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,821
Points:48,140
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2015 8:59:26 AM

<<Whole foods only take 10-15min more to prepare, the benefits are sooooooo,
worth it when u get use to doing it.>>

I've prepared many of my whole food staples in bulk since I was a teenager.

Prep time divided by the number of meals per batch often equals minutes per meal.

Time management is very important for people like myself that work a lot of hours and eat the majority of meals away from home at the office, at the businesses, on the road or in the field.Fast food isn't nearly as fast as my healthy pre-prepared whole food meals.

Before my workers make the drive to and get served expensive processed and prepared foods at the fast food joints, convenience stores and store delis I've already consumed my healthy whole food meal.

.For people like myself that demand high quality high protein meals with healthy fats, complex carbs and minimal processing/additives the food choices away from home are slim to none and/or extremely expensive and slow.

[Edited by: MarkJames at 1/26/2015 8:59:48 AM EST]
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,318
Points:469,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 6:42:23 PM

"Saw a documentary since the 60's there has been an explosion of synthetic additives for foods. Some of these additives are for preservation, the rest to increase the desire to over consume."

The general rule for those in the know when trying to eat healthy is: The more processed the food is, the less healthy it is.

The problem is that for food suppliers the general rule is: The more processed the food is, the more profitable it is.

And therein lies the problem.

Because the more educated the consumer is the less likely they will consume processed food.

BUT! The more processed the food consumed is, the less likely children are to do well in school.

Processed foods are more likely to contain preservatives and additives which produce anxiety, hypertension, ADHD, etc, which cause children to become disruptive in school making it difficult for them and others to concentrate on lessons. Parents eating such foods are also more apt to be poor parents when compared to those eating whole foods and bonding during family meal preparation and group consumption.

So processed foods generate dummies who eat processed foods.

No wonder the country is so hung up on frozen heat-and-eat garbage.

Instead of sharing togetherness and bonding around a meal which, generally is far more efficiently shared than prepared and eaten solo, we have moved toward being a nation of people who wander into the kitchen alone whenever they feel the need and take something from the freezer, pop it into the microwave, and then plop down in front of the TV for some more commercial mind conditioning.

All to the great profit of our big greedy corporations which have declared themselves to be 'people.'
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,918
Points:156,415
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 10:38:27 AM

Is important to know would you put the Cereal mentioned on bottom, on the ok list or banned?

......" Back to the title Greedy corp tricks, involve incorporating addictive sweeteners.

Saw a documentary since the 60's there has been an explosion of synthetic additives for foods. Some of these additives are for preservation, the rest to increase the desire to over consume.

None of them are natural therefore cause problems.
There is a cereal branded natural gape flavor that actually has no grape or grape derivative in it."


[Edited by: streetrider at 1/24/2015 10:39:52 AM EST]
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:25,745
Points:3,939,090
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 10:28:16 AM

"Sounds the same to me as limiting selection"

Not quite. You can buy whatever edible items you want with your own money. However, the EBT card may be limited to designated items only.

That is similar to saying Medicare will pay to fix your broken nose, but it will not pay to make your big nose into a "button nose". However, you can pay for a "button nose" or any other procedure not covered by Medicare with your own money.


[Edited by: SE3.5 at 1/24/2015 10:29:41 AM EST]
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,918
Points:156,415
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 10:19:53 AM

Whole foods only take 10-15min more to prepare, the benefits are sooooooo,
worth it when u get use to doing it.
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,580
Points:3,125,565
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 10:06:33 AM

MarkJames - "Many whole foods which are much cheaper and much healthier aren't popular with lazy and undisciplined types due to time and effort required to prepare them."

Yes, I often buy prepared foods, as it saves me time. Then again, of course, I've got a job.
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,918
Points:156,415
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 9:57:47 AM

"NOPE. However, there is no problem putting limits on what an EBT "gift card" can purchase."

Sounds the same to me as limiting selection, I can get onboard with that in view of the following.

Back to the title Greedy corp tricks, involve incorporating addictive sweeteners.

Saw a documentary since the 60's there has been an explosion of synthetic additives for foods. Some of these additives are for preservation, the rest to increase the desire to over consume.

None of them are natural therefore cause problems.
There is a cereal branded natural gape flavor that actually has no grape or grape derivative in it.


[Edited by: streetrider at 1/24/2015 9:59:35 AM EST]
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,821
Points:48,140
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 9:13:09 AM

<<all the above have addictive additives in them.>>

Many consumers of the products mentioned are addicted to the speed and convenience of ready-to-eat and easily prepared foods.

Many whole foods which are much cheaper and much healthier aren't popular with lazy and undisciplined types due to time and effort required to prepare them.
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:25,745
Points:3,939,090
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 9:09:28 AM

"But Hey, you don't want the Government telling folks what they can eat do you?"

NOPE. However, there is no problem putting limits on what an EBT "gift card" can purchase.
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,821
Points:48,140
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 9:06:34 AM

<<But Hey, you don't want the Government telling folks what they can eat do you?>>

I have no problem with the government limiting what recipients of welfare can purchase with food stamps.

WIC already does this.

[Edited by: MarkJames at 1/24/2015 9:07:09 AM EST]
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,918
Points:156,415
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 8:59:47 AM

MJ
said
"Many of my relatives, customers and employees waste so much of their food stamp money on expensive processed foods, convenience store food, candy, soda, sugary beverages, chips, donuts, snack cakes, cookies, pop tarts, toaster pastries, pies, muffins, cheese doodles, pork rinds, puffcorn, cheese popcorn, sports drinks"Exactly the problem with todays foods, all the above have addictive additives in them.

But Hey, you don't want the Government telling folks what they can eat do you?
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:25,745
Points:3,939,090
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 8:42:14 AM

Resetting that dang "doomsday clock" to 11:58 (where it was 65 years ago) in an attempt to extort trillions from the 99%.
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,821
Points:48,140
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 8:27:11 AM

<<Surely there is more credible statistical data available...>>

This is another case where insiders (store owners and food distributors for example) have access to real world data the others do not.
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,318
Points:469,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 6:56:11 PM

"Many of my relatives, customers and employees ... "

Are you implying this is representative of most food stamp recipients?

Surely there is more credible statistical data available...
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,821
Points:48,140
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 9:14:12 AM

Many of my relatives, customers and employees waste so much of their food stamp money on expensive processed foods, convenience store food, candy, soda, sugary beverages, chips, donuts, snack cakes, cookies, pop tarts, toaster pastries, pies, muffins, cheese doodles, pork rinds, puffcorn, cheese popcorn, sports drinks etc that they're really low on food week 2 of the food stamp cycle.

By the end of week 2 many are hitting up numerous food banks, numerous food/goods distribution points, borrowing money, borrowing from peter to pay paul and trading down to ramen noodles, 99 cent white bread, jelly sandwiches etc.

Good thing their kids get free breakfasts and lunches at school!

All the junk they consume has, or will cause health issues as well.



[Edited by: MarkJames at 1/23/2015 9:15:48 AM EST]
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,918
Points:156,415
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 1:18:57 PM

I75at7AM
Said
"* Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items
* Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items
I think all those mentioned items should be disallowed. The government tells people that candy is bad for their health, yet subsidizes the purchase of it."

You do realize there are diabetics on welfare, that need candy to bring their sugar up quickly! There are also times when ice cream can be eaten and solid foods cant?


But hey if you think that is contradictory, I read the other day the department of Agriculture said they fed 46 million on the food stamp program. Applauding their success.

Then I traveled to a national Park where I read a sign that said ((please don not feed the animals it is unlawful to do so as they will loose the ability to fend for themselves.



[Edited by: streetrider at 1/22/2015 1:24:35 PM EST]
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,177
Points:3,206,400
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 1:11:59 PM

For street and Marty, from Marty's link:
* Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items
* Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items

I think all those mentioned items should be disallowed. The government tells people that candy is bad for their health, yet subsidizes the purchase of it.

Street: the government should not tell people what to eat, only tell them what the taxpayers will buy for them (i.e nutritious foods).

Steve, WalMart is not hurting for market share, at least not for groceries.
The competition from Amazon et al is for in the box items such as electronics. The folks who show up at WalMart and get literally hundreds of grocery items, weighing hundreds of pounds, are not going to take that business online. Groceries are a cash-and-carry business.

