apothanein kerdos Posted January 7, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted January 7, 2005 sorry, you misread the statement, there is no one in the one community of wichita, there are several communities, some would not be caught in walmart. in other words, this one section of town had no use for a walmart being there except to bring other people in, the low side of the price of housing in that area would be 500,000 and higher probably closer to the million dollar level, where the normal price of housing would be closer to 60,000 and lower for other areas.... they did not want a walmart there...... how do they keep their doors open? well, they buy in such bulk that they can under sell anyone else in any community until they get the other peoples doors closed, adn then they raise their price up so that they can make a profit on it then, they can afford to have a loss for several years in one community in order to shut down other places of business.... once shut down, they can do what they want. I think you're talking about the one at Maize and 21st. A lot of people from Maize and Goddard go to that Walmart to get the cheaper brands, that's part of the reason Walmart built there. If you'll notice the mini-mall across the street from Walmart went out of business just a year after it was put in place. The Dillons across the street has never been as busy as it was (though they have a higher quality of food). Let's also not forget that there was suppose to be a major mall in that area, but residence in Reflection Ridge fought it...but then accepted the idea when they saw it would help to increase their property value if the mall was done correctly. However Walm-Mart stepped in, hostily bought the land, and prevented a mall from being built, which has damaged our economy in some ways. walmart had already gotten its foot into the city of Derby Ks. one of the city counsel members was a v.p. / manager of walmart... there were other stores that wanted to get a store into Derby Ks, and were shot down because the city counsel voted it out, but there was actually a bit of misconduct/conflict of interest due to a higher up of walmart being on the counsel.... That's the other thing too. Derby, prior to Walmart, was growing rapidly. To some extent it still is, however the growth is extremely slow, and the local stores I use to shop at are now shut down. Derby, for all intents and purposes, is nothing more than military housing, Walmart, and smut. BTW, low side pricing in that area is around $250,000...and I believe only a few houses breach the $900,000 mark....of course, the neighborhood across the street from Reflection Ridge (on the east side of Ridge Rd) has houses that definately exceed the million mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishcowboy Posted January 9, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 127 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 3,248 Content Per Day: 0.88 Reputation: 13 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/23/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 9, 2005 actually, it was the other side of town that I was speaking of...... anyways, it don't matter, they done did what they done did... beware thou, Walmart has it in the works to be the first store to be set up to use the veri-chip to be used to purchase things...... hmmmm mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eadora Posted January 9, 2005 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 226 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/03/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/24/1945 Share Posted January 9, 2005 (edited) Hello Friends The Last Rebel Soldier: quote: Edited January 10, 2005 by Eadora Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 Check my posts I have never advocated give a ways, nor has my discussions involved welfare laws. I maintain that if a person works for 40 hrs. a week, that person should be able to feed, clothe and shelter himself. To insist that he work for less than what his minimum maintenance would require would be to exploit him. Eadora, a person works where they choose to work. If a job is not meeting your needs, you can go look for jobs that pay more... really you can do that!!! No one is telling anyone that they cannot make a living wage. If you working a minimum wage job, then that is your fault. No one put a gun to anyone's head and told them they had work a low wage job. For advocating a Living minimum wage my views have been labeled anti Christian, Communistic, and mean spirited. I believe a livable minimum wage is not to much to ask of a free and wealthy country such as The United States. Anything less must be seen as unjust, exploitive, and of coarse mean spirited. You have been presented problems and have yet to offer solutions. You have failed to address the real life responses that businsess will have to a minimum wage hike. You are like a broken record. There are all kinds financial considerations a business owner has to make, and if he is going to have to increase his payroll because of a hike in the minimum wage, then he is not going to have full time employees, or good benefit packages. He is going to adjust his employees' schedules to keep his payroll where it was before, and keep his profit margin where he wants it. It is time for you to live in the real world, and not in your fantasy world where throwing money at a problem solves everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work in Progress Posted January 9, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 123 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,111 Content Per Day: 0.39 Reputation: 35 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/29/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted January 9, 2005 Check my posts I have never advocated give a ways, nor has my discussions involved welfare laws. I maintain that if a person works for 40 hrs. a week, that person should be able to feed, clothe and shelter himself. To insist that he work for less than what his minimum maintenance would require would be to exploit him. Eadora, a person works where they choose to work. If a job is not meeting your needs, you can go look for jobs that pay more... really you can do that!!! No one is telling anyone that they cannot make a living wage. If you working a miniumum wage job, then that is your fault. No one put a gun to anyone's head and told them they had work a low wage job. For advocating a Living minimum wage my views have been labeled anti Christian, Communistic, and mean spirited. I believe a livable minimum wage is not to much to ask of a free and wealthy country such as The United States. Anything less must be seen as unjust, exploitive, and of coarse mean spirited. You have been presented problems and have yet to offer solutions. You have failed to address the real life responses that businsess will have to a minimum wage hike. You are like a broken record. There are all kinds financial considerations a business owner has to make, and if he is going to have to increase his payroll because of a hike in the minimum wage, then he is not going to have full time employees, or good benifet packages. He is going to adjust his employees' schedules to keep his payroll where it was before, and keep his profit margin where he wants it. It is time for you to live in the real world, and not in your fantasy world where throwing money at a problem sovles everything. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O'Dannyboy Posted January 10, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 156 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,454 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/22/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/02/1969 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Just my two cents. A minimum wage job should be able provide an income sufficient to cover all the basic needs of an individual. We should leave the decissions to God, not the government. If we have a problem we need to take it to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Just my two cents. A minimum wage job should be able provide an income sufficient to cover all the basic needs of an individual. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No it shouldn't. It is up to YOU to make sure that you have an income sufficient to meet your needs. The minimum wage is simply the lowest wage an employer is permitted to pay. It was not designed to be a living wage. Furthermore, the "basic needs" of one individual may differ from another depending on several variables, including whether or not a person has a car to pay for, the cost of living in the town he lives in, how many dependents he/she has to feed, etc. The "basic needs" of a single individual are different than the "basic needs" of a single parent, or married person. The "basic needs" of a person living in Arkansas are different than the "basic needs" of a person living in a higher cost state like California or Hawaii. Therefore, you cannot offer a single minimum wage that will meet the needs of all. Everyone needs to count the cost and seek employment based on what will meet their "basic needs." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O'Dannyboy Posted January 10, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 156 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,454 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/22/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/02/1969 Share Posted January 10, 2005 So your saying one mans basic needs might include a town home while anothers might include a shells for his shot gun? I am talking about food, clothing basic hygene and a roof over ones head. Not cable television, a car or life insurance. What point is there to having a "minimum wage" if all it does is represent what the government "THOUGHT" someone who didn't graduate high school should get paid at the most? Try not to take it personally. Perhaps an imigrant will take your job for a couple years just before they outsource the possition to another country. You might then understand that as long as the govenment says companies don't need to pay people enough to make a living they won't. The following article says enough the topic. Personally I hate to see a person working two part time jobs. There are many policies that need adjusting and a higher minimum wage is not going to "FIX" any of them. But its a start. Economic Policy Institute article " No longer getting by" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eadora Posted January 10, 2005 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 226 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/03/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/24/1945 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Shiloh 357 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimR-OCDS Posted January 10, 2005 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 429 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/02/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted January 10, 2005 It was not designed to be a living wage. Actually it was. President Franklin D. Roosevelt called the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) the second most important New Deal reform after the Social Security Act of 1935. It's passage was a result of the post depression period, where two workers were required to support their families. (Gee, much like today.) In order to have an economy where mother's could return home to care for their families, the Fair Labor Standards Act, or also known as the Living Wage Act, was passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts