Prior Post is to Support Families; not Wal-Mart in General

ADDENDUM: As far as Wal-Mart in general is concerned, I do not like all the products from China – I dont like finding food products like potato chips which come from Mexico and candy, gum or seafood from China. I do not shop there unless absolutely necessary. Id rather pay a little more to support the competition than let Wal-Mart get bigger. Also, Ive seen and heard too many complaints about questionable practices employed by Wal-Mart executives for me to support the stores.

What I am simply intending to state is that I believe men or women supporting children deserve to be paid a living wage, even if that means that a single worker with no dependants is paid less for the same job.

A single person should have more time to develop their talents and paying hobbies if they want more money to buy nicer things. A lot of family folk are already having to do this.

My original post is to support families, not to support Wal-Mart. Just want to make that clear.

Workers vs Wal-Mart

                                                  WORKERS VS WAL-MART   2010

                                                                                               –  Mary A. LaClair

Wal-Mart was originated to be a family friendly store.  I agree that a man with a family to support SHOULD earn MORE for the same job as a single person, female or male.

Society needs more stay-at-home moms.  Legitimate parents should not have to struggle to put a roof over children’s heads, food on their table, clothes on their back shoes on their feet, and struggle to keep them in computers, cell phones and school; while most m., f., glbt., single persons live in extravagance, very often disgusting extravagance, for doing the same job.   In effect, parents should not be punished for having children. Wal-Mart’s contribution to a decent growing society is recognized by their policies towards parents. 

If Wal-Mart, or any other employer, chooses to be ‘family friendly’ and make themselves known as such at the time of hiring, the choice is theirs.  Or will that freedom be eroded by the Supreme Court?    The single employee who accepts those terms upon acceptance of the job has no gripe.  They are being paid a living wage; just as the parent is being paid a living wage.  Employers should not be obligated to support debauchery in singles.

Should these complainers be like some foreigners who come to the U.S. for our style of life and then try to change that style of life to that of the country which they left?   I don’t think so!  They know what they are getting themselves in for when they move to this country or take a Wal-Mart job.  America: Like it or leave it.  Wal-Mart: Like it or leave it.

 There is a Scriptural parable of the hired workers which I think relates to the matter at hand. It is the one where the workers hired at the 11th hour received the same pay as those hired in the 1^st and the 3^rd and the 6th hour; of course the first workers hired by the job then wanted to be paid by the hours; call it equal pay for equal time; but the Master says:  “Is this not what you agreed to when you accepted the job as it was offered?”   Jesus made sure everyone had a living wage.  He goes on to explain it this way:  “Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things or is your eye evil because I am good?”

Single workers who want more money are like the first workers hired in the parable related in the Good Book in Matthew chapter twenty. 

I think the root of the matter is deciding between need and want; and, being grateful that needs are met – whether that need is for a single person or a family of six.   Let not the eye be evil for goodness to family providers.                    **

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!