And exploiting and pandering is exactly the reaction I thought I would get, whereas the story I posted shows that WalMart is serving an underserved market with desperately needed goods. I hoped maybe you could appreciate that.
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,580
Points:3,125,565
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 12:31:24 PM

So, combining an Ad Hominem fallacy with a Guilt by Association fallacy makes for rationality? More like a rant...
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,318
Points:469,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 11:57:32 AM

Walmart, one of the greediest corporations around is struggling for market share as brick and mortar store shopping wanes under competition from the ISIS of greedy corporations in the likes of Amazon and online retailers.

Thus it does not surprise me to hear they are exploiting a previously overlooked market of pandering to dole recipients.
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,580
Points:3,125,565
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 10:48:07 AM

SemiSteve - "8000 job applications and they hired 350. That leaves 7650 people unemployed."

Wrong. You make the false assumptions that all of those 8000 people were unemployed to start with, that people can only apply for one job, and if they don't get that job they are prohibited from applying for another job.

Let's look at it the other way. Let's say that 10 companies want to hire 100 employees each, but there are only 500 applicants. Does that mean that every applicant has to work two jobs? And would that mean that 200% of them are employed?
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:23,494
Points:337,785
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 9:23:49 AM

There -are- limits on the kinds of foods that can be bought through SNAP.

SNAP eligible food items


If there are eligible items of which you don't approve, my guess is that food merchants have lobbied Congress to keep them eligible.

streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,918
Points:156,415
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 9:20:33 AM

I75at7AM
said
"There should be limits on what type of foods can be bought with food stamps"

So you are for the government telling people what food they can consume?
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,821
Points:48,140
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 8:48:26 AM

<<8000 job applications and they hired 350.

That leaves 7650 people unemployed.

What are those thousands if people living off of?>>

Many local employers of low skilled workers have similar numbers of job applicants per job opening.

Most "QUALIFIED" applicants already have a job or two.

Incompetent, unavailable and unreliable workers are frequently suspended or terminated and competent, available and reliable workers are frequently changing jobs, so many businesses are always hiring.

In many regions employers are lucky if 1 in 10 job applicants has a high school diploma, wide availability, a good work ethic and can pass a background check and drug test.

Many cull out the majority of job applicants due to poor availability alone.

I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,177
Points:3,206,400
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2015 11:09:18 PM

What are those thousand of people living off of? Government assistance?

Indeed, many are and have been for a long time.
And the "food desert" of that Chicago neighborhood is very common.
Just because people buy their food with food stamps doesn't mean that they deserve to be able to buy only junk food in their local neighborhood. I'm against long-term food stamp membership, but I'm more against outright fraud and abuse. There should be limits on what type of foods can be bought with food stamps.

As for 350 employed out of 8000 applicants, don't worry, turnover at the typical WalMart runs about 50% per year. That store will hire hundreds more in the coming years. But don't worry too much about that turnover, many people leave WalMart as they find better jobs or finish school and then find better jobs.
Having that store there, and the 300 more that WalMart is building in similar neighborhoods, is definitely a good thing. The other grocers should move in and compete.......

[Edited by: I75at7AM at 1/21/2015 11:09:45 PM EST]
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,318
Points:469,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2015 5:02:30 PM

8000 job applications and they hired 350.

That leaves 7650 people unemployed.

What are those thousands if people living off of?

Government assistance?

So Walmart came in and set up a store to cash-in on the hand-out.

Makin money off the dole.

Lower values. Every day.
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,177
Points:3,206,400
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2015 3:46:07 PM

Here is another example of how a big corporation is ripping off the poor people in an urban neighborhood.
How (BLANK) Helped Bring Back Pullman
Starting Fresh
The story starts out typically enough and then this big corporation moves in and hires 350 people and provides all that blasted low-priced fresh food that people need, driving the junk-food operators out of business! What a Rip-Off !!!!!!!!!!

* (required ~disclaimer~ - link posted by an employee....)
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,918
Points:156,415
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 8, 2015 9:49:21 AM

Mjames

None of the robber Barrons supported workers rights or even a safe work place.All the labor gains were paid in blood. They were all like "Henry Ford was an extremely greedy ruthless racist sexist sociopath that treated his workers like dirt, worked them like slaves, intimidated them, threatened them, spied on them etc."

However Ford may have remained rich through the depression, now are you going to fault him for that?

He still had the vision to see paying his workers more lead to more customers and a happier stable work force.

