Charity

[Graviton]

I've missed a lot it seems, but I still wanted to respond to lannister's last direct response to me.

So, basically exactly what you just did? You’re no better than I am. The only thing you’ve brought to this argument is “facts” that are backed up by nothing. No science and no real data, just some website you probably found. You bring no reason and little emotion to the table.

That "no real data" website was the Department of Labor Statistics, with data from the US Census Bureau, so...no I did not do what you did. You attempted to dismiss my entire argument, as you're still doing, and chalk it all up to my deficient character. I tried to have an actual discussion but you apparently don't want that. You seem to want to feel morally superior.

... but based off of your posts: yes, I would say it’s not unlikely you’re a bad person.

This is typical of people who don't really know why they believe what they do, it's all about emotion. You can't help but think that there is no reason for anyone to disagree with you except moral inferiority. That's the antithesis of rational argument. Where do we go from here? I protest that i"m not a bad person and you continue to insist I am. It's just noise. I'm not interested in yelling at you, I made a point and now it's up to you to either refute it or not. But character assassination is childish and stupid.

Your argument for minimum wage is accomplished by ignoring the fact that people getting paid $7.50 don’t count in your percentages.

What? Of course they are "in the percentages", that's what those percentages are.

You say the only people who work those jobs are entry level, no skilled people, when in reality there are hundreds of thousands of people in those low paying jobs because they are actually unable to get a better job...

I did not say "only". I said that minimum wage jobs are entry-level jobs, and the vast majority of those working minimum wage jobs are entry-level workers.

I’m not the one speaking strictly to emotion and without facts.

Of the two of us you certainly are. You've presented zero facts and you've barely refuted any of my points. You've spent most your time trying to dismiss me without consideration.

Your emotion is anger (I don’t know why, perhaps because you don’t want to believe you are wrong) and your facts are not founded in reality.

"My" facts are just facts, from the aforementioned government agencies. Your facts are...well, a lot of generalization and assumptions and poo-pooing.

The world, especially the US, isn’t as great as you think it is.

Where did I say anything about the relative greatness of the US? I happen to think it's great, except for the clown in the Oval Office and the clowns on Capitol Hill, but other than that it's pretty darned great. Still a lot of inequality and racism and other crap though, so it's not perfect. But again,, you're making assumptions that are not based on anything I've presented.

There’s lots of people living in squalor because they cannot get out of it, not because they’re too lazy to find a better way. You need to see that.

I didn't say anybody was lazy either. Again: you're inferring a lot that just isn't there. I think you're used to shouting at your political rivals on Facebook or something because you're doing an awful lot of generalizing and stereotyping, something FB users of both political stripes are wont to do. If you truly want to discuss things I suggest you rethink your strategy.

 

[DeletedUser36572]

I'll bet there are some players on this thread who think Mr. Potter was the hero of "It's A Wonderful Life" and thought George Bailey was a loser.

Taking cues from Hollywood, because movies are reality at its best.

I don’t know, I am starting to see the wisdom in everyone’s arguments, taking care of myself, my neighbors and community can be expensive and take effort. Maybe we should put on capes, steal Jeff Bezos’ yatch, and all pile on for a trip to Disney World.

When are we going to get together and pull this caper off ... Or are you sissies so spineless you’re gonna wait for Senator Elizabeth Warren to do it for you?

 

[RazorbackPirate]

There you go again, refusing to acknowledge that the people that need this change the most are not always responsible for their life conditions. Invest in people, yes, we agree on that. But you refuse to acknowledge that it’s the corporations who refuse to invest in those people based on outward appearance and prejudice. You can’t invest in people without compassion and care for them: that’s literally what we’ve been saying the whole time, and you agreed to that in an earlier post. So, why are you still fighting? Because you refuse to believe that anyone except the person is responsible for his/her own failure when that has proven to not be true. That is where you are stubborn and won’t change your mind.

Sometimes it’s the American system that have kept those people from changing their life conditions, so it’s up to the American system to change before those people can be in a better place. MW aside, there’s more problems than wages. Refuse to acknowledge that all you wish, it only makes your investment fruitless as well.

You make it seem like it's some big conspiracy. It's not, it's all about individual responsibility. It's not that hard. If someone does just three things, there's a 98% probability they will NOT end up in poverty.

1. Complete a High School Education
2. Get and hold a full time job
3. Wait until marriage to have children

That's it. No government program needed. Just individual responsibility.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

That "no real data" website was the Department of Labor Statistics, with data from the US Census Bureau, so...no I did not do what you did. You attempted to dismiss my entire argument, as you're still doing, and chalk it all up to my deficient character.
...
I did not say "only". I said that minimum wage jobs are entry-level jobs, and the vast majority of those working minimum wage jobs are entry-level workers.
...
"My" facts are just facts, from the aforementioned government agencies. Your facts are...well, a lot of generalization and assumptions and poo-pooing.
...
I didn't say anybody was lazy either. Again: you're inferring a lot that just isn't there.

Firstly, allow me to apologize. I know when I am wrong and to admit my mistakes. You struck a few nerves while disagreeing with my points. So, I got mad and entered a binary argument. You are correct that I inferred things from your posts simply on the basis of the other posts from your side of the debate. I even missed the link you posted. I will admit that I will use emotion with logic when debating, because using pure logic, in my eyes, ultimately is not what is best. For that, I imagine what it would be like to give artificial intelligence the order of eliminating threats from the Earth: the most logical thing there is simply to eliminate humans. We are, after all, the greatest threat to the health of this planet. But that's another argument. Truly, this is not me simply "trying a different strategy". This post just made me go back and re-read what you said differently. Sorry for misinterpreting your posts.

Your argument for minimum wage is accomplished by ignoring the fact that people getting paid $7.50 don’t count in your percentages.

What? Of course they are "in the percentages", that's what those percentages are.

However, I will still refute this point of yours. The minimum wage is $7.25. The statistics on this page only account for those making the true minimum wage or below ($7.25 or less). A person who makes $7.50 does not count in these statistics from the labor bureau.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

You make it seem like it's some big conspiracy. It's not, it's all about individual responsibility. It's not that hard. If someone does just three things, there's a 98% probability they will NOT end up in poverty.

1. Complete a High School Education
2. Get and hold a full time job
3. Wait until marriage to have children

That's it. No government program needed. Just individual responsibility.

That probability is entirely made up. Besides, counterpoints with the following scenarios:

1. A kid growing up without two fit parents (e.g. alcoholism/gambling/drug abuse, single parents, physical/mental health disorders) drops out of high school and goes to work to make sure his younger siblings have food and clothes for them to go to school.
2. Not all jobs train their employees and having no skills, education, or experience makes it extremely difficult to get a first job. It's not impossible, but it also isn't likely that it will be a good or sustainable job anyway.
3. Do I really need to say it? ....A girl is raped and becomes pregnant....

Without government programs, the people already suffering in these situations have it much more difficult to escape them to something better. Even with government programs, it probably won't be enough. Society is not built on individual responsibility. Society is how humans interact with each other, which is by definition not on one individual. It is a slice, but not the whole pie.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

That probability is entirely made up. Besides, counterpoints with the following scenarios:

1. A kid growing up without two fit parents (e.g. alcoholism/gambling/drug abuse, single parents, physical/mental health disorders) drops out of high school and goes to work to make sure his younger siblings have food and clothes for them to go to school.
2. Not all jobs train their employees and having no skills, education, or experience makes it extremely difficult to get a first job. It's not impossible, but it also isn't likely that it will be a good or sustainable job anyway.
3. Do I really need to say it? ....A girl is raped and becomes pregnant....

You can make up any fictional scenario you want. All of them are extreme examples far from the mean demographic. None of them absolving anyone from moving forward with their lives after they've resolved the temporary set back.

1. Once the younger siblings have all graduated from high school themselves, they return the favor to their elder sibling to make sure he gets his GED. He's already got work experience, he just needs the GED to be off to a better job.
2. McDonald's teaches all their employees the basic skills they need to succeed in any job. Things like punctuality, working hard, following directions, respecting authority. A nice resume builder. That's why it's called an entry level job. It's an entry into the workforce. From there, the sky's the limit. How hard does one want to apply oneself to succeed?
3. Put the baby up for adoption. Both the child and the mother will be much better off for the rest of their lives. After the 9 month detour to her life, she picks up where she left off.

Why is a Government program needed? Make the right choices in the wake of shitty circumstances and rise above them.

And stop with the hypotheticals. They're dumb.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

You can make up any fictional scenario you want. All of them are extreme examples far from the mean demographic. None of them absolving anyone from moving forward with their lives after they've resolved the temporary set back.

1. Once the younger siblings have all graduated from high school themselves, they return the favor to their elder sibling to make sure he gets his GED. He's already got work experience, he just needs the GED to be off to a better job.
2. McDonald's teaches all their employees the basic skills they need to succeed in any job. Things like punctuality, working hard, following directions, respecting authority. A nice resume builder. That's why it's called an entry level job. It's an entry into the workforce. From there, the sky's the limit. How hard does one want to apply oneself to succeed?
3. Put the baby up for adoption. Both the child and the mother will be much better off for the rest of their lives. After the 9 month detour to her life, she picks up where she left off.

Why is a Government program needed? Make the right choices in the wake of shitty circumstances and rise above them.

And stop with the hypotheticals. They're dumb.

Except they aren't that extreme and they happen relatively often in poorer communities. Do I need to pull up rape statistics? There's literally more rape-kits waiting to be tested than can be feasibly done (from people who've even bothered to go to the police, never minding the people who didn't) ...warehouses full, expiring...that is no exaggeration.

McDonald's? Yes, all Fortune 500 companies see that on a resume and say "absolutely, I want that guy".

Plus, just because I found scenarios that defeats your "follow these three things to be 98% sure not to end up in poverty", doesn't make them out to be disregarded. Straw-man, you sure love that one.

Also, what about those 2%? Do they just get left behind? Are we just supposed to be okay with that?

 

[DeletedUser36572]

Spending Bad Money

When a corporation or business spends money they know will not fix a problem, in order to make it through the day, kick the can down the road until tomorrow, resulting in more costs in the future to fix the things you should have fixed yesterday ... And pretending you actually acoomplished something on the books.

.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

Spending Bad Money

When a corporation or business spends money they know will not fix a problem, in order to make it through the day, kick the can down the road until tomorrow, resulting in more costs in the future to fix the things you should have fixed yesterday ... And pretending you actually acoomplished something on the books.

.

You don’t work in manufacturing. Yes, they do...literally all the time...because it’s cheaper...

 

[DeletedUser36572]

You don’t work in manufacturing. Yes, they do...literally all the time...because it’s cheaper...

I most certainly have worked in manufacturing.
A lot of Corporations most certainly do it all the time.

It’s their money to spend and their bottom line that is affected.
There are entire corporate programs, regulatory concerns and private money earning institutions built for the express purpose of combating the corporate process of spending bad money.

Yet some corporation are stupid enough to still do it, screw their employees, their consumers, their environment and our future.

Then there are the smart ones that read the writing on the wall.

Edit:
I started working in manufacturing as third party auditor for a Trademarking Agency that dealt in compliance to corporate, market, regulatory and international standards.

There isn’t a damn thing you could tell me about what corporations will do in order to lie, cheat, steal and screw everything and everyone they come into contact with ... I can also tell you there are corporations that don’t do all those things.

The funny part ... Your saviors in the government don’t really have a damn thing to do with the difference between the two ... And are more than likely the inablers for the corporations screwing you.

What makes the difference is the People ... And by People I don’t mean the nameless, faceless masses you think you can help or govern by going to a ballot box and voting for an a**clown in the sh**show.

