General chatter - 'Politics' of weight loss




View Full Version : 'Politics' of weight loss


diamondgeog
06-23-2013, 12:53 PM
I am recently having the best success I have ever had with weight loss. I am exercising like never before and getting very strong. 15lbs lost so far and I am making lifestyle changes that will (hopefully) last a lifetime.

I know this doesn't cross everyone's mind but one of my motivating factors was the 'politics' of weight loss. I am not a big fan any longer of most of our major US corporations. Whereas they use to pay fair wages and taxes now they do neither. They seem to think of America and Americans solely as to how much they can exploit both.

Well I realized that I was letting that process of exploitation literally be part of my body. I was going to fast food place, restaurants, eating corporate food where their bottomline is whatever sells without any regard to nutrition. Yes it was my choice to eat there just as it is now my choice not to eat there. But I no longer wanted to be part of the obesity epidemic.

I don't think the 'obesity epidemic' in America was thought out in advance by 'evil' corporations but they sure as heck have got on the bandwagon to make billions even trillions of dollars from it. One or two or three fast food places on every corner. Allowing almost unlimited commercials on kids programming. Do not underestimate this. Corporations pay politicians and lobby heavily to be able to have virtually no regulations on sending their messages to kids. They want us young, just like they use to be able to do to hook in smokers. Defunded and undefunded good nutrition programs in schools.

And there is more. We have farm programs that heavily subsidize corn. At the same time we have a farm program that artificially inflates the price of sugar and prevents companies from buying sugar at world prices. That means the food we get here has high fructose corn syrup instead of sugar. As bad as sugar is, it is way better than corn syrup.

And drug companies and hospitals and medical insurance companies see all of this as a gold mind. Get em unhealthy and overweight and cha ching. Diabetes drugs, cholesterol drugs, blood pressure drugs, and on and on.

Well I had had enough. I was and I am no longer going to use my body as a money maker for corporations that could give a flip about my life but sure as heck are salivating about my decline in health if I had continued to use their products. I am getting healthy, I am getting energy, I am discovering how to eat right and I will not be using their products.

We had used a community supported agriculture (CSA) farm in our area before and we are going back. More veggies, more fruits. Products from companies like Bob's Red Mill that treat workers and customers and the environment right.

Are our corporations just plain 'evil'? Well I wouldn't go that far. But will they sell you stuff that will ultimately shorter your life and leave you in bad health along the way? Absolutely. Well they harm the environment just to make another dollar? Yes. It is up to us to say no to them. To stop using them, to force them to change. And the great thing is that by doing that you get your health and life back. So it is win-win for you, for the environment, for positive change.


Annik
06-23-2013, 01:00 PM
See the movie/documentary The Corporation. (It is now on youtube.) Corporations, though they are not people, are legally defined as 'persons.'

Applying the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental illness to the qualities/traits of corporations, they medically score as psychopaths.

Not funny and very, very harmful to humanity + society.

The Corporation: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/

JohnP
06-23-2013, 02:20 PM
Cheap processed food is just the tip of the iceberg. If you're actually serious about doing something about this problem, you have to get to the root of the problem.

I suggest you watch this video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eByGFCXHfx4)

Than watch this video. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_ must_reclaim.html)

This is the organization. (http://www.rootstrikers.org/ted_promo?splash=1)


Arctic Mama
06-23-2013, 02:39 PM
For consideration, regarding evil agriculture - those awful entities are responsible for feeding more people than at any other time in history. Starvation and poverty have been impacted in multiple regions of the globe in a positive way thanks to more cheaply and readily available food.

Famines, by the traditional definition, are incredibly rare in places they used to be prevalent. The crops fail and the governments mismanage, but comparably few people actually starve to death these days. Big, bad, Monsanto is partially to 'blame' for that, right along with evil corporate donations and gas guzzling jets bringing folks food.

There is nothing wrong with having the capital to make a better choice for yourself - CSA's are great! But demonizing foodstuffs and companies in overblown rhetoric doesn't further the discussion one bit, so I'd be cautious of the logical fallacies there.

It is definitely worth noting that subsidies and government incentives for health and food production have yielded most of the dietary 'evil' we've seen during the last century. Incentivizing and codifying certain ways of eating never goes well - and for that the corporations are less to blame than the academics assembled on numerous panels throughout the last half century, conducting massive (and now failed) experiments on the entire population relating to food consumption. I cannot fault a company for seeking a successful business model - I can absolutely point to the commissions that created a false demand for sugary puffed grains, artificial and nutritionally devoid snack foods, and sucked the marrow and fat rather literally out of the normal American diet, replacing it with subsidized corn products and bleached wheat.

Just giving a balance to the perspectives - corporations get a great deal of flack for responding to the environment and economy given, with very little attention paid to the source (don't mind the man behind the curtain). If more Americans cared about freedom coupled with information, rather than enacting whatever government initiative is the current fad, I do believe the food issues would balance out as they need to. Most people globally, including myself, want to be free to choose inexpensive produce/animal products and prepackaged foods. The demand for such things won't go away anytime soon. You can be disillusioned with the grocery store all you want and respond accordingly, but just don't project that onto everyone else as the best choice for them, either. The millions being fed on that engineered corn or tomato or battery chicken may also want a better way, but better to eat poorly than not at all!

Something to think about (I say this as someone who consumes essentially no junk food and likes the CSA model, by the way. But just because I can buy a side of cow or a Full Circle Farm box doesn't mean that I'm willing to crusade against Tyson for their cheap chickens, and let those too poor to make that choice for themselves suffer the consequences of my moralizing).

diamondgeog
06-23-2013, 03:20 PM
Great TED talk. Haven't seen the second one yet.

Artic Mama good discussion. I would submit there is still a lot of global hunger and hunger even in America. I would also submit that modern industrialized agriculture in many parts of the world sought out and destroyed local agriculture that WAS providing local and healthy products to populations around the world.

Instead it then forced those farmers to produce one or two crops for the global market with the vast majority of profits going to the corporations. It then left the populace with having to buy food of marginal quality.

While it hasn't been all bad as you rightly point out, it could and should be fundamentally better.

Wannabeskinny
06-24-2013, 08:57 AM
I couldn't agree more. Vote with your dollars.

GlamourGirl827
06-24-2013, 02:52 PM
I agree with a lot of what articmama said.


I kind of see that type of thought (the OP) as looking for someone to blame and not wanting to take responsibility for your own actions. I get it ends with taking responsibility, but the I feel most of it is looking to say we are fat because companies want us that way.

I think that some people are going to make poor food/exercise choices and because of it, some companies will profit. ****, people prfit off of death...when your loved one dies, its not free to have a service, run an obit and bury them! Someone is making money from it, doesn't mean they are out there killing folks for money...some people are going to be fat, and make bad choices because its easier to bust open a bag of chips or drive thru McD's than cook a home cooked meal...is someone waiting to profit off that? Absolutely!

Of course, I particular love the part about hospitals seeing it as a gold mine (sarcasm)...Hospitals spend ridiculous amounts of money on community classes that are free for people to educate themselves on healthy living (at least ours does) educating staff to educate patients on how to prevent and manage their diseases so they do progess to a worse condition. Maybe if more people would actually listen and you know practice a preventative lifestyle then we could start seeing and improvment in our health. Our hospital has a gym at each campus and offers it to the public at a rate of $99 a year...yes, that is cheap, so that people have a place to workout and an affordable rate.

But nooooo, people want a quick fix, an "easy" diet, a pill, to eat like crap and sit on the couch and still lose weight....people don't want to listen to their doctor when they are prediabetic...they wait until the poo hits the fan then they want us to help them stay out of renal failure, amputations, blindness, stroke etc... and all the other problems that can happen as a result of diabetes.

I really do think that acting like corporations are looking to make us fat to profit is an excuse. We control what we put in our mouths and whether we sit on the couch or go for a walk. I think that there is definitely money to be made on obesity and the life long dieter (diet food, gimics etc) but all those companies are doing are seeing an opportunity and striking while the iron is hot.

Shame on us for failing to educate our selves on proper nutrition, control our portions and get up and get moving!

Wannabeskinny
06-24-2013, 03:14 PM
Well clearly glamour girl you haven't lived in a country where obesity is not such an epidemic to the extent we have here in the US. The OP never mentioned hospitals in particular. Pharmaceutical companies however do have a stake in healthcare and their concern is profit- they will not deny this.

Personal responsibility is key, I agree. But growing up on Europe I guarantee you that I had no idea what a Big Gulp was, or what a fruit roll up was or even a chicken nugget. I ate real food and real vegetables. And then I moved to the US at the end of elementary school and everyday at school I was presented with a choice of chicken patty, hamburger, cheeseburger, fries and ketchup. Everyday. Everyday. An average kid in the us school system eats ketchup every day. Every day. I don't see many 4th graders standing up for their right to balanced meals do you? They eat the processed slop the school system shovels out to them. For more information about changing the school system look up the TED talk by Jamie Oliver. For more information about the engineering of food for profit read The End of Overeating.

The OP is taking personal responsibility by making a grand effort to avoid all the subsidized foodstuffs (aka corn, wheat and soy!) that makes our unhealthiest foods the most affordable.

People suffering from metabolic syndrome in record numbers in America? All of a sudden in the past 2 decades of history all Americans have suddenly list their ability to make good nutritional decisions? Don't you find that suspect? An entire nation inexplicably unable to control themselves around food? Have you watched The Bitter Truth???

diamondgeog
06-24-2013, 03:18 PM
Wow. You didn't even read my post, Glamourgirl, or certaintly not to the point that you actually read it or understood it. Just a total swing and a miss.

Nothing could have been further from what I actually said. I said people choose but these companies are getting rich off of the obesity epedemic. They have gladly created a marketing campaign and lobbied aggresively to be able to bombard kids with it.

They know the consequences of this and they frankly don't care. Not as long as money can be made.

My main reason for posting was that it provides me additional motivation to not want to be on the money making train for corporations who if not eager to cause this mess surely knowingly promote an environment of bad choices and sure as heck have positioned themselves all along the chain from food to medicine to everything else to exploit it.

diamondgeog
06-24-2013, 03:25 PM
And thanks Wannabe still working on it. Down an additional 3 lbs.

From my original post "Yes it was my choice to eat there just as it is now my choice not to eat there. But I no longer wanted to be part of the obesity epidemic.

GlamourGirl827
06-24-2013, 03:25 PM
They know the consequences of this and they frankly don't care. Not as long as money can be made.

.

I completely agree with you on this, but its capitalism...that's how this country works. Many businesses (not all) make money off other people's poor circumstances and don't give a darn who they screw along the way. I don't like it either, but it is what is it.

It seemed to me that you were saying that these corperation promote obesity, and I guess if you want to count running ads for crumby food, then ok. I see it as we got fat first then they reacted by just following what the public wants. If the the majority of the public took responsibility for their health and didn't eat that crap, then the corperations would not promote it anymore...if theres a demand for it, then they are going to look to make a profit there. I think its our fault for letting there be a demand for that crap, so that these business then try to sell it to make a profit...you can't blame them, they have to make money, they have employees to pay and families to feed as well.
THere's a way to turn a profit on pretty much everything...even war is profitable, and that's just sad.

GlamourGirl827
06-24-2013, 03:29 PM
Wow. You didn't even read my post, Glamourgirl, or certaintly not to the point that you actually read it or understood it. Just a total swing and a miss.

.

And I did read it, I just disagree with you! lol I don't see corporations as these huge evil entities like you do.

memememe76
06-24-2013, 10:14 PM
Regardless of the issue, unless there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO SOLVE IT when there is a discussion on the environmental/social factors that contribute to a specific problem (in this case, obesity or weight loss), there's always someone who will accuse those participating in the discussion as ignoring personal responsibility.

I lost weight and I have maintained it for good while. I'm proud of it but I'm not a martyr. If me maintaining my weight loss was made easier by corporations or governments, I'm all for it.

JohnP
06-25-2013, 03:47 AM
I completely agree with you on this, but its capitalism...that's how this country works. Many businesses (not all) make money off other people's poor circumstances and don't give a darn who they screw along the way. I don't like it either, but it is what is it.

THere's a way to turn a profit on pretty much everything...even war is profitable, and that's just sad.

Right. Except for one thing. "It is what it is" is another way of saying there is nothing you can do about it which isn't true.

The rules in which corporations operate should be made and modified for the good of the people as a whole but under the current system money controls public policy. The return on investment for lobbying is fantastic.

Watch the videos I linked.

sontaikle
06-25-2013, 05:49 AM
I think that education is key to changing things, more so then trying to vote with our dollars. Voting with money is great for the individual, but educating the populace about a healthy lifestyle is (I believe) the key to long term change.

By populace I also mean children. Things are getting a bit better, at least where I've taught (no longer are hamburgers and questionable meats the lunch menu) where the food isn't all that bad most of the time. NYC also provides free, healthy meals to many children in the summer. Some of the schools I've been in even had posters showing what a portion size looks like.

We still have a long way to go of course. It's still too easy to grab processed foods and call it a day, when we should be showing people how much more healthy (and cost effective) it can be to prepare their own foods. It's maddening to me that kids are graduating high school without any skills to live on their own, because we're so focused on academics.

My own obesity was the result of ignorance. I used to be angry at my parents because I didn't grow up learning what a proper portion size was or what healthy foods were, but I realize THEY DIDN'T KNOW. Therefore it was passed to me, the next generation. I'm determined to stop the cycle, but I'm a statistical anomaly and I realize most people just can't reverse the way they've been raised.

If we start 'em young maybe we can make some long-term changes. There certainly is a lot to be done at the corporate level, but if we start hitting them where it hurts then they will (hopefully) be forced to change.

Wannabeskinny
06-25-2013, 09:25 AM
I think that education is key to changing things, more so then trying to vote with our dollars. Voting with money is great for the individual, but educating the populace about a healthy lifestyle is (I believe) the key to long term change.

By populace I also mean children. Things are getting a bit better, at least where I've taught (no longer are hamburgers and questionable meats the lunch menu) where the food isn't all that bad most of the time. NYC also provides free, healthy meals to many children in the summer. Some of the schools I've been in even had posters showing what a portion size looks like.

...

If we start 'em young maybe we can make some long-term changes. There certainly is a lot to be done at the corporate level, but if we start hitting them where it hurts then they will (hopefully) be forced to change.

The underlined statements are a bit contradictory no?

I don't know where you've taught but I've been teaching in Harlem for years and what I see is some gnarly looking piece of fruit next to a limp brown piece of broccoli on a plate. For snacks they give little sugary yogurts and/or stale muffins. We have a ways to go with nyc school meals being proper and nutritious yet. Furthermore I have yet to walk into a school in Harlem that has a proper functioning physical education program. My students receive phys ed once a week - it turns out to be such a treat for them that their teachers hold it over them if their behavior is poor during the week. "If you don't stop behaving badly, no gym for you tomorrow!" I don't know where you teach but where I teach at the end of the day the kids walk out of their school and are met with a brigade of ice cream and icee trucks to which they swarm. There have been some laws that are installed now that ice cream trucks can't park in front of the school but they are still around the corner, close enough so that the kids can see them from the building.

I don't see nearly enough education on health, nutrition, or even tooth brushing happening in the schools. The one nurse that is on hand is so entrenched in her job of managing asthmatic children that she hardly has time to visit classrooms and talk to students.

The state is trying to tax sugary drinks and it is being fought tooth and nail. The mayor is trying to ban drinks over 16oz and you'd think people's voting rights were being taken away. People don't want any rights taken away but if nothing is being done to protect us from the massive consumption of sugar then what are we to do about it? Keep blaming people?

memememe76
06-25-2013, 10:16 AM
My students receive phys ed once a week - it turns out to be such a treat for them that their teachers hold it over them if their behavior is poor during the week. "If you don't stop behaving badly, no gym for you tomorrow!"

If my teacher did that, I would behave badly!

Where I lived, students no longer had to take PE in their junior year. The day I stopped taking PE was a good day. I am 100% sure that the adults who are scared of going to the gym or run outside because of potential taunts are that way because of what happened to them in gym class.

I support education--just not how it has ever really been delivered.

diamondgeog
06-25-2013, 10:52 AM
The premise that corporations are just doing what they 'have' to do is wrong. Corporations in the US have by and large chosen to be horrible corporate citizens. They don't 'HAVE to'. Look at Walmart versus Costco. Costco chooses to pay a living wage and give their workers health care. Walmart chooses to not pay a living wage, a wage so low that their workers intentionally qualify for food stamps and not to pay for health care. Costco's CEO chooses to get a large but reasonable salary. Walmart's CEOs salary is absurd. Guess which is making more money and doing better? Yep, Costco.