"The 5 dollar wage he gave was un heard of at the time." Ref biography of Henry Ford


[Edited by: streetrider at 1/8/2015 9:54:14 AM EST]
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,821
Points:48,140
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 8, 2015 8:26:34 AM

<<MarkJames - "Many didn't work hard for what they had, so they didn't fight hard to keep it. I've always been amazed how little people do to prevent eviction, repossession, foreclosure, property tax seizure, bad credit etc."

IOW, they have the problem of not being greedy enough for their own good.>>

Most are Greedy Enough, however they're not motivated enough, disciplined enough or willing to work hard enough to acquire/keep the things they desire due to their greed.

If they won the lottery, received a large settlement, or received a large inheritance they'd start satisfying their greed immediately!
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,821
Points:48,140
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 8, 2015 8:17:24 AM

<<Henry Ford was both greedy and Ambitious. If his greed disposition had been higher than his ambition, his workers would have never got the high wages that allowed them to purchase the cars they made.Vision ahead of greed works every time.>>

Henry Ford was an extremely greedy ruthless racist sexist sociopath that treated his workers like dirt, worked them like slaves, intimidated them, threatened them, spied on them etc.

He started the five dollar day offer since labor turnover was so high and he had to pay more to retain young and fit workers that could handle the brutal pace, cuts, punctures, burns, severed fingers and working conditions.

Not all qualified for the five dollars, females and people living in sin for example, plus the five dollars was part wages and part profit sharing. The offer didn't last long due to increasing competition.

text deleted

<<The assembly line— “the industrial miracle of the age,” in the words of John D. Rockefeller— had led Ford managers to another discovery: the problem of labor turnover. In 1913 American factories cycled through their workforces with astonishing speed. It was worse for Ford due to the monotony and brutality of the assembly line; in one year investigators at Highland Park counted more than 200 severed fingers and 75,000 burns, cuts, and puncture wounds. “The chain system you have is a slave driver!” the wife of an autoworker implored Ford in 1914. “My God! Mr. Ford. My husband has come home & thrown himself down & won’t eat his supper—so done out! Can’t it be remedied?

In 1913 exhausted Ford workers often walked off the job in the middle of their shifts, thus bringing to a halt the entire assembly line, and with it Ford’s profits. In 1913 the Highland Park plant had a labor turnover rate of 370 percent; in order to maintain a workforce of 14,000 Ford had been compelled to hire 52,000 different workers.

..Ford calculated that by reducing turnover—breaking the day into three eight-hour shifts, and thereby achieving constant production on his new assembly lines—he would continue to expand his profits. Helping Ford was the desperate situation among workers created by the recession of 1913-1914, which saw US industrial production decline by nearly 20 percent. Such were conditions in Detroit that on January 12, 1914, when Ford’s $5 plan went into effect, 12,000 job seekers braved a blizzard and company fire hoses looking for work at Highland Park.
The $5 day was “the best cost-cutting measure ever undertaken,” Ford is thought to have said. In 1915 he hired only 6,508 workers, mainly to fill new positions. In two years, the time it took to make a Model T dropped from 12 hours and 28 minutes to 93 minutes. Prices dropped. Markets expanded.

Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), which advocated workers’ control of the factories and had won a sympathetic hearing from Highland Park workers in March 1913. After a few days of lunchtime speeches and arrests of IWW agitators, Ford ruled that workers could no longer leave the factory for lunch. Banned from Ford, the IWW would go on to lead a June 1913 strike by 6,000 unskilled workers at three Studebaker factories in Detroit—the first important industrially organized strike in the industry.

Ford sought to stamp out these subversive thoughts, as part of a broader drive to create a disciplined and submissive workforce. This was overseen by his Sociological Department, also launched in 1914. In order to earn the $5 day, which was in fact not available to all employees—including women, young single men and the few black workers Ford would begin to hire in 1914—workers had to meet a number of personal requirements. Ford’s social investigators paid unannounced visits to workers on the job and in their homes, inspecting the latter for cleanliness and signs of alcohol consumption.

In the trough of the Depression well over half of all Detroit workers were without jobs, while Henry Ford remained the world’s richest man. On the bitterly cold day of March 7, 1932, the Detroit Unemployed Council led a march of about 5,000 workers and youth from Detroit to Ford’s massive River Rouge factory complex in Dearborn in what became known as “The Hunger March.” When the marchers reached Dearborn, police and Ford’s private goons attacked with tear gas, fire hoses, clubs, and live fire. Five men and boys were killed. Five days later some 60,000 Detroit workers marched down Woodward Avenue in memory of the fallen.

