WALMART’S SKID MARKSThe following remarks are from Here!
The revolution to take back America has begun.
Until now, big corporations like Wal-Mart said or did whatever they wanted, and got away with it. Well, yesterday, you proved Wal-Mart wrong and demonstrated the power ordinary people have to change Wal-Mart and change America for the better.
Here's what happened. In October 2005, Wal-Mart said it supported raising the minimum wage. But, since then, Wal-Mart has used its industry lobbyists to oppose a minimum wage increase. And, up until yesterday, Wal-Mart's own chief lobbyist claimed the public had misinterpreted Wal-Mart's statement and that Wal-Mart never supported raising the minimum wage.
When we exposed Wal-Mart's lie and called on the company to come clean, Wal-Mart caved into public pressure and said it once again supported raising the minimum wage. We can only hope Wal-Mart will now actually do something positive to help millions of hard-working Americans who live in poverty.
Wal-Mart's reversal on the minimum wage proves the power that every American has to change this company and this country for the better. Now, if we could change Wal-Mart's position on the minimum wage with 243,600 supporters, imagine what we could with 1 million.
SELF EXPLANITORY
Aint' this lovely?
1 comment:
I don't know that I have the facts and figures at hand to respond accurately to your question. It's interesting. But, also, doesn't the earned income credit sort of put people in the category of the poor whereas people earning decent wages leave the category poor and enter the category gainfully employed? So, to put it in conservative terms, don't we need to get people off of welfare and into work that lifts them from poverty and restores their self worth? Also, what about health care? Does the earned income tax credit also offer health care?
What about an idea that was mentioned in the 60s and 70s, even by Nixon (I think), that there ought to be a guaranteed national income and that anyone falling below that income would be compensated by the federal government to lift his wage to that income level? Of course that would be a great negative incentive for business to raise wages, wouldn't it?
Post a Comment