You can have a 'normal' fast food place or you can have Panera bread. Corporations in the US have chosen, most of them, to totally ignore 'externalities'. They themselves have brainwashed themselves that that is ok that that is just they way things are. But that is just rationalization.

So they can ignore completely all their effects on health, environment, animal cruelty, etc. Even that though isn't the end. Ignoring is one thing. But they actively buy politicans at all levels and also manipulate kids and populaces all with the justification of the bottomline: which to them means all other damage is not any of their consideration.

THAT are the corporations we have now. They are not just passively giving people what they want. They are active manipulators engaged in massive health and environmental damage, knowingly, and not only not caring, but ensuring it by buying politicans and policy.

Wannabeskinny
06-25-2013, 11:33 AM
Yes they claim they're giving people what they want.

Wannabeskinny
06-25-2013, 11:35 AM
If my teacher did that, I would behave badly!

Where I lived, students no longer had to take PE in their junior year. The day I stopped taking PE was a good day. I am 100% sure that the adults who are scared of going to the gym or run outside because of potential taunts are that way because of what happened to them in gym class.

I support education--just not how it has ever really been delivered.

Yes I remember being taunted by kids in gym. Other kids can be mean. But the real culprits are the gym teachers who focus on the naturally athletic kids and basically ignore kids like me who were taunted.

Arctic Mama
06-25-2013, 02:20 PM
A living wage? I don't really want to go there, this always gets messy, but since when is an entry level job supposed to pay a living wage? 'living' by what definition? For whom? In what part of the country? Every time you raise wages for an unskilled job, you are limiting the number of employable people by creating artificial competition for those entry level and unskilled positions.

Why should Walmart pay more than a certain amount of wages when employees are willing, able, and even enthusiastic to work for less? Would you rather have a job at $5 per hour, or no job at all? When the choice is one employee for $15 an hour and benefits, as opposed to three of them for $5 and no benefits, it's fairly easy to extrapolate out what happens to the demand for cheap labor (and the segment of the population to fill it). Those positions are not meant to be lifetime jobs. They're an entry level position for a *reason*. And it has been demonstrably damaging to the poorest and lowest skilled people in society, when each job pays more (and therefore qualifications demanded for the job are higher - like a BA for waitressing or secretarial) and less of them are available.

There are massive ramifications to all these feel-good/stick-it-to-the-man laws relating to corporate practices. And while it sounds good in theory, the reality is ugly and discourages hiring, investment, and yes, employee retention.


And that's about all I'm saying on this subject. Not worth beating my head against the ideological walls that usually come about on this topic.

Arctic Mama
06-25-2013, 02:30 PM
Again, it sounds compassionate to demand certain food standards or employment requirements, but the fallout of this is oftentimes more harmful than beneficial. Like starving regions of the world to serve crops/livestock that consume more land per yield to create, and sell at higher cost. Sure, it's healthier, purer, whatever your litmus may be - but now there is less of it, and it costs more thanks to the intensive nature behind its production. The greatest wickedness is that which is done in the name of another's 'good'.

Likewise with employment. Scarcity and demand are ALWAYS market factors, and when you artificially manipulate those to suit your own moralism, that's fine and dandy for you, but what about those who suffer for it in very tangible ways? Mismanagement is always an issue and should be dealt with, but more regulation is usually not the answer, especially if we're talking business climate, urban sprawl, or employment wages. All it does is say 'we know what's best for ALL of you!' rather than letting the individual and employer make those choices, of their own volition, for themselves. Or are you telling me the Walmart employee didn't actually make a choice to seek employment there, voluntarily, under the given terms?

diamondgeog
06-25-2013, 04:22 PM
ArcticMama

Since Reagan if the minimum wage had kept up with inflation it would be around $20 now. But Republicans policies have let it go to heck. This not only hurts ten of millions of Americans, but everyone. Why? Much less demand then there should be in America and demand drives everything.

A market able to do everything is a pure fantasy, even Adam Smith knew this. And it will always lead to its own destruction and monopoly. It is the fantasy of the 1% when at the same time they buy Congress and the Supreme Court.

Arctic Mama
06-25-2013, 06:09 PM
Did I ever say anything about pure capitalism, in either post? I did not, nor do I advocate for that. Minimal regulations are necessary for function and safety. Artificial manipulation of supply and setting price floors or ceilings is an entirely different matter.