.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

I most certainly have worked in manufacturing.
A lot of Corporations most certainly do it all the time.

It’s their money to spend and their bottom line that is affected.
There are entire corporate programs, regulatory concerns and private money earning institutions built for the express purpose of combating the corporate process of spending bad money.

Yet some corporation are stupid enough to still do it, screw their employees, their consumers, their environment and our future.

Then there are the smart ones that read the writing on the wall.

Edit:
I started working in manufacturing as third party auditor for a Trademarking Agency that dealt in compliance to corporate, market, regulatory and international standards.

There isn’t a damn thing you could tell me about what corporations will do in order to lie, cheat, steal and screw everything and everyone they come into contact with ... I can also tell you there are corporations that don’t do all those things.

What percentage of corporations are you trying to say are these “smart ones”. The vast majority of the time, companies will go with the cheapest option regardless, which usually means kicking the can down the road and putting the remaining burden on the employees to compensate.

In the end, their goal is to make money, nothing else. That’s the express purpose of a company: their bottom line no matter what. That is not the case for a good government, so they should not be compared as you seem to be trying to do. The purpose of government is to manage its governed. What’s the best way to do that? Well, that’s a centuries old debate that hasn’t really been figured out yet.

 

[DeletedUser36572]

What percentage of corporations are you trying to say are these “smart ones”. The vast majority of the time, companies will go with the cheapest option regardless, which usually means kicking the can down the road and putting the remaining burden on the employees to compensate.

In the end, their goal is to make money, nothing else. That’s the express purpose of a company: their bottom line no matter what. That is not the case for a good government, so they should not be compared as you seem to be trying to do. The purpose of government is to manage its governed. What’s the best way to do that? Well, that’s a centuries old debate that hasn’t really been figured out yet.

The smart corporations are greatly outnumbered by the ones that will lie, cheat, and rob you blind.

That being said, it is no different than any other segment of society, whether it be public education, federal government, religious institutions ... Really, you could plug anything in there.

The baseline ... There are hard working people at all levels that want to do the right things ... Then there are lazy, incompetent, and complacent people who just want to get by and leave the heavy lifting to someone else.

Then there are good People, bad People ... And even good People with really bad ideas on how to fix things.

Edit:
To your point about corporations job being to “make money” ... That is the entire foundation of one of the options a private industry used to start combating the problem of companies spending bad money.

Six Sigma ... A program where you don’t even offer an idea that fixes a systemic failure to the board of directors until you can prove it saves them significant future costs by utilizing a significant initial Capital Investment in equipment, employee training and advancement ... And a redirection of critical resources.

If you want to make a killing in the corporate world doing the right things ... Get certified as a Six Sigma Blackbelt ... Stop making up magical BS ... Learn how to prove your ideas will work ... And learn how to invest real money/effort/resources in real people.

With the thorough understanding that there are going to be lazy, incompetent and complacent people at all levels that will fight you the whole damn way from beginning to end ... And do everything they can to make excuses, take the easy path, kick the can down the road and just get by.

Edit - Edit:

I forgot to add ... There is also going to be a bunch of “daisy chewers” that think the whole damn process of providing for better results is too mean and ugly ... Because to fix the problems, you have to actually hold the people who make the mistakes accountable for their failures ... And provide them with a path that actually helps them achieve better results ... Instead of ignoring the failures in order to keep the people who are failing from getting their feeling hurt because they have to do something more.
.

 

[Emberguard]

There was a interesting statement made by someone on Ted Talks - the people that work to keep you poor benefit from you being poor.

This isn't entirely a black and white issue. There's two major factors here.
(1) Your own actions
(2) The actions of others

There can be a massive difference in the performance of someone who is constantly being belittled over the same person being encouraged. It has a direct effect on both our self esteem and how much our brain is able to develop new brain cells. Mediocrity is as much a learned trait taught by those around us as it is an absence of pursuit. Even if you're not being put down the people you surround yourself with will effect how you approach things.

