Gay Patriot Header Image

What happens when lefties* must pay for what they advocate

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 2:27 am - December 19, 2013.
Filed under: Economy,Liberal Hypocrisy,Socialism in America

Well, we know from all those Obamacare ex-supporters who now say, “But I didn’t realize I would be paying for it!” But here’s another example.

A ‘living wage’ is good, right? Walmart workers making $15/hr rather than $8 is only fair, right? Any good leftie* should claim to believe it.

But money doesn’t grow on trees. Walmart can’t pay higher wages without charging higher prices. And the intrepid Peter Schiff explains it to Walmart customers, under his slogan “Higher wages for higher prices”. Watch their support wilt away:

YouTube Preview Image

(*To be fair, the customers shown may not be political lefties. I tie them to the Left because the ‘living wage’, ‘Walmart is unfair’ notion that these customers support is left-wing in essence. If any of these people are libertarian or conservative, shame on them; they should know better!)

Share

9 Comments

  1. Let’s get the ball rolling. Qui pago, qui bono? Who pays, who benefits?

    I’ve always found boycotts to be a luxury, and more profitable for liberals than conservatives. Boycotting a big corporation isn’t going to significantly hurt their bottom line, and it only gives you a token moral victory. A boycott is only effective on a local level, like boycotting a Christian-owned bakery that doesn’t want to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

    If some business whose politics you disagree with offers the lowest price on a product you need, buy it. Instead of not buying stuff from people you don’t like, focus on buying stuff you you support.

    Comment by Sean — December 19, 2013 @ 6:53 am - December 19, 2013

  2. Made some enemies on Facebook last night. Some people were self-righteously proclaiming that “There are more vacant houses than homeless people in America. This is absurd.” And I had to go and say, “Why don’t you buy one of those houses and give it to a homeless person. Otherwise, you’re just advocating that they should be taken from someone else at no cost to you; moral superiority on the cheap.”

    Comment by V the K — December 19, 2013 @ 7:45 am - December 19, 2013

  3. I think it is easy to be a liberal when all you have to do is speak platitudes and talk about the mean republicans.

    As soon as they have to pay for something out of their pockets they start objecting.

    While I empathize with anyone making $8 an hour, almost doubling that pay is going to mean people lose jobs, I pay more or most likely some combination of both.

    Comment by Just Me — December 19, 2013 @ 8:17 am - December 19, 2013

  4. #3 – Just Me, do you remember the comment from the woman in California who learned that her premiums were going up 300% due to Obamacare?

    Her quote was priceless: “I want people to have health care, but I wasn’t aware that I was going to be paying for it.”

    Ayn Rand has just been vindicated.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — December 19, 2013 @ 1:18 pm - December 19, 2013

  5. As soon as they have to pay for something out of their pockets they start objecting.

    It’s that whole Progressive patriotism thing–only with OPM.

    Eric Hines

    Comment by E Hines — December 19, 2013 @ 2:31 pm - December 19, 2013

  6. We pay higher prices in the form of subsidies of public services for which many Wal-Mart employees qualify. And I don’t shop there.

    Just an aside: Why is Target always exempted from this conversation? Is it because they feature hipster Pajama Boy-type models in their ads and support gay marriage?

    Comment by Ignatius — December 19, 2013 @ 3:58 pm - December 19, 2013

  7. Not sure why Target always gets a pass, but their employees aren’t any better off than Walmart’s.

    I also laugh at the people who cry Costco-then I point out that Walmarts build in some of the most rural communities and are often the only store like it for 45 miles or more. Costco has exactly one store in my state and it is in an upscale suburb where people don’t care if they have to pay $55 dollars for the privilege of shopping there.

    Comment by Just Me — December 19, 2013 @ 4:27 pm - December 19, 2013

  8. I can remember when it was still permissible in polite society to refer to;
    1. The working poor….which is now the lower middle-class since EVRYONE in American is “the middle-class”.
    2. The deserving poor for-whom society cared, and to-whom charity is extended.
    3. And the undeserving poor who “…made their own beds” and were rightly left to drown in the own mistakes and shortcomings.

    My Fair Lady (1964)
    Colonel Hugh Pickering: I’ll have you know, Doolittle, that Mr. Higgins’ intentions are entirely honorable!
    Alfred P. Doolittle: Oh, ‘course they are, guv’nor. If I thought they wasn’t, I’d ask fifty.
    Professor Henry Higgins: [shocked] You mean to say you’d sell your daughter for fifty pounds?
    Colonel Hugh Pickering: Have you NO morals, man?
    Alfred P. Doolittle: Nah. Nah, can’t afford ‘em, guv’nor. Neither could you, if you was as poor as me.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 19, 2013 @ 5:31 pm - December 19, 2013

  9. If Wal-Mart were to charge more for their merchandise in order to pay these pie-in-the-sky salaries, then Progressives would consider that a dual victory. Higher prices would drive the average customer away, chiseling away at the foundation of Wal-Mart’s success, giving the Progressives the chance to claim the “era of Wal-Mart is over”.

    From the “Unintended Consequences” file: If these people blackmail stores into paying their workers $15 an hour rather than $8, expect the prices of everything to go up almost in direct proportion, making the recipents of these raises no more able to make ends meet than they did before!

    Comment by jimmy — December 19, 2013 @ 7:28 pm - December 19, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.