In 1937 auto workers launched the massive sit-down strike campaign against General Motors, which had eclipsed Ford as the nation’s largest automaker. The strike wave, led by socialist-minded workers, was the high water mark of working class militancy in the Great Depression. Tens of thousands joined the United Auto Workers at GM plants. Yet Henry Ford signaled he was prepared for violence to keep the union out when Service Department thugs beat up UAW leader Walter Reuther and other unionists in the so-called Battle of the Overpass on May 26, 1937.>>
Ford’s five dollar day

[Edited by: MarkJames at 1/8/2015 8:19:27 AM EST]
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,580
Points:3,125,565
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2015 4:32:31 PM

SemiSteve - "Otherwise you would not be so obsessed with me."

I'm not. But I note that you used it as a Red Herring to avoid answering my question.

SemiSteve - "Is that why you keep trying to get personal instead of sticking to discussing the issues?"

But the issue here is in the title, where you assume, without any evidence, that corporations are greedy. When I address that, you accuse me of getting personal. Like your baseless attack on "Jeffry Bezos". Why is the success of others something that you attack?

SemiSteve - "Big corporations tend to be very impersonal. People get treated like numbers. But they are not numbers. They are people. And they deserve to be treated that way. "

Sounds like a religious belief, that is, taken on faith, and not fact-based. Why do you feel this way?
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,318
Points:469,365
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2015 3:01:16 PM

"Why do you need to demonize someone or some group? Why don't you just live for yourself? AKA, be more greedy? You'd be a lot more peaceful. Success does not come from cutting down others. "

The things I say must touch some nerve for you, idh.

Otherwise you would not be so obsessed with me.

Do I cause you to feel as if you may not be as benevolent as you'd like to feel? Is that why you keep trying to get personal instead of sticking to discussing the issues? Hey, if you're on the wrong side of an issue all you have to do is change your view.

This is a place to speak freely about the affairs of our nation. We come here to discuss things that are not working well and how they might be improved. It is not about demonizing. I could just live for myself and say nothing here. I would consider that to be kind of selfish and greedy. I am peaceful because I get a chance to exercise my freedom of speech. I never said success comes from cutting others down.

Big corporations tend to be very impersonal. People get treated like numbers. But they are not numbers. They are people. And they deserve to be treated that way.
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,918
Points:156,415
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2015 2:49:15 PM

Henry Ford was both greedy and Ambitious. If his greed disposition had been higher than his ambition, his workers would have never got the high wages that allowed them to purchase the cars they made.Vision ahead of greed works every time.
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,580
Points:3,125,565
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2015 2:37:53 PM

“Listen to what is being preached today. Look at everyone around us. You've wondered why they suffer, why they seek happiness and never find it. If any man stopped and asked himself whether he's ever held a truly personal desire, he'd find the answer. He'd see that all his wishes, his efforts, his dreams, his ambitions are motivated by other men. He's not really struggling even for material wealth, but for the second-hander's delusion - prestige. A stamp of approval, not his own. He can find no joy in the struggle and no joy when he has succeeded. He can't say about a single thing: 'This is what I wanted because I wanted it, not because it made my neighbors gape at me'. Then he wonders why he's unhappy.”
- Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead

SemiSteve - "If you think the two are synonymous then why do we have separate words for them?"

Did anyone say that the two are synonymous? My question was intended to make people think about what greed and ambition really are.

SemiSteve - " Think: Jeffry Bezos. "

Why do you need to demonize someone or some group? Why don't you just live for yourself? AKA, be more greedy? You'd be a lot more peaceful. Success does not come from cutting down others.
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,821
Points:48,140
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2015 2:21:59 PM

<<GREEDY: Having or showing a strong or excessive desire to acquire money or possess things, especially wishing to possess more than what one needs or deserves.

AMBITIOUS: having ambition; eagerly desirous of achieving or obtaining success, power, wealth, etc>>

I'm both greedy and ambitious. My greed and ambition have made the lives of my family, friends, employees, subs, tenants and many others much better.

I enjoy giving as well. I'm able to give more than most due to my greed and ambition.

Post a reply Back to Topics