If you've never had a taste for what excellence is like and never had it explained for what would be required then it's very easy to think you're doing your best while never being anywhere near what you're capable of achieving. Basing your best on the past will limit your best to the past if you're not pushing yourself beyond that - and that best might only be a third of what you could be achieving

 

[DeletedUser36572]

...

This isn't entirely a black and white issue. There's two major factors here.
(1) Your own actions
(2) The actions of others

There can be a massive difference in the performance of someone who is constantly being belittled over the same person being encouraged. It has a direct effect on both our self esteem and how much our brain is able to develop new brain cells. Mediocrity is as much a learned trait taught by those around us as it is an absence of pursuit. Even if you're not being put down the people you surround yourself with will effect how you approach things.

If you've never had a taste for what excellence is like and never had it explained for what would be required then it's very easy to think you're doing your best while never being anywhere near what you're capable of achieving. Basing your best on the past will limit your best to the past if you're not pushing yourself beyond that - and that best might only be a third of what you could be achieving

Amen ... Sometimes everything boils down to the people who fight the fight ... Show others how things can be done/achieved ... Set the bar a little higher ... And convince as many people they can to jump ... Shoot for the stars.

You are going to leave people behind ... Don’t let those people drag everyone back down into the dirt.

You cannot save everyone ... But you can save the People you connect with.

.

 

[Graviton]

Firstly, allow me to apologize.

Apology is accepted and appreciated.

You are correct that I inferred things from your posts simply on the basis of the other posts from your side of the debate.

Easy enough to do, and one is probably right most of the time when inferring those things. But I don't fit easily into molds. I have almost as much disgust and animosity for the generic right as I do for the generic left.

I will admit that I will use emotion with logic when debating, because using pure logic, in my eyes, ultimately is not what is best.

I understand this point, and in one's personal life I agree wholeheartedly. However when it comes to public policy, especially economics, I refer to Aristotle's quote that "The law is reason free from passion." The law when written must be as objective as possible. Adjudicating it is another story, that's why we have judges and juries to apply the law to individual cases, and emotion is sometimes needed there. But when writing it, I believe emotion should have nothing to do with it.

We are, after all, the greatest threat to the health of this planet.

Only to wacky enviro-nutjobs. And Ultron.

However, I will still refute this point of yours. The minimum wage is $7.25. The statistics on this page only account for those making the true minimum wage or below ($7.25 or less). A person who makes $7.50 does not count in these statistics from the labor bureau.

My turn to apologize, I misread this point when you originally wrote it. You are correct, the data is for minimum wage and below. But that's the topic, isn't it? Not near-minimum-wage jobs.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

Apology is accepted and appreciated.

Thanks, I really got ahead of myself there.

You are correct, the data is for minimum wage and below. But that's the topic, isn't it? Not near-minimum-wage jobs.

Correct, it is the topic, but when you look at what the proposed new minimum wage is (~$15), you could argue that making an extra quarter or dollar over the minimum wage is barely any different. At the end of a 39 hour work week (40 means they have to be provided benefits), is roughly an extra $10 a week. When I was making minimum wage, it was fine for me, because I was living at home with my parents, and the only bill I had was gas to get to school. When I moved out and got my first job after college, my starting wage was $15.25. I lived in a pretty cheap apartment by myself for a while, and it was fine. I think I would have been in a crisis if I needed to support a family on that dime. Shoot, I make $19.50 now, and I still think that I don't make enough for a family on that alone, but that's arguable (babies and healthcare are rather expensive though).

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that in a lot of cities the current minimum wage is just not enough even for one person to live on. I personally think the proposed $15 minimum wage is too high. That would inflate a lot more than is necessary (mostly because the top dogs probably won't take a pay cut to supplement the lower tiers). The real issue is that general costs of things are going up, but wages are not. So, something definitely needs to change because it isn't sustainable at this rate.

 

[DeletedUser36572]

Thanks, I really got ahead of myself there.


