PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Who's the Biggest Welfare Queen? Wal-Mart!


gblowfish
12-03-2012, 04:01 PM
They force their employees to live off federal assistance in many, many ways. Flame away, neocons:

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13127-reagans-welfare-queen-found#.UL0omSZSJi8.facebook

Good news everyone, after more than thirty years of searching by the news media, Ronald Reagan’s infamous “Welfare Queen” has finally been found. She lives in Bentonville, Arkansas.

“She has eighty names, thirty addresses,” Reagan warned during his 1976 run for President about a nameless, Cadillac-driving woman who’s conning the social safety net. He added: “She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names.” In total, Reagan said, “Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000.”

For more than thirty years, Republicans have used the existence of this “Welfare Queen” to justify their attacks on public spending and prove that the “welfare state” has run amok. Yet, her identity has never been revealed. After decades of searching, the best and brightest minds in the field of journalism were never able to discover who’s behind the wheel of the “Welfare Queen’s” Cadillac, or if she even existed.

That is until now.

We now realize our mistake. In our search for this “Welfare Queen,” we were looking for actual people when we should have been looking for corporate people. We should have been looking at Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart is the largest private employer and brought in more revenue in 2011 than any other company in the nation. Wal-Mart pocketed a not-too-shabby $16.4 billion in profits that same year and the six Wal-Mart heirs, the Walton family, own roughly $100 billion in wealth, which is more than 40% of Americans combined.

But, despite making all of this money, Wal-Mart’s business model hinges on mooching from the government. It hinges on being the biggest “Welfare Queen” in the United States.

Because of the “everyday low wages” that the retail giant pays its employees, our government has to step in and provide public assistance to Wal-Mart workers just so they can survive…which is why the Wal-Mart workforce represents the largest recipient of federal aid in the nation.
A Wal-Mart worker makes on average 31% less than a worker for any other large retailer, and requires 39% more in public assistance.

A recent study by UC Berkeley found that Wal-Mart’s low wages are costing the state of California alone $86 million a year to provide public assistance like food stamps and healthcare to the retailer’s 44,000 low-wage employees in the state. The state spends nearly $2,000 every single year on each Wal-Mart employee who can’t afford basic essentials like housing, food, and healthcare with their Wal-Mart paycheck.

In total, it’s estimated that Walmart stores loot more than $2.6 billion every single year from the federal government in the form of tax-payer funded public assistance to their employees. That includes more than one billion in healthcare costs associated with Medicaid, and $225 million in free or reduced-price lunches for school children of Wal-Mart employees.

And now, as reported by the Huffington Post, Wal-Mart is planning to loot even more from us taxpayers, as the giant corporation adopts a new healthcare policy that will deny insurance for any employees working fewer than 30 hours a week.

Wal-Mart routinely forces their workers into part-time schedules, working fewer than 30 hours a week, so many will lose their health insurance under this new policy. When asked for comment by the Huffington Post on how many workers will be affected, Wal-Mart declined to answer.

Make no mistake about it, while it may be individual Wal-Mart employees who are collecting government benefits, the corporation itself benefits tremendously.

If the government didn’t step in to provide food assistance, Wal-Mart couldn’t operate with a team of emaciated workers unable to lift ballets of canned foods or count back the correct change at the checkout lanes.

If the government didn’t step in to provide health insurance, then Walmart stores would be a breeding ground for infectious diseases since their employees can’t afford to see a doctor on their own.

If the government didn’t step in to provide school-lunch assistance, then parents who work at Wal-Mart may have less money to put gas in their car and may not even make it in to work.

How can a business succeed with a sickly, tired, tardy, or altogether absent workforce? It can’t.

And while most businesses understanding that a healthy, happy, productive workforce is good for business, Wal-Mart hasn’t. Instead, Wal-Mart, with its enormous fortune, has shifted this responsibility onto taxpayers like you and me. They are, indeed, among the biggest of the big welfare queens in America.

The only difference is Walmart actually exists and Reagan’s “Welfare Queen” doesn’t.

With the help of “Welfare Queen” argument, Conservatives have targeted individual Americans who rely on public assistance as irresponsible and argued that it’s time to end the “handouts.”

But in reality, it’s time we target the actual institutions of irresponsibility in America – Wal-Mart and the other corporate giants who don’t give enough of a damn about their workers to pay them a living wage stick us with the bill for their well-being.

If a corporation can’t afford to pay its employees enough that each worker can afford basic essentials like healthcare, food, and housing, then that corporation – no matter how big or small it is – shouldn’t be allowed to do business.

No more corporate Welfare Queens in America!

Dave Lane
12-03-2012, 04:04 PM
I never shop at Walmart partially because of their treatment of employees. I drive past them to go to Target or Costco.

loochy
12-03-2012, 04:10 PM
I never shop at Walmart partially because of their treatment of employees. I drive past them to go to Target or Costco.

I go elsewhere too, but not because of the employees. Who gives a damn about them? Go work at another large retail store. I go to Target because I can get in and out quickly without waiting in a line for 20 minutes. Also, I don't have to smell fat people on their Rascals.

T-post Tom
12-03-2012, 04:11 PM
But think of all the good they do for Chinese manufacturers.

BigMeatballDave
12-03-2012, 04:21 PM
Walmart employees are free to find alternative employment.

Mr. Flopnuts
12-03-2012, 04:26 PM
Capitalism baby!

Fish
12-03-2012, 04:35 PM
Another example of brute force corporate tactics that not only doesn't help the US economy in any way, but actually creates a drain on the system by forcing their workers to depend on welfare.

Bump
12-03-2012, 04:53 PM
a wal mart exec makes in an hour, what their average full time employee makes in a year. That's pretty fucked up.

Dallas Chief
12-03-2012, 05:14 PM
Let me just ask a few questions- How much would the employees of Walmart cost the state of CA if they didn't have that job? How much would a loaf of bread cost at Walmart if they were forced to pay their employees more/provide benefits? Is it possible that Walmart employees average 31% less in wages than employees at other retailers because of the sheer number of them, thus skewing the average greatly? What would happen to the US economy if there was no Walmart? In today's economic climate is Walmart a necessary evil? Is this just more senseless Walmart is the debil boogeyman bashing?

These are the questions that popped up in my mind as I read the article.

Not sure how accurate this is, but I found it interesting nonetheless

http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Target-Hourly-Pay-E194.htm

http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Walmart-Stores-Hourly-Pay-E715.htm

scott free
12-03-2012, 05:15 PM
I will always pay more at another store, before patronizing wal-mart.

Make that choice every single week.

loochy
12-03-2012, 05:16 PM
a wal mart exec makes in an hour, what their average full time employee makes in a year. That's pretty fucked up.

not really

HonestChieffan
12-03-2012, 05:32 PM
a wal mart exec makes in an hour, what their average full time employee makes in a year. That's pretty ****ed up.

Boy howdy if that aint right. What are the numbers anyway?

whoman69
12-03-2012, 06:18 PM
Let me just ask a few questions- How much would the employees of Walmart cost the state of CA if they didn't have that job? How much would a loaf of bread cost at Walmart if they were forced to pay their employees more/provide benefits? Is it possible that Walmart employees average 31% less in wages than employees at other retailers because of the sheer number of them, thus skewing the average greatly? What would happen to the US economy if there was no Walmart? In today's economic climate is Walmart a necessary evil? Is this just more senseless Walmart is the debil boogeyman bashing?

These are the questions that popped up in my mind as I read the article.

Not sure how accurate this is, but I found it interesting nonetheless

http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Target-Hourly-Pay-E194.htm

http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Walmart-Stores-Hourly-Pay-E715.htm

Companies like Costco take the money from their upper management, not add to their prices.

Taco John
12-03-2012, 06:18 PM
I heard that a Walmart exec distills more hobo blood for gasoline in one month than most hobos do in an entire year. Monsters!

Baby Lee
12-03-2012, 06:27 PM
Hourly wages are established up front, both sides assent to the arrangement. What's this notion that an employer, part or full time, is responsible for all their employee's expenses?

EDIT: NVM, turns out that the drivel I was too kind to mention initially was cited right in the article

living wages

stevieray
12-03-2012, 06:34 PM
Capitalism baby!

divorce rates define marriage!

Dallas Chief
12-03-2012, 06:45 PM
Companies like Costco take the money from their upper management, not add to their prices.

Yeah? Ever sit across the table from a Costco buyer? I know where they extract their pound of flesh, and it isn't from their execs.

mlyonsd
12-03-2012, 06:52 PM
Wal-Mart built their empire on American public stupidity. Providing products at lower prices forced many small companies out of business or forced them to move their production to cheap out of country labor.

Want a prescription? Pay more at the local pharmacy or go to Wal-Mart where you could get it cheaper. Tough shit for the local pharmacy.

This is more of the global market coming back to roost at home.

HonestChieffan
12-03-2012, 06:54 PM
Whole lot of stupid in the OP. Re read it and I'm amazed crap like this is ever printed. But these are the intrawebs

Garcia Bronco
12-03-2012, 07:05 PM
The op article makes the case for getting rid of public assistance. Then Walmart can't do what it does.

Garcia Bronco
12-03-2012, 07:06 PM
Wal-Mart built their empire on American public stupidity. Providing products at lower prices forced many small companies out of business or forced them to move their production to cheap out of country labor.

Want a prescription? Pay more at the local pharmacy or go to Wal-Mart where you could get it cheaper. Tough shit for the local pharmacy.

This is more of the global market coming back to roost at home.

This.

Cannibal
12-03-2012, 07:13 PM
SI will always pay more at another store, before patronizing wal-mart.

Make that choice every single week.

Same here. I think we might go to Walmart maybe twice per year only if they happen to have something i can't find somewhere else at that particular time. I find the customers at target far more tolerable to be around.

BigRedChief
12-03-2012, 07:15 PM
The op article makes the case for getting rid of public assistance. Then Walmart can't do what it does.The taxpayers are subsidizing the Walmart payroll. I don't know what we could do about it though?

Garcia Bronco
12-03-2012, 07:25 PM
The taxpayers are subsidizing the Walmart payroll. I don't know what we could do about it though?

The only legal thing is to get rid of the public assistance, people can't work there, and make Walmart NEED to compete for heads. Or stout competition in the market place.

Personally I'd like the US to just put them out of business. Illegally if we have to....On some level I view them as a threat to our nation.

They sell mostly imports, on so it seems. Jack up the import tariffs :)

CoMoChief
12-03-2012, 08:04 PM
Walmart is crap. Only go there if I absolutely have to.

Their treatment of employees is crap too...which is why I never plan to ever work there. These people can seek other employment if they wish, nobody is forcing them to work for Walmart. Most people now are domesticated, in which this case, as long as the people have just enough to get by, they're ok w/ that. Most of these people have ZERO ambitions to do what it takes to move up in the world. They're perfectly fine w/ being a low wage, low on the totem pole type of employee, and as long as the govt kicks in they have no will to achieve any goals in life.

Mr. Flopnuts
12-03-2012, 08:04 PM
divorce rates define marriage!

That's a copout, Stevie. Capitalism has become Corporatism. And it's fucking broken. Small business, and the American dream are dying.

BigRedChief
12-03-2012, 08:22 PM
That's a copout, Stevie. Capitalism has become Corporatism. And it's fucking broken. Small business, and the American dream are dying.thats what I've been screaming at the neocons in here since I came back.Without a strong middle class its impossible to have a strong America.

petegz28
12-03-2012, 09:10 PM
I go to Wal-Mart when it's the only option. Needless to say I haven't walked in a Wal-Mart in years.

stevieray
12-03-2012, 09:15 PM
That's a copout, Stevie. Capitalism has become Corporatism. And it's ****ing broken. Small business, and the American dream are dying.

no, your stance is THE cop out...the PEOPLE and their MORAL compass are broken... that is why America is dying.

we've done this to ourselves.

"please don't kill me over a TV on black friday"

stevieray
12-03-2012, 09:17 PM
thats what I've been screaming at the neocons in here since I came back

please..since you've come back you're just another version of Kotter.

..counting Obama yard signs...."winning"

Rain Man
12-03-2012, 09:21 PM
Wal-Mart wanted to come to the neighborhood adjacent to mine, and the mayor wanted them to come in. However, the neighborhood was vehemently against it. The worst part, though, was that the developer and Wal-Mart were wanting tax credits to come in and destroy local jobs, saying that "we need the tax breaks to make this project viable".

After a big uproar, the city eventually pulled the tax breaks and Wal-Mart backed out, knowing that they weren't welcome.

The interesting thing to me is that we're in the middle of the city. There is nothing that Wal-Mart sells that we cannot buy within walking distance or a ten-minute drive. Wal-Mart is absolutely unnecessary in the neighborhood. And yet the citizens were being told that we should give them tax breaks to come in? What benefits are they providing? There would not be any gain in jobs because we're already shopping in the neighborhood. The only thing that would happen would be that local businesses would close and the profits would be sucked out of the local economy. The only benefit was purely political, in that it would probably bleed some sales from the Target that's located ten blocks away, but which is in another city. That would produce some tax revenues for Denver, albeit at the cost of tax revenues from the other city. But then we would give the money right back to Wal-Mart in the form of tax breaks.

I really don't care if Wal-Mart opens, but giving them tax breaks is the ultimate in stupidity.

scott free
12-03-2012, 09:21 PM
S

Same here. I think we might go to Walmart maybe twice per year only if they happen to have something i can't find somewhere else at that particular time. I find the customers at target far more tolerable to be around.

This.

It takes a real big reason to get me there.

dirk digler
12-03-2012, 09:25 PM
Wal-Mart built their empire on American public stupidity. Providing products at lower prices forced many small companies out of business or forced them to move their production to cheap out of country labor.

Want a prescription? Pay more at the local pharmacy or go to Wal-Mart where you could get it cheaper. Tough shit for the local pharmacy.

This is more of the global market coming back to roost at home.

Yep.

I admit though I shop at Walmart alot. Mostly because there isn't much to any option in town. I use the local pharmacy and try to use the only local grocery store in town but it gets harder when items are $2-3 cheaper at Walmart.

Mr. Flopnuts
12-03-2012, 09:30 PM
no, your stance is THE cop out...the PEOPLE and their MORAL compass are broken... that is why America is dying.

we've done this to ourselves.

"please don't kill me over a TV on black friday"

That does everything but address corporatism vs. capitalism.

Dave Lane
12-03-2012, 09:36 PM
That's a copout, Stevie. Capitalism has become Corporatism. And it's ****ing broken. Small business, and the American dream are dying.

Who cares? Stevie can get his capes and spandex cheaper, thats all that matters.

Cannibal
12-03-2012, 09:38 PM
ROFLWho cares? Stevie can get his capes and spandex cheaper, thats all that matters.

stevieray
12-03-2012, 09:39 PM
That does everything but address corporatism vs. capitalism.


this does everything but address the point.

Dave Lane
12-03-2012, 09:40 PM
Wal-Mart wanted to come to the neighborhood adjacent to mine, and the mayor wanted them to come in. However, the neighborhood was vehemently against it. The worst part, though, was that the developer and Wal-Mart were wanting tax credits to come in and destroy local jobs, saying that "we need the tax breaks to make this project viable".

After a big uproar, the city eventually pulled the tax breaks and Wal-Mart backed out, knowing that they weren't welcome.

The interesting thing to me is that we're in the middle of the city. There is nothing that Wal-Mart sells that we cannot buy within walking distance or a ten-minute drive. Wal-Mart is absolutely unnecessary in the neighborhood. And yet the citizens were being told that we should give them tax breaks to come in? What benefits are they providing? There would not be any gain in jobs because we're already shopping in the neighborhood. The only thing that would happen would be that local businesses would close and the profits would be sucked out of the local economy. The only benefit was purely political, in that it would probably bleed some sales from the Target that's located ten blocks away, but which is in another city. That would produce some tax revenues for Denver, albeit at the cost of tax revenues from the other city. But then we would give the money right back to Wal-Mart in the form of tax breaks.

I really don't care if Wal-Mart opens, but giving them tax breaks is the ultimate in stupidity.

Gaining one low paying Walmart at the cost of 50 nearby local businesses is retarded.

Once while driving back roads across the US I found every small town I came to that had a Walmart nearby also had a downtown square with nothing but tumbleweeds. Many of the ones with out a Walmart near by had bustling squares with fun little local businesses.

stevieray
12-03-2012, 09:42 PM
Who cares? Stevie can get his capes and spandex cheaper, thats all that matters.
still got nothing, dave?

stevieray
12-03-2012, 09:42 PM
ROFL

don't be a chickenshit, cannibal.

Cannibal
12-03-2012, 09:58 PM
Sorry, it was a good one.

stevieray
12-03-2012, 10:04 PM
Sorry, it was a good one.
ya, if ever wore spandex...

i'll admit to zubaz.

Cannibal
12-03-2012, 10:09 PM
Gaining one low paying Walmart at the cost of 50 nearby local businesses is retarded.

Once while driving back roads across the US I found every small town I came to that had a Walmart nearby also had a downtown square with nothing but tumbleweeds. Many of the ones with out a Walmart near by had bustling squares with fun little local businesses.

True. These communities are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Cannibal
12-03-2012, 10:10 PM
ya, if ever wore spandex...

i'll admit to zubaz.

Whatever the material, you pull off it better than i ever could.

stevieray
12-03-2012, 10:15 PM
Whatever the material, you pull off it better than i ever could.

aww man, now you really suck, making me give you rep!

:D

Cannibal
12-03-2012, 10:18 PM
Hah. Have a good night. I'm hitting the hay.

stevieray
12-03-2012, 10:20 PM
Hah. Have a good night. I'm hitting the hay.

me too man...back atcha!

KCWolfman
12-03-2012, 10:46 PM
Easily solved - Don't shop there, don't work there.

Psyko Tek
12-03-2012, 10:51 PM
Easily solved - Don't shop there, don't work there.

my GAWD man you have fixed everything
now how are you on the middle east thingy

Taco John
12-03-2012, 11:17 PM
Wal-Mart built their empire on American public stupidity. Providing products at lower prices forced many small companies out of business or forced them to move their production to cheap out of country labor.

Want a prescription? Pay more at the local pharmacy or go to Wal-Mart where you could get it cheaper. Tough shit for the local pharmacy.

This is more of the global market coming back to roost at home.

I saw a headline tonight on the paper that said "Medicare paid drug companies $5 billion in 2012." The headline tainted it as some great success story - as though it was "saving" people money. But let me ask you something - if the government wasn't subsidizing the drug companies through Medicare, wouldn't they drop their prices to go where the market CAN and WILL pay? What incentive to they have to lower their prices if they know government is ponying up the dollars? In fact, aren't they then incentivized to RAISE their prices? Of course they are. When government pays, you know that you can expect them to PAY MORE. In fact, you build business plans around getting them to do just that.

If Walmart is able to get the drugs to the consumers cheaper, they're about the only force in the world working to lower the price of prescription drugs, because there are no market forces left to do it - and clearly the government isn't going to regulate prices. They need the high prices to justify the need for more taxes.

KCWolfman
12-03-2012, 11:19 PM
The only legal thing is to get rid of the public assistance, people can't work there, and make Walmart NEED to compete for heads. Or stout competition in the market place.

Personally I'd like the US to just put them out of business. Illegally if we have to....On some level I view them as a threat to our nation.

They sell mostly imports, on so it seems. Jack up the import tariffs :)

I could make the same argument about ALL automobile manufacturers, let alone electronics, including the PC from which you typed your post.

blaise
12-04-2012, 05:08 AM
That's a copout, Stevie. Capitalism has become Corporatism. And it's ****ing broken. Small business, and the American dream are dying.

These type of posts are just nonsense.

blaise
12-04-2012, 05:12 AM
thats what I've been screaming at the neocons in here since I came back.Without a strong middle class its impossible to have a strong America.

What does that have to do with Wal Mart paying employees minimum wage?

blaise
12-04-2012, 05:26 AM
Just to point out one other thing- Wal Mart employs many people who are basically unemployable anywhere else. People that would likely be on total government assistance without a Wal Mart job.

Mr. Flopnuts
12-04-2012, 05:44 AM
Just to point out one other thing- Wal Mart employs many people who are basically unemployable anywhere else. People that would likely be on total government assistance without a Wal Mart job.

These type of posts are just nonsense.

blaise
12-04-2012, 05:48 AM
These type of posts are just nonsense.

You're saying its not true, or are you just reacting negatively to me pointing out that you basically just post, "Capitalism and corporations are ruining America," over and over?

Saulbadguy
12-04-2012, 06:07 AM
no, your stance is THE cop out...the PEOPLE and their MORAL compass are broken... that is why America is dying.

we've done this to ourselves.

"please don't kill me over a TV on black friday"

The people are fine.

Mr. Flopnuts
12-04-2012, 06:08 AM
You're saying its not true, or are you just reacting negatively to me pointing out that you basically just post, "Capitalism and corporations are ruining America," over and over?

Capitalism isn't ruining America. Capitalism made America. Certain Corporations are ruining America. And as far as Walmart employing people otherwise "unemployable" I'm not sure how many are a lot to you, but I rarely see anyone inside Walmart who would be unemployable elsewhere. That doesn't excuse the tax breaks.

At the end of the day though, I don't blame corporations. I blame the government for enabling them.

blaise
12-04-2012, 06:14 AM
Capitalism isn't ruining America. Capitalism made America. Certain Corporations are ruining America. And as far as Walmart employing people otherwise "unemployable" I'm not sure how many are a lot to you, but I rarely see anyone inside Walmart who would be unemployable elsewhere. That doesn't excuse the tax breaks.

At the end of the day though, I don't blame corporations. I blame the government for enabling them.

I've seen Wal Mart employees that I would say don't have much prospects for employment elsewhere. Elderly, for instance. They also employ some people who are just above the mentally retarded level that would have a difficult time finding employment elsewhere.

I never said it excuses tax breaks.

But when you say, "Capitalism!" in reference to the article, what are you suggesting Wal Mart do? Or were you just sort of yelling, "Capitalism!" for fun?

Mr. Flopnuts
12-04-2012, 06:19 AM
I've seen Wal Mart employees that I would say don't have much prospects for employment elsewhere. Elderly, for instance. They also employ some people who are just above the mentally retarded level that would have a difficult time finding employment elsewhere.

I never said it excuses tax breaks.

But when you say, "Capitalism!" in reference to the article, what are you suggesting Wal Mart do? Or were you just sort of yelling, "Capitalism!" for fun?

To remind people that capitalism is based off of greed. There is no use bitching about it. Again, I blame the government for enabling it to the degree that it has. The system is more heavily slanted than it has been in the past. Just my opinion.

As far as the elderly, most are retired, or drawing social security. Walmart isn't saving their lives. As far as the ones just above the mentally retarded level, restaurants used to serve that role, they still do to some point. Those people either don't need jobs, or could find other ones for the most part. Walmart isn't anyone's savior. And no, I'm not saying you said that they were.

blaise
12-04-2012, 06:24 AM
To remind people that capitalism is based off of greed. There is no use bitching about it. Again, I blame the government for enabling it to the degree that it has. The system is more heavily slanted than it has been in the past. Just my opinion.

As far as the elderly, most are retired, or drawing social security. Walmart isn't saving their lives. As far as the ones just above the mentally retarded level, restaurants used to serve that role, they still do to some point. Those people either don't need jobs, or could find other ones for the most part. Walmart isn't anyone's savior. And no, I'm not saying you said that they were.

I didn't say Wal Mart was saving their lives. I said Wal Mart employs some people that would have a hard time finding employment elsewhere. Some would be unemployable at most other places.

I really don't think my initial statement was nonsense. Seems like you just kind of had hurt feelings.

Mr. Flopnuts
12-04-2012, 06:26 AM
I didn't say Wal Mart was saving their lives. I said Wal Mart employs some people that would have a hard time finding employment elsewhere. Some would be unemployable at most other places.

I really don't think my initial statement was nonsense. Seems like you just kind of had hurt feelings.

LMAO I was fucking with you. I had no idea this whole conversation revolved around that silly post. Now I'm sorry I even indulged you, but hey, you win.

blaise
12-04-2012, 06:33 AM
LMAO I was ****ing with you. I had no idea this whole conversation revolved around that silly post. Now I'm sorry I even indulged you, but hey, you win.

Capitalism! Yeah!

Am I doing that right?

Mr. Flopnuts
12-04-2012, 06:34 AM
Try it like this,

That's capitalism, baby!

blaise
12-04-2012, 06:35 AM
Try it like this,

That's capitalism, baby!

Ok.

That's capitalism, baby!

Hey, you know. That kind of works. I can feel the personal responsibility melting away.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-04-2012, 07:40 AM
I shop at walmart sometimes, should I feel guilty?

KCWolfman
12-04-2012, 08:52 AM
I shop at walmart sometimes, should I feel guilty?

I am not sure. I think you should feel guilty for supporting an evil empire but feel good for helping the less fortunate keep their employment.

Maybe they cancel one another out?

Fish
12-04-2012, 08:55 AM
I didn't say Wal Mart was saving their lives. I said Wal Mart employs some people that would have a hard time finding employment elsewhere. Some would be unemployable at most other places.

I really don't think my initial statement was nonsense. Seems like you just kind of had hurt feelings.

Disregarding your employability detector powers for a minute... Why do you think Walmart would choose to employ those types of people?

blaise
12-04-2012, 09:01 AM
Disregarding your employability detector powers for a minute... Why do you think Walmart would choose to employ those types of people?

I don't know. Maybe they get some sort of tax credit.

If you have a point go ahead and make it yourself. It's generally quicker that way.

scott free
12-04-2012, 09:03 AM
I shop at walmart sometimes, should I feel guilty?

On the very rare occasion that i shop there, i know i do.

They crush small business everywhere they go.

theelusiveeightrop
12-04-2012, 09:05 AM
Wal Mart caused Belcher to lose it. Just sayin'............

loochy
12-04-2012, 09:05 AM
I shop at walmart sometimes, should I feel guilty?

No. Do business that fail to meet your needs (thus driving you to go to walmart) feel guilty?

blaise
12-04-2012, 09:06 AM
On the very rare occasion that i shop there, i know i do.

They crush small business everywhere they go.

They don't. The people shopping there do.

dirk digler
12-04-2012, 09:08 AM
Just to point out one other thing- Wal Mart employs many people who are basically unemployable anywhere else. People that would likely be on total government assistance without a Wal Mart job.

For example?

loochy
12-04-2012, 09:09 AM
For example?

WTF do you mean "for example"? Do you want me to go do a writeup on the guy in sporting goods that can't speak proper English?

Bob Dole
12-04-2012, 09:09 AM
So Wal~Mart pays its employees less than the federally mandated minimum wage?

Does making the federally mandated minimum wage place a single person or a couple who both work at an income level where they can receive the mentioned benefits?

Most of the food stamp recipients Bob Dole knows who work, are recipients not because they make particularly low wages, but because they chose to reproduce beyond their ability to support the mouths they chose to feed.

Should an employer be forced to adjust an employee's wages based on their number of dependents?

loochy
12-04-2012, 09:11 AM
Should an employer be forced to adjust an employee's wages based on their number of dependents?

Yes. Everyone should be equal. We should all pool our money centrally then the Government can divy up the money as they see fit.

Mr. Flopnuts
12-04-2012, 09:12 AM
Ok.

That's capitalism, baby!

Hey, you know. That kind of works. I can feel the personal responsibility melting away.

ROFL It blows my mind when educated folks can be so delusional. It's either that or being heartless. Either way, go you!

Saulbadguy
12-04-2012, 09:15 AM
Should an employer be forced to adjust an employee's wages based on their number of dependents?

Either that, or make it legal to drown your dependents.

blaise
12-04-2012, 09:15 AM
ROFL It blows my mind when educated folks can be so delusional. It's either that or being heartless. Either way, go you!

Hey, if you want to keep blaming a corporate boogeyman for our nation's ills, then good luck wallowing in misery for the rest of your life.

dirk digler
12-04-2012, 09:15 AM
WTF do you mean "for example"? Do you want me to go do a writeup on the guy in sporting goods that can't speak proper English?

Sure. At the WalMart in my town they don't use elderly people anymore for greeters but they use to 2-3 years ago. When I interact with their employees I don't see anyone that I would think couldn't get a job anywhere else.

I maybe wrong but I figured WalMart had fairly high hiring standards..at least that is what I always assumed. :shrug:

blaise
12-04-2012, 09:16 AM
For example?

I gave an example in a previous post.

KCWolfman
12-04-2012, 09:19 AM
Sure. At the WalMart in my town they don't use elderly people anymore for greeters but they use to 2-3 years ago. When I interact with their employees I don't see anyone that I would think couldn't get a job anywhere else.

I maybe wrong but I figured WalMart had fairly high hiring standards..at least that is what I always assumed. :shrug:

We have a mentally handicapped kid that retrieves carts at the Walmart in Gladstone. We have at least 5 greeters over the age of 65 as well.

Mr. Flopnuts
12-04-2012, 09:21 AM
Hey, if you want to keep blaming a corporate boogeyman for our nation's ills, then good luck wallowing in misery for the rest of your life.

Who said I'm wallowing in misery? It is what it is. Just because something doesn't affect me personally, doesn't mean I'm dumb enough to not see what's happened over the last 50 years. The average American works harder, and more hours, yet enjoys a lesser quality of life. It is what it is. People allow it. I work 30-35 hours a week and make a decent income that will become a ridiculous income with my hardwork. Not everyone has the ability to do that, so at least they'll have Walmart to save them. LMAO

La literatura
12-04-2012, 09:24 AM
I shop at Wal-Mart because I know that without me and fellow Wal-Mart consumers, those sad employees would be spending their days digging through their own feces for fun while they waited for a federal social worker to give them their meals.

blaise
12-04-2012, 09:26 AM
I shop at Wal-Mart because I know that without me and fellow Wal-Mart consumers, those sad employees would be spending their days digging through their own feces for fun while they waited for a federal social worker to give them their meals.

John Knowles.

blaise
12-04-2012, 09:27 AM
Who said I'm wallowing in misery? It is what it is. Just because something doesn't affect me personally, doesn't mean I'm dumb enough to not see what's happened over the last 50 years. The average American works harder, and more hours, yet enjoys a lesser quality of life. It is what it is. People allow it. I work 30-35 hours a week and make a decent income that will become a ridiculous income with my hardwork. Not everyone has the ability to do that, so at least they'll have Walmart to save them. LMAO

I think the quality of life for an average American is pretty good.

La literatura
12-04-2012, 09:27 AM
John Knowles.

Hot.

BigMeatballDave
12-04-2012, 09:34 AM
There is a Walmart a half a mile away. Yes I shop there. Not for food. I do that at Winn-Dixie or Publix.

The nearest Target is 10 miles.

With the price of gas, I wonder where I am going?

Mr. Flopnuts
12-04-2012, 09:35 AM
I think the quality of life for an average American is pretty good.

You must live in a bubble where everyone has an IQ of over 100.

dirk digler
12-04-2012, 09:35 AM
We have a mentally handicapped kid that retrieves carts at the Walmart in Gladstone. We have at least 5 greeters over the age of 65 as well.

Now that I think about it we have a couple of the handicapped kids that get carts etc.

Which I think is a good thing IMO that Wal Mart hires them. But that is probably 1% of their employees per store the rest are just normal people.

KCWolfman
12-04-2012, 09:37 AM
You must live in a bubble where everyone has an IQ of over 100.

You are incorrect. The "average" American income is 63,091. Well above groveling.

http://financemymoney.com/average-american-income-salary-data-per-year-household-income-data-median-wage/

blaise
12-04-2012, 09:38 AM
Now that I think about it we have a couple of the handicapped kids that get carts etc.

Which I think is a good thing IMO that Wal Mart hires them. But that is probably 1% of their employees per store the rest are just normal people.

I'm not saying they're employing a huge amount of challenged people, I'm just saying that some of the people that work there, either because of physical or mental issues, would have a very difficult time finding employment elsewhere.
I think even fast food or restaurant work would be too much for some. I've seen them, I worked at a Wal Mart. They had some sort of social worker bring them down and check on them, help them get acclimated, etc.
They also work the truck unloading crew.

blaise
12-04-2012, 09:39 AM
You must live in a bubble where everyone has an IQ of over 100.

Well, I do live in a heavily Republican area.

La literatura
12-04-2012, 09:43 AM
You are incorrect. The "average" American income is 63,091. Well above groveling.

http://financemymoney.com/average-american-income-salary-data-per-year-household-income-data-median-wage/

For accuracy's sake, that's the average American household income, and it's probably several years old.

KCWolfman
12-04-2012, 09:44 AM
For accuracy's sake, that's the average American household income, and it's probably several years old.

It is 2012, and that was the original comment you quoted "average".

La literatura
12-04-2012, 09:50 AM
It is 2012, and that was the original comment you quoted "average".

The data looks like it comes from 2009 according to the graph (before the recession, btw), and I don't understand your second comment. The graph is referring to an average household. You implied an average American.

loochy
12-04-2012, 09:54 AM
You are incorrect. The "average" American income is 63,091. Well above groveling.

http://financemymoney.com/average-american-income-salary-data-per-year-household-income-data-median-wage/

I'm confused because the URL says median wage and the text says average wage. Which is it?

Fish
12-04-2012, 09:55 AM
I don't know. Maybe they get some sort of tax credit.

If you have a point go ahead and make it yourself. It's generally quicker that way.

Yes, they certainly do. It allows Walmart to use public tax subsidies to help pay their employees. Which they do to an alarming degree. On top of that, Walmart forces a large majority of their workers into part time roles, which they call "Peak time" jobs. This allows them to significantly limit the amount of benefits they must provide, and ensures that their workers can't afford healthcare and must depend on the government.

A good study was done by UC Berkeley Labor Center, looking at the affect of Walmart on California's county and state employment statistics. Here's a few of their findings:

Main Findings:
• Reliance by Wal-Mart workers on public assistance programs in California comes at a cost to the taxpayers of an estimated $86 million annually; this is comprised of $32 million in health related expenses and $54 million in other assistance.

• The families of Wal-Mart employees in California utilize an estimated 40 percent more in taxpayer-funded health care than the average for families of all large retail employees.

• The families of Wal-Mart employees use an estimated 38 percent more in other (non-health care) public assistance programs (such as food stamps, Earned Income Tax Credit, subsidized school lunches, and subsidized housing) than the average for families of all large retail employees.

• If other large California retailers adopted Wal-Mart’s wage and benefits standards, it would cost taxpayers an additional $410 million a year in public assistance to employees.

Full document is here: http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/retail/walmart.pdf

Another study found this:

Empirical evidence suggests that employees at Wal-Mart earn lower average wages and receive less generous benefits than workers employed by many other large retailers. But controversy has persisted on the question of Wal-Mart’s effect on local pay scales. Our research finds that Wal-Mart store openings lead to the replacement of better paying jobs with jobs that pay less. Wal-Mart’s entry also drives wages down for workers in competing industry segments such as grocery stores.

Looking at the period between 1992 and 2000, we find that the opening of a single Wal-Mart store in a county lowered average retail wages in that county by between 0.5 and 0.9 percent. In the general merchandise sector, wages fell by 1 percent for each new Wal-Mart. And for grocery store employees, the effect of a single new Wal-Mart was a 1.5 percent reduction in earnings.

When Wal-Mart entered a county, the total wage bill declined along with the average wage. Factoring in both the impact on wages and jobs, the total amount of retail earnings in a county fell by 1.5 percent for every new Wal-Mart store. Similar effects appeared at the state level.

[...]

The new research strongly suggests that Wal-Mart entry lowers wages for employees in competing businesses, and the effect can be seen at both the county and state levels. Controlling for demographic or skill mix of the workforce cannot explain the results. Wal-Mart openings depress average and aggregate wages and reduce the proportion of the workforce that is covered by employer-sponsored health insurance.

Of course, Wal-Mart’s presence is also likely to bring lower prices. Existing research shows big-box stores like Wal-Mart can use their distribution systems and leverage with suppliers to produce substantial savings to consumers.

However, to the extent that competing on cost produces negative effects on low-wage workers, this is an important consideration when deciding the “rules of the game” that big-box retailers need to abide by. And since wage and benefit savings are not the main part of the cost advantage for a company like Wal-Mart, it could continue to pass on most of these savings while paying higher wages and benefits. These factors should be taken into account by policy makers in their decision-making on economic development.

Source: http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/retail/walmart_downward_push07.pdf

Hell, you need to look no further than Walmart's very own Associates Benefits Book, to see how quickly they try to convince their workers to get on government assistance.

Take a look at the 3rd page of the Benefits Book: http://makingchangeatwalmart.org/files/2012/03/2012AssociatesBenefits.pdf

blaise
12-04-2012, 10:03 AM
The post of mine you quoted dealt with Wal Mart employing some people that were unemployable elsewhere. I don't know that all that has much to do with it.

KCWolfman
12-04-2012, 10:04 AM
Yes, they certainly do. It allows Walmart to use public tax subsidies to help pay their employees. Which they do to an alarming degree. On top of that, Walmart forces a large majority of their workers into part time roles, which they call "Peak time" jobs. This allows them to significantly limit the amount of benefits they must provide, and ensures that their workers can't afford healthcare and must depend on the government.

A good study was done by UC Berkeley Labor Center, looking at the affect of Walmart on California's county and state employment statistics. Here's a few of their findings:



Another study found this:



Hell, you need to look no further than Walmart's very own Associates Benefits Book, to see how quickly they try to convince their workers to get on government assistance.

Take a look at the 3rd page of the Benefits Book: http://makingchangeatwalmart.org/files/2012/03/2012AssociatesBenefits.pdf
How atrocious that these poor people can never look for work elsewhere in their lifetimes.

dirk digler
12-04-2012, 10:05 AM
I'm not saying they're employing a huge amount of challenged people, I'm just saying that some of the people that work there, either because of physical or mental issues, would have a very difficult time finding employment elsewhere.
I think even fast food or restaurant work would be too much for some. I've seen them, I worked at a Wal Mart. They had some sort of social worker bring them down and check on them, help them get acclimated, etc.
They also work the truck unloading crew.

Ok fair enough. One thing to keep in mind though is that these people probably don't get many hours, maybe 20 hours a week if they are lucky. They would still need state\federal aid.

El Jefe
12-04-2012, 10:07 AM
I go elsewhere too, but not because of the employees. Who gives a damn about them? Go work at another large retail store. I go to Target because I can get in and out quickly without waiting in a line for 20 minutes. Also, I don't have to smell fat people on their Rascals.

ROFLROFLROFL

loochy
12-04-2012, 10:08 AM
I go elsewhere too, but not because of the employees. Who gives a damn about them? Go work at another large retail store. I go to Target because I can get in and out quickly without waiting in a line for 20 minutes. Also, I don't have to smell fat people on their Rascals.

ROFLROFLROFL

Yeah, laugh now but wait until YOU have to stand in line next to a fattyrascal while you wait 20 minutes for the hispanic lady that doesn't speak english to check out her 20 sets of baby clothes that don't have tags or ring up properly.

Deberg_1990
12-04-2012, 10:09 AM
Im no Wal Mart fan, but trying to blame them for their employees welfare issues is asinine. Why are we not attacking, Target, Toys R Us, Price Chopper, Best Buy or Costo employees? Its not the employer, its the line of work that has a low earning potential cap.

blaise
12-04-2012, 10:09 AM
[QUOTE=El Jefe;9179759]

Yeah, laugh now but wait until YOU have to stand in line next to a fattyrascal while you wait 20 minutes for the hispanic lady that doesn't speak english to check out her 20 sets of baby clothes that don't have tags or ring up properly.

The South Park episode where the Wal Mart was so full of rascals that people couldn't fit in the aisles was maybe the funniest 30 minutes of TV I've seen in the last 10 years.

dirk digler
12-04-2012, 10:10 AM
The one thing I do like about the Walmart in my town is now they have 4 full time self checkout kiosks. Works great and no one uses them probably because most people are stupid but that is fine with me.

Fish
12-04-2012, 10:33 AM
Im no Wal Mart fan, but trying to blame them for their employees welfare issues is asinine. Why are we not attacking, Target, Toys R Us, Price Chopper, Best Buy or Costo employees? Its not the employer, its the line of work that has a low earning potential cap.

When it's blatantly obvious that Walmart targets these kinds of people for employment, then yes it is the employer.

You only need to look at Walmart's long detailed list of labor suites, employee discrimination suites, allegations of poor working conditions, predatory pricing, low health care employee coverage, union opposition, etc.

Painting Walmart a victim of their employee's welfare issues doesn't make any sense at all. We're not talking about the other employers because they don't treat their employees this badly. That's why the studies show Walmart costing the general public so much more than those other stores.

scott free
12-04-2012, 11:00 AM
Everyone needs to get off wal-marts back, taking out health insurance policies on your employees, without their knowledge or approval, so you can cash in when they die is just good business.

Why does everyone hate good business?!

Saulbadguy
12-04-2012, 11:09 AM
The one thing I do like about the Walmart in my town is now they have 4 full time self checkout kiosks. Works great and no one uses them probably because most people are stupid but that is fine with me.

They took those out of our Wal-Mart because the customers were too stupid to use them.

Mr. Flopnuts
12-04-2012, 11:16 AM
You are incorrect. The "average" American income is 63,091. Well above groveling.

http://financemymoney.com/average-american-income-salary-data-per-year-household-income-data-median-wage/

I see why you took the 2nd link in your google search instead of the first in your google search. It supported your argument better. However, the 1st one paints a bit of a different picture. And it's a more reliable link.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/12/news/economy/median-income-poverty/index.html

The fact is, that's fucking chicken scratch in a big city. That's not enough for home ownership. Remember growing up when your Dad went to work every day and your mom stayed home to take care of your kids? No fucking way average folks can do that anymore.

The fact is, where homes are affordable at that price range, those aren't the average wages. Continue to try and twist the situation as you see fit, but 2 incomes sometimes isn't enough for home ownership anymore for many people, let alone 1, like it used to be.

People work harder. People have less...

Mr. Flopnuts
12-04-2012, 11:19 AM
Well, I do live in a heavily Republican area.

LMAO Hilarious.

loochy
12-04-2012, 04:19 PM
People work harder. People have less...

Are you sure about that? Go talk to your parents.

stevieray
12-04-2012, 09:15 PM
ROFL It blows my mind when educated folks can be so delusional. It's either that or being heartless. Either way, go you!

...the shame sham.


:drool:

Bob Dole
12-05-2012, 09:25 AM
They took those out of our Wal-Mart because the customers were too stupid to use them.

Did the same thing here. Plus, the people who had to stand watch to make sure people weren't cheating the system (scan one item, drop two) equalled the same number who would just be doing the checkout.

Bob Dole
12-05-2012, 09:27 AM
When it's blatantly obvious that Walmart targets these kinds of people for employment, then yes it is the employer.

You only need to look at Walmart's long detailed list of labor suites, employee discrimination suites...



Suites? You're bitching about Wal~Mart and their laborers get SUITES??

BucEyedPea
12-05-2012, 09:28 AM
When it's blatantly obvious that Walmart targets these kinds of people for employment, then yes it is the employer.

You only need to look at Walmart's long detailed list of labor suites, employee discrimination suites, allegations of poor working conditions, predatory pricing, low health care employee coverage, union opposition, etc.

Painting Walmart a victim of their employee's welfare issues doesn't make any sense at all. We're not talking about the other employers because they don't treat their employees this badly. That's why the studies show Walmart costing the general public so much more than those other stores.

Mind your own business.

gblowfish
12-05-2012, 09:34 AM
Suites? You're bitching about Wal~Mart and their laborers get SUITES??

Suites! Like Snickers and Kit Kat Bars!

InChiefsHell
12-05-2012, 09:39 AM
When it's blatantly obvious that Walmart targets these kinds of people for employment, then yes it is the employer.

Sooo...they should hire college grads as checkers and stuff?

You only need to look at Walmart's long detailed list of labor suites, employee discrimination suites, allegations of poor working conditions, predatory pricing, low health care employee coverage, union opposition, etc.

Union opposition...well, there you have it then.

Painting Walmart a victim of their employee's welfare issues doesn't make any sense at all. We're not talking about the other employers because they don't treat their employees this badly. That's why the studies show Walmart costing the general public so much more than those other stores.

Meh. I don't shop there anymore, so I guess I have no skin in the game, but honestly, there is a reason it's cheap to shop there. This is just more finger pointing at the evil rich people. Nobody is forced to work at Wal Mart.

Fish
12-05-2012, 10:23 AM
Sooo...they should hire college grads as checkers and stuff?



Union opposition...well, there you have it then.



Meh. I don't shop there anymore, so I guess I have no skin in the game, but honestly, there is a reason it's cheap to shop there. This is just more finger pointing at the evil rich people. Nobody is forced to work at Wal Mart.

Finger pointing? That's dense. It's much more than finger pointing when Walmart is costing taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars because they target welfare losers and encourage them to get on government assistance.

Explain how this is simply finger pointing? $86 million dollars of taxpayer money is being spent due to Walmart's practices. That's just one state. You don't understand this at all.

• Reliance by Wal-Mart workers on public assistance programs in California comes at a cost to the taxpayers of an estimated $86 million annually; this is comprised of $32 million in health related expenses and $54 million in other assistance.

• The families of Wal-Mart employees in California utilize an estimated 40 percent more in taxpayer-funded health care than the average for families of all large retail employees.

• The families of Wal-Mart employees use an estimated 38 percent more in other (non-health care) public assistance programs (such as food stamps, Earned Income Tax Credit, subsidized school lunches, and subsidized housing) than the average for families of all large retail employees.

• If other large California retailers adopted Wal-Mart’s wage and benefits standards, it would cost taxpayers an additional $410 million a year in public assistance to employees.

Full document is here: http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/retail/walmart.pdf

Fish
12-05-2012, 10:25 AM
Mind your own business.

Shut your pirate hole, gypsy woman.

blaise
12-05-2012, 10:26 AM
Why is it Wal Mart's fault that those people need additional assistance?

Fish
12-05-2012, 10:33 AM
Why is it Wal Mart's fault that those people need additional insurance?

It's irrelevant who's "Fault" it is. But the fact remains that Walmart intentionally targets employees that fit that profile, because they can and do take advantage of it. That is clearly evident. And it doesn't have to be that way.

Of course, Wal-Mart’s presence is also likely to bring lower prices. Existing research shows big-box stores like Wal-Mart can use their distribution systems and leverage with suppliers to produce substantial savings to consumers.

However, to the extent that competing on cost produces negative effects on low-wage workers, this is an important consideration when deciding the “rules of the game” that big-box retailers need to abide by. And since wage and benefit savings are not the main part of the cost advantage for a company like Wal-Mart, it could continue to pass on most of these savings while paying higher wages and benefits. These factors should be taken into account by policy makers in their decision-making on economic development.

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/retail/walmart_downward_push07.pdf

blaise
12-05-2012, 10:40 AM
It's irrelevant who's "Fault" it is. But the fact remains that Walmart intentionally targets employees that fit that profile, because they can and do take advantage of it. That is clearly evident. And it doesn't have to be that way.

Well, it does matter who is at fault when you're saying Wal Mart is costing taxpayers money. So what if they target those people? Are you saying you want some legal regulation that says Wal Mart has to give X amount of hours or something?

BucEyedPea
12-05-2012, 10:49 AM
Shut your pirate hole, gypsy woman.

What a lovely disposition you have.

Fish
12-05-2012, 11:01 AM
Well, it does matter who is at fault when you're saying Wal Mart is costing taxpayers money. So what if they target those people? Are you saying you want some legal regulation that says Wal Mart has to give X amount of hours or something?

I don't have a perfect solution. But it's clearly a problem that needs addressed. I'd rather not apply any regulations if possible. But it's not going to fix itself.

blaise
12-05-2012, 11:12 AM
I don't have a perfect solution. But it's clearly a problem that needs addressed. I'd rather not apply any regulations if possible. But it's not going to fix itself.

Well that's why I don' know if it's appropriate to say Wal Mart is costing taxpayers anything. They pay the market rate for those employees.
Wal Mart would probably counter with, "If we didn't employ these people they'd probably require even more assistance."

Fish
12-05-2012, 11:38 AM
Well that's why I don' know if it's appropriate to say Wal Mart is costing taxpayers anything. They pay the market rate for those employees.
Wal Mart would probably counter with, "If we didn't employ these people they'd probably require even more assistance."

The lack of an obvious solution doesn't make it less appropriate to say. Walmart is not paying the market rate. That's been pointed out several times.

It's been proven that Walmart is costing the taxpayers. Read this nice detailed report from Congressman George Miller. It actually has some suggestions on how to approach the problem:

http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/2004/Wal-Mart-Labor-Record16feb04.htm

Wal-Mart's Labor Record

CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER
Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
U.S. House of Representatives

Wal-Mart routinely uses taxpayer money to finance its never-ending corporate growth. A report commissioned by the House Committee on Education and Welfare estimates that a two hundred person Wal-Mart store costs federal taxpayers approximately $420,750 a year, or $2,103 per employee. These costs include:

-$36,000 a year for free and reduced cost school lunches,
-$42,000 for Section 8 housing assistance,
-$125,000 for low-income family tax credits and deductions,
-$100,000 for additional Title I expenses,
-$108,000 for state children’s health insurance expenses, and
-$9,750 for low income energy assistance

State and local governments also lose when Wal-Mart comes to town. A study commissioned by the Los Angeles City Council in 2003 found that Wal-Mart is a net loss for the communities it moves into. An influx of “big box retailers” such as Wal-Mart was estimated to cost an additional $9 million in state health care costs and a loss in pensions and retirement benefits so large that the increase in public assistance necessary to make up the shortfall could not even be covered by increased sales and property taxes.

Fewer than half – between 41 and 46 percent – of Wal-Mart's employees are insured by the company's health care plan, compared nationally to 66 percent of employees at large firms like Wal-Mart who receive health benefits from their employer.[41] In recent years, the company increased obstacles for its workers to access its health care plan.

In 2002, Wal-Mart increased the waiting period for enrollment eligibility from 90 days to 6 months for full-time employees. Part-time employees must wait 2 years before they may enroll in the plan, and they may not purchase coverage for their spouses or children. The definition of part-time was changed from 28 hours or less per week to less than 34 hours per week. At the time, approximately one-third of Wal-Mart's workforce was part-time. By comparison, nationally, the average waiting period for health coverage for employees at large firms like Wal-Mart was 1.3 months.[42]

The Wal-Mart plan itself shifts much of the health care costs onto employees. In 1999, employees paid 36 percent of the costs. In 2001, the employee burden rose to 42 percent. Nationally, large-firm employees pay on average 16 percent of the premium for health insurance. Unionized grocery workers typically pay nothing.[43] Studies show that much of the decline in employer-based health coverage is due to shifts of premium costs from employers to employees.[44]

Moreover, Wal-Mart employees who utilize their health care confront high deductibles and co-payments. A single worker could end up spending around $6,400 out-of-pocket – about 45 percent of her annual full-time salary – before seeing a single benefit from the health plan.

J Diddy
12-05-2012, 11:48 AM
I don't necessarily agree with their practices, but they certainly aren't illegal and I don't think that they are immoral. People certainly aren't forced to work for them. I've had jobs that have been shitty and paid next to nothing and I worked the shitty one until I found something better.

Dallas Chief
12-05-2012, 11:55 AM
Fish... All this anger at Wal-Mart has clouded your ability to reason. Do you not realize that these same individuals would be further on the government take if they didn't have those jobs? How abou the simple fact that the same can be said fro ANY employer paying their workers between minimum wage and $11/hour. It just isn't a livable wage to start with.

blaise
12-05-2012, 12:24 PM
Well, it is the market rate. There's no way you can argue that.

tooge
12-05-2012, 01:00 PM
I will always pay more at another store, before patronizing wal-mart.

Make that choice every single week.

This

tooge
12-05-2012, 01:04 PM
Fish... All this anger at Wal-Mart has clouded your ability to reason. Do you not realize that these same individuals would be further on the government take if they didn't have those jobs? How abou the simple fact that the same can be said fro ANY employer paying their workers between minimum wage and $11/hour. It just isn't a livable wage to start with.

not true. They would have other jobs. Manufacturing jobs for example, because most of what WalMart sells is from China. There would be alot of other jobs as well. Tire stores, mechanics, mom and pop places, drugstores, hardware stores, appliance stores, etc. Wal Mart has put so many smaller operations out of business, that they have taken away far more jobs than they produce, and since they know they can, they pay less to the employees, give them less or no benefits, etc. Unfortunately, it's like boycotting the chiefs. There are enough people out there that care more about saving $3 on a pack of underwear than they do about helping out our economy as a whole.

Ace Gunner
12-05-2012, 01:14 PM
So, we found the"welfare queen" before the gov't did. no surprise here.

Fish
12-05-2012, 01:39 PM
Well, it is the market rate. There's no way you can argue that.

Walmart's wages have been well below the average of other similar retailers for a long long time.

By keeping unions at bay, Wal-Mart keeps its wages low – even by general industry standards. The average supermarket employee makes $10.35 per hour. Sales clerks at Wal-Mart, on the other hand, made only $8.23 per hour on average, or $13,861 per year, in 2001. Some estimate that average "associate" salaries range from $7.50 to $8.50 per hour. With an average on-the-clock workweek of 32 hours, many workers take home less than $1,000 per month. Even the higher estimate of a $13,861 annual salary fell below the 2001 federal poverty line of $14,630 for a family of three. About one-third of Wal-Mart's employees are part-time, restricting their access to benefits. These low wages, to say the least, complicate employees' ability to obtain essential benefits, such as health care coverage, which will be explored in a later section.

blaise
12-05-2012, 01:40 PM
Walmart's wages have been well below the average of other similar retailers for a long long time.

Ok, then why don't Wal Mart employees go work at those grocery stores?

Fish
12-05-2012, 01:41 PM
Fish... All this anger at Wal-Mart has clouded your ability to reason. Do you not realize that these same individuals would be further on the government take if they didn't have those jobs? How abou the simple fact that the same can be said fro ANY employer paying their workers between minimum wage and $11/hour. It just isn't a livable wage to start with.

That's not a logical assumption to make. Saying it's Walmart or nothing for these people doesn't make any sense.

And no, you can't say the same for ANY employer. I've pointed that out quite a few times.

BucEyedPea
12-05-2012, 01:41 PM
Walmart's wages have been well below the average of other similar retailers for a long long time.

Please put the link in so we can see the source. I have contradictory data.

blaise
12-05-2012, 01:44 PM
Please put the link in so we can see the source. I have contradictory data.

I don't even think it's the same market anyway. Half the employees at Wal Mart can't speak English. I don't think most grocery stores would hire them.

Fish
12-05-2012, 01:52 PM
Please put the link in so we can see the source. I have contradictory data.

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/retail/walmart_downward_push07.pdf

Existing evidence suggests that Wal-Mart pays lower wages and benefits than other large retailers. In 2005, the company reported an average hourly wage of $9.68 per hour. An earlier study of pay scales in California found that Wal-Mart employees earned 26 percent less than workers in comparable jobs, defined as retail firms with 1,000 or more workers. A national study found a 25 percent earnings gap with retailers overall, and 28 percent with large retailers, though wages did not look significantly different from those paid by other discount stores.

There are two general problems with comparing Wal-Mart workers’ wages with those of other retailers. Wal-Mart started and has its greatest presence in lower-wage and more rural areas, which will account for some part of the wage differential. Second, Wal-Mart makes up a large share of general merchandise workers, giving it a significant impact on the average wage of these workers. Its employees account for 55 percent of all general merchandise workers, and 71 percent of employees who work for large general merchandise companies in the country. To get a valid comparison with other general merchandisers, we adjusted retail wages in the Current Population Survey to match Wal-Mart’s location and adjusted for Wal-Mart’s contribution to the average general merchandise wage.

The results still found a sizeable wage gap between Wal-Mart and other general merchandising employers: 17.4 percent. The gap is smaller when compared to all grocery workers (7.5 percent) but larger when compared to large grocers (17.5 percent). In the area of large general merchandise companies, meaning businesses with more than 1,000 employees, Wal-Mart employees earned more than 25 percent less than workers in competing stores.

dirk digler
12-05-2012, 01:52 PM
They took those out of our Wal-Mart because the customers were too stupid to use them.

LMAO

I bitched to the store manager one time because the ones they had previous they always had them off. I was like what was the point of having them if you aren't going to let people use them.

They replaced those with newer ones and now run them all the time. No one hardly uses them but I do. I like them alot.

gblowfish
12-05-2012, 03:50 PM
Another graphic on why our worker to employer dynamic is so f'ed up in the USA. Eat the Rich!

blaise
12-05-2012, 04:16 PM
Another graphic on why our worker to employer dynamic is so f'ed up in the USA. Eat the Rich!

Well, yeah. See how much better Mexico is, that's why all the people from here are flocking over there.

vailpass
12-05-2012, 04:22 PM
http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/retail/walmart_downward_push07.pdf

Everything is discounted at WalMart.

J Diddy
12-05-2012, 04:27 PM
Everything is discounted at WalMart.

and your back

vailpass
12-05-2012, 04:30 PM
and your back

In and out. Been in Utah for a new project I'm involved with and took a little R&R time while we were there. You been keepin' your dick out of the dirt?

J Diddy
12-05-2012, 04:31 PM
In and out. Been in Utah for a new project I'm involved with and took a little R&R time while we were there. You been keepin' your dick out of the dirt?

If by dirt you mean dirty ho, no comment.

vailpass
12-05-2012, 04:32 PM
If by dirt you mean dirty ho, no comment.

Atta' boy.

J Diddy
12-05-2012, 04:53 PM
Atta' boy.

ROFL

RJ
12-05-2012, 08:56 PM
"If the government didn’t step in to provide food assistance, Wal-Mart couldn’t operate with a team of emaciated workers unable to lift ballets of canned foods or count back the correct change at the checkout lanes."

The government could never provide that much assistance.

mr. tegu
12-06-2012, 08:55 AM
I don't even think it's the same market anyway. Half the employees at Wal Mart can't speak English. I don't think most grocery stores would hire them.

I don't know about that. Many grocery stores hire people that speak little to no English. They just make the decision to put them in position to not have to speak to customers as much so they aren't as noticed.

I basically never shop at Wal-mart and have always made the effort to drive past them as necessary to get to a different store. Luckily, there isn't one anywhere near my new house.

I think one of things that has always turned me off about Wal-mart, other than the dirty appearance, messy displaced displays of items, etc. is that I have never felt I could go into a Wal-mart and ask anyone for assistance on anything. No one seems to know where anything is at and I sure as heck don't trust anyone to adequately answer a question about a product.

blaise
12-06-2012, 09:06 AM
I don't know about that. Many grocery stores hire people that speak little to no English. They just make the decision to put them in position to not have to speak to customers as much so they aren't as noticed.

I basically never shop at Wal-mart and have always made the effort to drive past them as necessary to get to a different store. Luckily, there isn't one anywhere near my new house.

I think one of things that has always turned me off about Wal-mart, other than the dirty appearance, messy displaced displays of items, etc. is that I have never felt I could go into a Wal-mart and ask anyone for assistance on anything. No one seems to know where anything is at and I sure as heck don't trust anyone to adequately answer a question about a product.


Just judging from personal experience I would say the employees at Target or Kroger are better than Wal Mart employees. And if you go to chains like Wegmans for groceries I would say the employee quality is significantly better than Wal Mart.

You're right though, asking for something at Wal Mart will usually get nothing of value.

vailpass
12-06-2012, 09:48 AM
People don't go to Walmart to ask the employees for help. They go there because their prices are significantly lower than any other store.

mr. tegu
12-06-2012, 09:57 AM
People don't go to Walmart to ask the employees for help. They go there because their prices are significantly lower than any other store.

They don't need to be experts but they could at least know where things are. Heck, they rarely even know who else to ask if they don't know.

Rain Man
12-06-2012, 09:59 AM
Gaining one low paying Walmart at the cost of 50 nearby local businesses is retarded.

Once while driving back roads across the US I found every small town I came to that had a Walmart nearby also had a downtown square with nothing but tumbleweeds. Many of the ones with out a Walmart near by had bustling squares with fun little local businesses.

That's anecdotally what I've heard, and I would certainly believe it. It's interesting that you noticed it.

If I was an economic development guy, I'd fight to keep big corporations out of my city, and I darn sure wouldn't subsidize them with tax dollars. And yet that's what most economic development organizations do.

The towns in Colorado that lead in tourism generally keep the chains out and go local. So they have charming little downtowns that people want to visit, and those people import money. It seems so logical to do that rather than make your town generic and export your own citizens' money.

vailpass
12-06-2012, 10:33 AM
They don't need to be experts but they could at least know where things are. Heck, they rarely even know who else to ask if they don't know.

I'm guessing their lower prices are an offset for having to find the coffee filters all by yourself.

Bump
12-06-2012, 10:44 AM
I don't know about that. Many grocery stores hire people that speak little to no English. They just make the decision to put them in position to not have to speak to customers as much so they aren't as noticed.

I basically never shop at Wal-mart and have always made the effort to drive past them as necessary to get to a different store. Luckily, there isn't one anywhere near my new house.

I think one of things that has always turned me off about Wal-mart, other than the dirty appearance, messy displaced displays of items, etc. is that I have never felt I could go into a Wal-mart and ask anyone for assistance on anything. No one seems to know where anything is at and I sure as heck don't trust anyone to adequately answer a question about a product.

ya, Boston has some sort of law that Wal Marts can't open a store in certain areas. It's a 45 min drive each way to the closest wal mart for me. I'm good with that.

listopencil
12-06-2012, 10:58 AM
Ah, this thread would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

How much should a cashier make per hour? As much as a doctor? It's called unskilled labor. It doesn't pay well. So...rather than appreciating the fact that Wal Mart does provide jobs for these people, the company gets painted as evil for hiring them in the first place. The article is just more of the same stupid crap that makes liberal media organizations look like dumbasses.

mr. tegu
12-06-2012, 11:01 AM
I'm guessing their lower prices are an offset for having to find the coffee filters all by yourself.

Considering the amount of people in this very thread that are willing to pay more or drive further is evidence that people are turned off by the service among other things. Not sure what your point is other than the people who cannot afford to shop anywhere else "choose" to shop at Wal-mart and put up with the environment. You are either being the devil's advocate or are just plain silly if you don't think people care about the service associated with the stores they shop at.

listopencil
12-06-2012, 11:04 AM
Considering the amount of people in this very thread that are willing to pay more or drive further is evidence that people are turned off by the service among other things. Not sure what your point is other than the people who cannot afford to shop anywhere else "choose" to shop at Wal-mart and put up with the environment. You are either being the devil's advocate or are just plain silly if you don't think people care about the service associated with the stores they shop at.


...and yet Wal Mart thrives. It not only thrives, it's incredibly successful. Looks like the participants in this thread are a poor example of the American consumer.

blaise
12-06-2012, 11:05 AM
Considering the amount of people in this very thread that are willing to pay more or drive further is evidence that people are turned off by the service among other things. Not sure what your point is other than the people who cannot afford to shop anywhere else "choose" to shop at Wal-mart and put up with the environment. You are either being the devil's advocate or are just plain silly if you don't think people care about the service associated with the stores they shop at.

There's a cost benefit scenario. It depends how badly you want to save a few dollars. People care, but they might not care enough to shop elsewhere.

KCUnited
12-06-2012, 11:08 AM
You get fired from WalMart, there's always the Sun Fresh in Westport.

listopencil
12-06-2012, 11:10 AM
Is there anyone posting in this thread who actually knows someone that works at a Wal Mart store?

blaise
12-06-2012, 11:15 AM
Is there anyone posting in this thread who actually knows someone that works at a Wal Mart store?

I worked at one. I didn't plan to make a career of it. I was living in Central PA and there's not many jobs there, so I worked at a Wal Mart unloading trucks until I found a job that was better.
I appreciated the job, but I wouldn't want to stay there.

Although, if you are really committed you could work your way up to a management position, because they promote from within. That's what they told me, anyway. The store managers are all people that started at the bottom.

They gave you some discount when I worked there, but I don't recall how much it was. 3% maybe.

mr. tegu
12-06-2012, 11:15 AM
...and yet Wal Mart thrives. It not only thrives, it's incredibly successful. Looks like the participants in this thread are a poor example of the American consumer.

No doubt it is successful. Doesn't mean people don't avoid going there because of the environment and poor service. Not sure how this is even a point of contention :shrug:

There's a cost benefit scenario. It depends how badly you want to save a few dollars. People care, but they might not care enough to shop elsewhere.

Agreed. And the people that do care go somewhere else. That is really all I am saying.

blaise
12-06-2012, 11:16 AM
They did show me a neat training video that talked about a kind of rat that apparently lives on the roofs of Wal Marts.

blaise
12-06-2012, 11:16 AM
No doubt it is successful. Doesn't mean people don't avoid going there because of the environment and poor service. Not sure how this is even a point of contention :shrug:



Agreed. And the people that do care go somewhere else. That is really all I am saying.

I'll go there sometimes, but not after, say, 9:00 am.

listopencil
12-06-2012, 11:17 AM
I worked at one. I didn't plan to make a career of it. I was living in Central PA and there's not many jobs there, so I worked at a Wal Mart unloading trucks until I found a job that was better.
I appreciated the job, but I wouldn't want to stay there.

Although, if you are really committed you could work your way up to a management position, because they promote from within. That's what they told me, anyway. The store managers are all people that started at the bottom.

They gave you some discount when I worked there, but I don't recall how much it was. 3% maybe.

Yep. Your story is fairly common. It's not a great job but it's a job. I've known several people that have worked/are working at a Wal Mart store. The discount should have been 10% unless that was changed.

mr. tegu
12-06-2012, 11:18 AM
Is there anyone posting in this thread who actually knows someone that works at a Wal Mart store?

My fiance's aunt works there. She has to work two jobs because they don't give her enough hours even though she has been there for almost 5 years. And even when she gets eight hours a day, it is often times spread out. So she will work 4 hours in the morning and then have 3 or 4 hours off and come back for the remaining 3-4 hours in that day. I couldn't imagine doing that. Although I know some restaraunts are like that as well.

listopencil
12-06-2012, 11:23 AM
No doubt it is successful. Doesn't mean people don't avoid going there because of the environment and poor service. Not sure how this is even a point of contention :shrug:


Well, enough people go there that they are the largest retailer in the world. So apparently not enough people avoid it to matter.

listopencil
12-06-2012, 11:24 AM
My fiance's aunt works there. She has to work two jobs because they don't give her enough hours even though she has been there for almost 5 years. And even when she gets eight hours a day, it is often times spread out. So she will work 4 hours in the morning and then have 3 or 4 hours off and come back for the remaining 3-4 hours in that day. I couldn't imagine doing that. Although I know some restaraunts are like that as well.


Why doesn't she quit?

mr. tegu
12-06-2012, 11:30 AM
Why doesn't she quit?

Not sure but I am sure it goes back to the unskilled part as well as the "at least its a job." Add in the fact that she is an immigrant (legal) and there are a lot of things that would deter someone like her from finding something better. But then again, she may simply be content with it, being that she is from Peru and even though by many of our standards she isn't exactly working in a situation that is something we would consider to be acceptable, she may be just fine with it given what would have been available to her prior to coming here.

Fish
12-06-2012, 11:31 AM
...and yet Wal Mart thrives. It not only thrives, it's incredibly successful. Looks like the participants in this thread are a poor example of the American consumer.

It makes it easier for a corporation to thrive when they have the taxpayers subsidizing their employee expenditures.

mnchiefsguy
12-06-2012, 11:31 AM
No doubt it is successful. Doesn't mean people don't avoid going there because of the environment and poor service. Not sure how this is even a point of contention :shrug:



Agreed. And the people that do care, and can afford it, go somewhere else. That is really all I am saying.

Fixed your post. Just because many people in this country living paycheck to paycheck choose to save as much as they can on items they need, does not make them inherent Wal-Mart supporters. If you had to choose between feeding your kids and keeping the lights on, or making a political statement about Wal-mart by paying an extra $20-$40 on your grocery bill per week, which would you choose?

Wal-Mart has horrible service. You have to be a smarter shopper there, because their employees are frankly not that good, and they don't care to be. Many frontline employees at Wal-Mart would not make it in other retail establishments due to their attitude and work ethic. Does anyone believe that if you raised everyone's pay at Wal-Mart by $1.50 an hour that the service there would get any better?

Wal-Mart has made a calculated business decision. They try to keep their labor rate as low as possible to keep their expenses down. They put the same pressure on their suppliers to be more efficient, to lower their costs of goods sold. These two factors allow them to charge less for an item and still turn a profit.

While I agree Wal-Mart has made some major mistakes, and gotten sued for them, their business philosophy is not illegal, and I am not sure even if one could make the case that they are immoral. Their low prices allow people to obtain things in life a bit cheaper, and that improves their quality of life.

Other retailers improve the quality of life of their employees by paying them more, but that in turn raises the cost of their product, which hurts the quality of live of their lower income customers, who then have to spend a higher percentage of their incomes on essentials if they shop there.

No business can completely improve the quality of life of everyone. Wal-Mart fits a specific niche and need in the community for a place with lower prices. A place like Hy-Vee, or Target, etc., fits another niche, for those wanting to pay more, but expect better service, etc.

Honestly, we shop at Wal-Mart a lot. The savings are just too much. When the opportunity arises (like a three day sale), we hit the local Hy-Vee when we can. Given what our income is at the moment, I cannot justify paying more for groceries at Hy-Vee. We save at least 20-30 bucks a week getting groceries from Wal-Mart, and that savings adds up to enough to cover our electric bill. That kind of savings just cannot be ignored. When I am done with school (I am 40, and re-educating myself to better position myself in the job market) and hopefully have a much high paying position, then we can shop at the Hy-Vees of the world more, and take advantage of much quicker check out lanes, and much better customer service. Until then, I save where I can and make no apologies for it.

listopencil
12-06-2012, 11:44 AM
It makes it easier for a corporation to thrive when they have the taxpayers subsidizing their employee expenditures.

So are you willing to vote against those social programs?

listopencil
12-06-2012, 11:45 AM
Not sure but I am sure it goes back to the unskilled part as well as the "at least its a job." Add in the fact that she is an immigrant (legal) and there are a lot of things that would deter someone like her from finding something better. But then again, she may simply be content with it, being that she is from Peru and even though by many of our standards she isn't exactly working in a situation that is something we would consider to be acceptable, she may be just fine with it given what would have been available to her prior to coming here.

Sounds about right. Does she complain about her job a lot?

mr. tegu
12-06-2012, 11:45 AM
Fixed your post. Just because many people in this country living paycheck to paycheck choose to save as much as they can on items they need, does not make them inherent Wal-Mart supporters. If you had to choose between feeding your kids and keeping the lights on, or making a political statement about Wal-mart by paying an extra $20-$40 on your grocery bill per week, which would you choose?

Wal-Mart has horrible service. You have to be a smarter shopper there, because their employees are frankly not that good, and they don't care to be. Many frontline employees at Wal-Mart would not make it in other retail establishments due to their attitude and work ethic. Does anyone believe that if you raised everyone's pay at Wal-Mart by $1.50 an hour that the service there would get any better?

Wal-Mart has made a calculated business decision. They try to keep their labor rate as low as possible to keep their expenses down. They put the same pressure on their suppliers to be more efficient, to lower their costs of goods sold. These two factors allow them to charge less for an item and still turn a profit.

While I agree Wal-Mart has made some major mistakes, and gotten sued for them, their business philosophy is not illegal, and I am not sure even if one could make the case that they are immoral. Their low prices allow people to obtain things in life a bit cheaper, and that improves their quality of life.

Other retailers improve the quality of life of their employees by paying them more, but that in turn raises the cost of their product, which hurts the quality of live of their lower income customers, who then have to spend a higher percentage of their incomes on essentials if they shop there.

No business can completely improve the quality of life of everyone. Wal-Mart fits a specific niche and need in the community for a place with lower prices. A place like Hy-Vee, or Target, etc., fits another niche, for those wanting to pay more, but expect better service, etc.

Honestly, we shop at Wal-Mart a lot. The savings are just too much. When the opportunity arises (like a three day sale), we hit the local Hy-Vee when we can. Given what our income is at the moment, I cannot justify paying more for groceries at Hy-Vee. We save at least 20-30 bucks a week getting groceries from Wal-Mart, and that savings adds up to enough to cover our electric bill. That kind of savings just cannot be ignored. When I am done with school (I am 40, and re-educating myself to better position myself in the job market) and hopefully have a much high paying position, then we can shop at the Hy-Vees of the world more, and take advantage of much quicker check out lanes, and much better customer service. Until then, I save where I can and make no apologies for it.

Very well said. Wal-mart may not be the place for me or others, but like you said, they know who their customers are and they do everything they can to provide to them as best they can while still keeping prices as low as possible so that customers can get their needs and even wants met.

I worked at a Hy-Vee in the meat department during college and one thing is clear; they know that other places like Wal-mart sell groceries for cheaper so they spend a lot of time, effort, and training on making sure the employees know where things are and that they provide the best service possible in the form of friendliness and all that type of stuff.

Fish
12-06-2012, 11:47 AM
So are you willing to vote against those social programs?

Depends on which ones you're talking about, but the answer is yes for many of them.

mr. tegu
12-06-2012, 11:48 AM
Sounds about right. Does she complain about her job a lot?

Yes and no. The days that are split she complains but otherwise not an extremely unusual amount. No more than anyone else complains about their jobs. I am fully aware though that my fiance and I both see her job situation as being more unbearable/unfair than she does.

listopencil
12-06-2012, 11:50 AM
Fixed your post. Just because many people in this country living paycheck to paycheck choose to save as much as they can on items they need, does not make them inherent Wal-Mart supporters. If you had to choose between feeding your kids and keeping the lights on, or making a political statement about Wal-mart by paying an extra $20-$40 on your grocery bill per week, which would you choose?

Wal-Mart has horrible service. You have to be a smarter shopper there, because their employees are frankly not that good, and they don't care to be. Many frontline employees at Wal-Mart would not make it in other retail establishments due to their attitude and work ethic. Does anyone believe that if you raised everyone's pay at Wal-Mart by $1.50 an hour that the service there would get any better?

Wal-Mart has made a calculated business decision. They try to keep their labor rate as low as possible to keep their expenses down. They put the same pressure on their suppliers to be more efficient, to lower their costs of goods sold. These two factors allow them to charge less for an item and still turn a profit.

While I agree Wal-Mart has made some major mistakes, and gotten sued for them, their business philosophy is not illegal, and I am not sure even if one could make the case that they are immoral. Their low prices allow people to obtain things in life a bit cheaper, and that improves their quality of life.

Other retailers improve the quality of life of their employees by paying them more, but that in turn raises the cost of their product, which hurts the quality of live of their lower income customers, who then have to spend a higher percentage of their incomes on essentials if they shop there.

No business can completely improve the quality of life of everyone. Wal-Mart fits a specific niche and need in the community for a place with lower prices. A place like Hy-Vee, or Target, etc., fits another niche, for those wanting to pay more, but expect better service, etc.

Honestly, we shop at Wal-Mart a lot. The savings are just too much. When the opportunity arises (like a three day sale), we hit the local Hy-Vee when we can. Given what our income is at the moment, I cannot justify paying more for groceries at Hy-Vee. We save at least 20-30 bucks a week getting groceries from Wal-Mart, and that savings adds up to enough to cover our electric bill. That kind of savings just cannot be ignored. When I am done with school (I am 40, and re-educating myself to better position myself in the job market) and hopefully have a much high paying position, then we can shop at the Hy-Vees of the world more, and take advantage of much quicker check out lanes, and much better customer service. Until then, I save where I can and make no apologies for it.


Yup. I am in decent shape financially but I am going to shop at Wal Mart for specific items. Mainly because I'm a cheap bastard, I enjoy saving money, and I hate paying more than I have to for something.

listopencil
12-06-2012, 11:52 AM
Yes and no. The days that are split she complains but otherwise not an extremely unusual amount. No more than anyone else complains about their jobs. I am fully aware though that my fiance and I both see her job situation as being more unbearable/unfair than she does.

Split shifts do suck. I never used them when I made the work schedule but that was years ago, times do change. Sounds like she is, more or less, content.

mr. tegu
12-06-2012, 11:52 AM
take advantage of much quicker check out lanes

It is funny you mention this because when I worked at Hy-Vee I always thought it was funny how much focus the upfront manager put on the checkout lanes. They absolutely freak out at the slightest lines and they always make sure to reiterate that the customers should not have to wait much if at all. I always knew the reasoning but I still couldn't help but think, "screw them they can wait," mainly because I hated getting called from my job to sack groceries.

listopencil
12-06-2012, 11:53 AM
Depends on which ones you're talking about, but the answer is yes for many of them.

The ones that you appear to believe help Wal Mart thrive.

La literatura
12-06-2012, 12:10 PM
Chuc mot ngay lam viec moi vui ve va hanh phuc
Mong rang ban dat duoc nhung gi minh dat ra
Cam on da chia se bai viet tren dien dan cua chung toi
Rat y nghia
Cam on

Are you a little Vietnamese kid employed by Wal-Mart overseas to make shoes? Can you give us some inside info?

Calcountry
12-06-2012, 12:13 PM
They force their employees to live off federal assistance in many, many ways. Flame away, neocons:

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13127-reagans-welfare-queen-found#.UL0omSZSJi8.facebook

Good news everyone, after more than thirty years of searching by the news media, Ronald Reagan’s infamous “Welfare Queen” has finally been found. She lives in Bentonville, Arkansas.

“She has eighty names, thirty addresses,” Reagan warned during his 1976 run for President about a nameless, Cadillac-driving woman who’s conning the social safety net. He added: “She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names.” In total, Reagan said, “Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000.”

For more than thirty years, Republicans have used the existence of this “Welfare Queen” to justify their attacks on public spending and prove that the “welfare state” has run amok. Yet, her identity has never been revealed. After decades of searching, the best and brightest minds in the field of journalism were never able to discover who’s behind the wheel of the “Welfare Queen’s” Cadillac, or if she even existed.

That is until now.

We now realize our mistake. In our search for this “Welfare Queen,” we were looking for actual people when we should have been looking for corporate people. We should have been looking at Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart is the largest private employer and brought in more revenue in 2011 than any other company in the nation. Wal-Mart pocketed a not-too-shabby $16.4 billion in profits that same year and the six Wal-Mart heirs, the Walton family, own roughly $100 billion in wealth, which is more than 40% of Americans combined.

But, despite making all of this money, Wal-Mart’s business model hinges on mooching from the government. It hinges on being the biggest “Welfare Queen” in the United States.

Because of the “everyday low wages” that the retail giant pays its employees, our government has to step in and provide public assistance to Wal-Mart workers just so they can survive…which is why the Wal-Mart workforce represents the largest recipient of federal aid in the nation.
A Wal-Mart worker makes on average 31% less than a worker for any other large retailer, and requires 39% more in public assistance.

A recent study by UC Berkeley found that Wal-Mart’s low wages are costing the state of California alone $86 million a year to provide public assistance like food stamps and healthcare to the retailer’s 44,000 low-wage employees in the state. The state spends nearly $2,000 every single year on each Wal-Mart employee who can’t afford basic essentials like housing, food, and healthcare with their Wal-Mart paycheck.

In total, it’s estimated that Walmart stores loot more than $2.6 billion every single year from the federal government in the form of tax-payer funded public assistance to their employees. That includes more than one billion in healthcare costs associated with Medicaid, and $225 million in free or reduced-price lunches for school children of Wal-Mart employees.

And now, as reported by the Huffington Post, Wal-Mart is planning to loot even more from us taxpayers, as the giant corporation adopts a new healthcare policy that will deny insurance for any employees working fewer than 30 hours a week.

Wal-Mart routinely forces their workers into part-time schedules, working fewer than 30 hours a week, so many will lose their health insurance under this new policy. When asked for comment by the Huffington Post on how many workers will be affected, Wal-Mart declined to answer.

Make no mistake about it, while it may be individual Wal-Mart employees who are collecting government benefits, the corporation itself benefits tremendously.

If the government didn’t step in to provide food assistance, Wal-Mart couldn’t operate with a team of emaciated workers unable to lift ballets of canned foods or count back the correct change at the checkout lanes.

If the government didn’t step in to provide health insurance, then Walmart stores would be a breeding ground for infectious diseases since their employees can’t afford to see a doctor on their own.

If the government didn’t step in to provide school-lunch assistance, then parents who work at Wal-Mart may have less money to put gas in their car and may not even make it in to work.