And the minimum wage, even as a concept, is a false premise. A minimum wage should be what the market will bear, not what some outside party dictates it should be. Again, stifling jobs only lessens the participating labor force - the more expensive a task, the rarer that employment will be. I'd rather make some than none, and that's precisely the boat many Americans are in.

I recommend all his columns, they've been brilliant for decades, but this reiteration on the minimum wage is particularly helpful to this tangent:
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2013/02/27/inority-viewby-walter-e-williamsrelease-wednesday-february-27-2013-n1519819/page/full

In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama proposed raising the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $9 an hour. That would be almost a 25 percent increase. Let's look at the president's proposal, but before doing so, let's ask some other economic questions.

Are people responsive to changes in price? For example, if the price of cars rose by 25 percent, would people purchase as many cars? Supposing housing prices rose by 25 percent, what would happen to sales? Those are big-ticket items, but what about smaller-priced items? If a supermarket raised its prices by 25 percent, would people purchase as much? It's not rocket science to conclude that when prices rise, people adjust their behavior by purchasing less.

It's almost childish to do so, but I'm going to ask questions about 25 percent price changes in the other way. What responses would people have if the price of cars or housing fell by 25 percent? What would happen to supermarket sales if prices fell by 25 percent? Again, it doesn't require deep thinking to guess that people would purchase more.

This behavior in economics is known as the first fundamental law of demand. It holds that the higher the price of something the less people will take and that the lower the price the more people will take. There are no known exceptions to the law of demand. Any economist who could prove a real-world exception would probably be a candidate for the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences and other honors.

Dr. Alan Krueger, an economist, is chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers. I wonder whether he advised the president that though people surely would be responsive to 25 percent increases in the prices of other goods and services, they would not be responsive to a 25 percent wage increase. I'd bet the rent money that you couldn't get Krueger to answer the following statement by saying either true or false: A 25 percent increase in the price of labor would not affect employment. If anything, his evasive response would be that found in a White House memo, reported in The Wall Street Journal's article titled "The Minority Youth Unemployment Act" (Feb. 15), namely that "a range of economic studies show that modestly raising the minimum wage increases earnings and reduces poverty without measurably reducing employment." The WSJ article questions that statement: "Note the shifty adverbs, 'modestly' and 'measurably,' which can paper over a lot of economic damage." My interpretation of the phrase "without measurably reducing employment" is that only youngsters, mostly black youngsters, would be affected by an increase.

University of California, Irvine economist David Neumark has examined more than 100 major academic studies on the minimum wage. He states that the White House claim "grossly misstates the weight of the evidence." About 85 percent of the studies "find a negative employment effect on low-skilled workers." A 1976 American Economic Association survey found that 90 percent of its members agreed that increasing the minimum wage raises unemployment among young and unskilled workers. A 1990 survey found that 80 percent of economists agreed with the statement that increases in the minimum wage cause unemployment among the youth and low-skilled. If you're looking for a consensus in most fields of study, examine the introductory and intermediate college textbooks in the field. Economics textbooks that mention the minimum wage say that it increases unemployment for the least skilled worker.

As detailed in my recent book "Race and Economics" (2012), during times of gross racial discrimination, black unemployment was lower than white unemployment and blacks were more active in the labor market. For example, in 1948, black teen unemployment was less than white teen unemployment, and black teens were more active in the labor market. Today black teen unemployment is about 40 percent; for whites, it is about 20 percent. The minimum wage law weighs heavily in this devastating picture. Supporters of higher minimum wages want to index it to inflation so as to avoid its periodic examination.

Arctic Mama
06-25-2013, 06:10 PM
And now I really must be done! I have a birthday party to take my kids to, then helping with VBS in the evening. Gah!

As an aside, did you seriously just invoke the mythical 1%? As though other Americans, as middle class and blue collar as can be, might not also see the benefits of not playing the man behind the curtain with the supply chain? HA! I'll have to let my husband know we're apparently much better off than we think :D

Wannabeskinny
06-25-2013, 06:17 PM
A living wage? I don't really want to go there, this always gets messy, but since when is an entry level job supposed to pay a living wage? ...

Why should Walmart pay more than a certain amount of wages when employees are willing, able, and even enthusiastic to work for less?

I'm at a loss for words. I mean I never thought of it this way, I must be really dumb, I mean why would anyone expect to work a job that paid for their living expenses?