Correct, it is the topic, but when you look at what the proposed new minimum wage is (~$15), you could argue that making an extra quarter or dollar over the minimum wage is barely any different. At the end of a 39 hour work week (40 means they have to be provided benefits), is roughly an extra $10 a week. When I was making minimum wage, it was fine for me, because I was living at home with my parents, and the only bill I had was gas to get to school. When I moved out and got my first job after college, my starting wage was $15.25. I lived in a pretty cheap apartment by myself for a while, and it was fine. I think I would have been in a crisis if I needed to support a family on that dime. Shoot, I make $19.50 now, and I still think that I don't make enough for a family on that alone, but that's arguable (babies and healthcare are rather expensive though).

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that in a lot of cities the current minimum wage is just not enough even for one person to live on. I personally think the proposed $15 minimum wage is too high. That would inflate a lot more than is necessary (mostly because the top dogs probably won't take a pay cut to supplement the lower tiers). The real issue is that general costs of things are going up, but wages are not. So, something definitely needs to change because it isn't sustainable at this rate.

It’s not about how much money you make an hour, it’s about how much money you can make a day, or in a year.

You are taking the argument down to the minimum when you squabble over insignificant priorities. The reason an employer may only work an employee 39 hours a week, is because (as you stated), the government passed a law that requires the employer to pay more in benefits if the employee works more hours.

The employer didn’t write and pass the law, the government did trying to fix something they have no control over with a really bad idea. Then they say they care, when they only cared enough to get your vote and screw you.

So ... How do you fix it?

You stop trying to fix what you cannot fix because the variables are not in your control. You can search for the companies that won’t screw you. You can find ways to become more valuable to the businesses. You can start your own business and pay people what you think they should make.

The problems come in when People who are not intrinsically invested in the outcome or results, in a hands on everyday way, somehow think anything they have to offer is worth listening to.

If government passes a law some People view it as a protection ... While others view it as an obstacle. When it comes to major corporations, they and their cadre of lawyers run hurdles over your silly laws before lunch and spend the afternoon enjoying the fruits of their labor, while the rest of you try and figure out how you can give more power to the government, in order to write more bad policy, and complain about the same broken stuff none of you are fixing.

It’s not getting fixed, because you cannot fix it without a totalitarian dictatorship ... And with Liberty and Freedom, comes Personal Responsibility.

Invest In People!

Edit:
If you think Augustus Jackson used his white privileged to get from the ghetto to the White House, then become the Grandfather of Modern Ice Cream (although it has more to do with the finical empire he built around logistics and the ability to provide a quality product to the consumer) and one of the richest men in Philadelphia at the time, because of government controls ... You probably passed eighth grade economics in public school.

He didn’t wait to be saved by some fat cat taking a pay cut.

.

 

[DeletedUser]

The reason an employer may only work an employee 39 hours a week, is because (as you stated), the government passed a law that requires the employer to pay more in benefits if the employee works more hours.

You're funny. Benefits are not mandated by law, except for overtime pay. And even then there are exceptions. Employers who cap an employee's hours to avoid paying benefits are doing it for their own reasons. And the reason is that they offer benefits to full-time employees so that they can look good in the public's eyes, but then keep most employees at less than full-time hours so that they don't actually have to pay them those benefits. A case in point is Walmart/Sam's Club.

You may be confused between laws that mandate benefits (which don't exist for the most part) and laws mandating equality in benefits offered.

 

[DeletedUser36572]

You're funny. Benefits are not mandated by law, except for overtime pay. And even then there are exceptions. Employers who cap an employee's hours to avoid paying benefits are doing it for their own reasons. And the reason is that they offer benefits to full-time employees so that they can look good in the public's eyes, but then keep most employees at less than full-time hours so that they don't actually have to pay them those benefits. A case in point is Walmart/Sam's Club.

You may be confused between laws that mandate benefits (which don't exist for the most part) and laws mandating equality in benefits offered.

Benefits are mandated by law (check out the ACA although that would be a different subject). In the case of what I was saying, required benefits are applicable because the requirement is what they are avoiding.

You cannot say they are not required, and then turn around and say the employer is avoiding the requirement for their own reasons.

Not to mention that benefits, like employer sponsored healthcare (although available in certain industries prior), didn’t become an assumed benefit expected from the employer until President Roosevelt capped wages during WWII and corporations had to find alternative ways to compensate the employees they really wanted to come work for them.

That’s right, government attempted to cap wages, corporations found a way around the cap, and now people expect to get what the corporations offered to get around the legislation in the first place.

Edit:
“Under the Affordable Care Act’s employer shared responsibility provisions, certain employers (called applicable large employers or ALEs) must either offer minimum essential coverage that is “affordable” and that provides “minimum value” to their full-time employees (and their dependents), or potentially make an employer shared responsibility payment to the IRS. The employer shared responsibility provisions are sometimes referred to as “the employer mandate” or “the pay or play provisions.” The vast majority of employers will fall below the ALE threshold number of employees and, therefore, will not be subject to the employer shared responsibility provisions.”

For information purposes, any company with more than 50 employees (like WalMart) during a calendar year ... Is required to provide mandated coverage for full-time employees ... It’s not a Public Relations stunt, it’s what happens when the government gets involved, Unicorn Hunter.
.

 

[DeletedUser]

Benefits are mandated by law (check out the ACA although that would be a different subject). In the case of what I was saying, required benefits are applicable because the requirement is what they are avoiding.

You cannot say they are not required, and then turn around and say the employer is avoiding the requirement for their own reasons.

Not to mention that benefits, like employer sponsored healthcare (although available in certain industries prior), didn’t become an assumed benefit expected from the employer until President Roosevelt capped wages during WWII and corporations had to find alternative ways to compensate the employees they really wanted to come work for them.

That’s right, government attempted to cap wages, corporations found a way around the cap, and now people expect to get what the corporations offered to get around the legislation in the first place.

Edit:
“Under the Affordable Care Act’s employer shared responsibility provisions, certain employers (called applicable large employers or ALEs) must either offer minimum essential coverage that is “affordable” and that provides “minimum value” to their full-time employees (and their dependents), or potentially make an employer shared responsibility payment to the IRS. The employer shared responsibility provisions are sometimes referred to as “the employer mandate” or “the pay or play provisions.” The vast majority of employers will fall below the ALE threshold number of employees and, therefore, will not be subject to the employer shared responsibility provisions.”

For information purposes, any company with more than 50 employees (like WalMart) during a calendar year ... Is required to provide mandated coverage for full-time employees ... It’s not a Public Relations stunt, it’s what happens when the government gets involved, Unicorn Hunter.
.

So much misinformation.

You cannot say they are not required, and then turn around and say the employer is avoiding the requirement for their own reasons.

I didn't say they were required by law. What I was saying was that employers advertise themselves as providing benefits to full time employees (which they are not mandated by law to do) and then use a loophole in their own internal policies to avoid actually paying those benefits to most of their employees. This is not conjecture on my part, it is a widely known fact. As I said before, Walmart/Sam's Club is a prime example, and I know several current and former employees who can attest to this fact.

Not to mention that benefits, like employer sponsored healthcare (although available in certain industries prior), didn’t become an assumed benefit expected from the employer until President Roosevelt capped wages during WWII and corporations had to find alternative ways to compensate the employees they really wanted to come work for them.

That’s right, government attempted to cap wages, corporations found a way around the cap, and now people expect to get what the corporations offered to get around the legislation in the first place.

Wrong again. Employee benefits came into being due to the labor movement's organizing efforts and collective bargaining. Nobody who is familiar with American business practices is going to believe that a movement of corporations eager to give money to employees went out of their way to find "alternative methods" to do so. What you're probably thinking about is the rarer benefits that companies dole out to a few "top level" employees, not things like healthcare and vacation time for the entire workforce. Those things came about because of unions, not because of corporations.