How can a business succeed with a sickly, tired, tardy, or altogether absent workforce? It can’t.

And while most businesses understanding that a healthy, happy, productive workforce is good for business, Wal-Mart hasn’t. Instead, Wal-Mart, with its enormous fortune, has shifted this responsibility onto taxpayers like you and me. They are, indeed, among the biggest of the big welfare queens in America.

The only difference is Walmart actually exists and Reagan’s “Welfare Queen” doesn’t.

With the help of “Welfare Queen” argument, Conservatives have targeted individual Americans who rely on public assistance as irresponsible and argued that it’s time to end the “handouts.”

But in reality, it’s time we target the actual institutions of irresponsibility in America – Wal-Mart and the other corporate giants who don’t give enough of a damn about their workers to pay them a living wage stick us with the bill for their well-being.

If a corporation can’t afford to pay its employees enough that each worker can afford basic essentials like healthcare, food, and housing, then that corporation – no matter how big or small it is – shouldn’t be allowed to do business.

No more corporate Welfare Queens in America!After reading your article, I am convinced, the Government should tax away all of the wealth that has been created by Wal Mart and give it to the employees of Wal mart in a class action kind of settlement. Then the Government should seize all of their properties and run them so that everyone can have their fair share.

listopencil
12-06-2012, 12:24 PM
Are you a little Vietnamese kid employed by Wal-Mart overseas to make shoes? Can you give us some inside info?

Heh. He's a spammer, I found the same text pasted onto a few other message boards.

blaise
12-06-2012, 12:31 PM
Chuc mot ngay lam viec moi vui ve va hanh phuc
Mong rang ban dat duoc nhung gi minh dat ra
Cam on da chia se bai viet tren dien dan cua chung toi
Rat y nghia
Cam on

Reported for racism.

Ugly Duck
12-06-2012, 01:04 PM
Let me just ask a few questions- How much would a loaf of bread cost at Walmart if they were forced to pay their employees more/provide benefits?

Walmart could afford to pay its employees enough to get off of welfare & still have cheap bread. They'd just have to take a bit less in profit. Corporate profit vs wage disparity has never been more pronounced than it is right now. Taxpayers are also subsidizing the record profit levels of the other major retailers as well. Walmart employees would just face the same working-poor wage level if they went to some other big retailer.

The Department of Commerce said last week that corporate profits hit an all-time high in the third quarter of this year, up more than 18% over last year. It also noted that workers are not benefiting from record profits. In fact, wages have now fallen to a record low of 43.5% of GDP.

Let that sink in for a moment....

After-tax profits are at their greatest percentage of GDP in history.

Workers' wages have fallen to their lowest-ever share of GDP.

http://msnbctv.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/chart-profit-v-wage.jpg?w=911&h=475

blaise
12-06-2012, 01:08 PM
Walmart could afford to pay its employees enough to get off of welfare & still have cheap bread. They'd just have to take a bit less in profit. Corporate profit vs wage disparity has never been more pronounced than it is right now. Taxpayers are also subsidizing the record profit levels of the other major retailers as well. Walmart employees would just face the same working-poor wage level if they went to some other big retailer.

The Department of Commerce said last week that corporate profits hit an all-time high in the third quarter of this year, up more than 18% over last year. It also noted that workers are not benefiting from record profits. In fact, wages have now fallen to a record low of 43.5% of GDP.

Let that sink in for a moment....

After-tax profits are at their greatest percentage of GDP in history.

Workers' wages have fallen to their lowest-ever share of GDP.

http://msnbctv.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/chart-profit-v-wage.jpg?w=911&h=475

So, when you go to a store and pay for something do you just tell them that you want to pay extra?

vailpass
12-06-2012, 01:13 PM
Considering the amount of people in this very thread that are willing to pay more or drive further is evidence that people are turned off by the service among other things. Not sure what your point is other than the people who cannot afford to shop anywhere else "choose" to shop at Wal-mart and put up with the environment. You are either being the devil's advocate or are just plain silly if you don't think people care about the service associated with the stores they shop at.

My point is you are a whiny bastard with high-maintenance tendencies that place you in the should-have-been-a-chick camp.

HonestChieffan
12-06-2012, 01:13 PM
Anyone ever tip your walmart employees?

vailpass
12-06-2012, 01:18 PM
Walmart could afford to pay its employees enough to get off of welfare & still have cheap bread. They'd just have to take a bit less in profit. Corporate profit vs wage disparity has never been more pronounced than it is right now. Taxpayers are also subsidizing the record profit levels of the other major retailers as well. Walmart employees would just face the same working-poor wage level if they went to some other big retailer.

The Department of Commerce said last week that corporate profits hit an all-time high in the third quarter of this year, up more than 18% over last year. It also noted that workers are not benefiting from record profits. In fact, wages have now fallen to a record low of 43.5% of GDP.

Let that sink in for a moment....

After-tax profits are at their greatest percentage of GDP in history.

Workers' wages have fallen to their lowest-ever share of GDP.

http://msnbctv.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/chart-profit-v-wage.jpg?w=911&h=475

ROFL What the hell? You can't be serious with this talk.

Ugly Duck
12-06-2012, 02:32 PM
What the hell? You can't be serious with this talk.

Arithmetic, me bucko. Look at the numbers. Wages are at record lows... so low that the employees are on welfare & are subsidized by taxpayers & money borrowed from China. Meanwhile, profits are at record highs. You can't look at those two factors and see any relationship at all?

Bill Clinton explaining the importance of simple arithmetic:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AX3a-2yrQwY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

blaise
12-06-2012, 02:35 PM
Right, let's force Wal Mart to pay more. Obviously. Let's just raise the minimum wage to $17 an hour and all our problems will disappear!

listopencil
12-06-2012, 02:48 PM
http://msnbctv.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/chart-profit-v-wage.jpg?w=911&h=475

http://benfry.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/piratesarecool4.gif

vailpass
12-06-2012, 02:50 PM
Arithmetic, me bucko. Look at the numbers. Wages are at record lows... so low that the employees are on welfare & are subsidized by taxpayers & money borrowed from China. Meanwhile, profits are at record highs. You can't look at those two factors and see any relationship at all?

Bill Clinton explaining the importance of simple arithmetic:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AX3a-2yrQwY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

No shit. Payroll is an expense. The lower you can keep payroll while maintaining productivity the better your business. I have a buddy whose consulting firm does nothing but tell businesses how to reduce/replace their headcount.

What I'm laughing at is you saying "they'd just have to take a little bit less profit" as if that's a sane option.

BTW I didn't watch the Clinton video you posted but I hope it mentions him being lucky enough to be around for the dotcom boom and strong economic climate and being luckier still to have gotten out before the housing bubble he helped create burst all over the place.

blaise
12-06-2012, 02:54 PM
No shit. Payroll is an expense. The lower you can keep payroll while maintaining productivity the better your business. I have a buddy whose consulting firm does nothing but tell businesses how to reduce/replace their headcount.

What I'm laughing at is you saying "they'd just have to take a little bit less profit" as if that's a sane option.

BTW I didn't watch the Clinton video you posted but I hope it mentions him being lucky enough to be around for the dotcom boom and strong economic climate and being luckier still to have gotten out before the housing bubble he helped create burst all over the place.

Ugly Duck has detailed knowledge of Wal Mart's expenses,investments, and future business plans. That's how he/she knows how much Wal Mart can afford to spend on payroll.

Calcountry
12-06-2012, 02:55 PM
Anyone ever tip your walmart employees?Well, when I had to wait in line for 15 minutes behind a chick trying to get her EBT card to go, then when it is finally my turn, the cashier in the other line starts freaking out about a spill of water in the line and she handed me some paper towels.

No, no tip.

vailpass
12-06-2012, 02:56 PM
Ugly Duck has detailed knowledge of Wal Mart's expenses,investments, and future business plans. That's how he/she knows how much Wal Mart can afford to spend on payroll.

Oh, damn. I stand corrected. How was I to know?

blaise
12-06-2012, 02:56 PM
I like when you wait in line and the meat starts to thaw and leaves chicken juice on the conveyor belt.

blaise
12-06-2012, 02:57 PM
Oh, damn. I stand corrected. How was I to know?

RECORD PROFITS! You know, like RECORD PROFITS AND STUFF!

vailpass
12-06-2012, 03:02 PM
RECORD PROFITS! You know, like RECORD PROFITS AND STUFF!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mr. tegu
12-06-2012, 03:17 PM
My point is you are a whiny bastard with high-maintenance tendencies that place you in the should-have-been-a-chick camp.

Haha. Typical idiot who realizes he was fabricating an argument and was then arguing with himself, so he resorts to the personal attack.

vailpass
12-06-2012, 03:22 PM
Haha. Typical idiot who realizes he was fabricating an argument and was then arguing with himself, so he resorts to the personal attack.

There was no argument.
You were citing the fact that two people in this thread don't go to Walmart and erroneously extrapolating that to some sort of significance. As though the world's largest retailer is negatively impacted by your candy ass inability to figure out which aisle your tampons are in.

mr. tegu
12-06-2012, 03:34 PM
There was no argument.
You were citing the fact that two people in this thread don't go to Walmart and erroneously extrapolating that to some sort of significance. As though the world's largest retailer is negatively impacted by your candy ass inability to figure out which aisle your tampons are in.

I know there was no argument. Simply pointing out that people don't go to wal-mart because of the poor service among other things. If you don't accept that then you are just taking an erroneous position because of the position you have put yourself in. Three on the first page alone said they don't go to Wal-mart. Many more in the thread.

And I am not sure where you got the idea that I think they are negatively impacted. Perhaps because you are still an idiot. All I said was people choose not to go there because of service among other things. Or perhaps you could point to where I said anything suggesting some sort of big significance. If not, GTFO.

aturnis
12-06-2012, 04:02 PM
The one thing I do like about the Walmart in my town is now they have 4 full time self checkout kiosks. Works great and no one uses them probably because most people are stupid but that is fine with me.

Way to contribute to America's unemployment problem. I bet you empty your tray in the trash at fast food restaurants too.

Yet these idiots think a supply side economy is the answer. They will all of a sudden create jobs when for the last god knows how many years, they've been looking for creative new ways to get eliminate them... Training you to clean up your own mess, pump your own gas, and now check out your own groceries.

Bump
12-06-2012, 04:51 PM
Arithmetic, me bucko. Look at the numbers. Wages are at record lows... so low that the employees are on welfare & are subsidized by taxpayers & money borrowed from China. Meanwhile, profits are at record highs. You can't look at those two factors and see any relationship at all?

Bill Clinton explaining the importance of simple arithmetic:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AX3a-2yrQwY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

yes, record profits and all time low wages in relation to today's economy. Those two things shouldn't go together.

That's America today. That's not good. Not good at all.

and here comes blaise or vailpass or some other dumb **** to tell me how stupid I am for saying that.

BWillie
12-06-2012, 06:05 PM
a wal mart exec makes in an hour, what their average full time employee makes in a year. That's pretty ****ed up.

No it's not. Wal-Mart employees work for a low wage because they aren't skilled and/or complete relatively easy tasks. And it's really not that low, tons and tons of retail places pay much worse than Wal-Mart. Walmart is just the poster boy of hate. I used to be a supervisor at Sam's Club, I was in 22 years old making $12 an hour 7 years ago. Not bad I'd say, and I really should have been paid less because my job was very easy and did not require much skills that are typically valued in the job economy.

Psyko Tek
12-08-2012, 10:01 PM
I've seen Wal Mart employees that I would say don't have much prospects for employment elsewhere. Elderly, for instance. They also employ some people who are just above the mentally retarded level that would have a difficult time finding employment elsewhere.

I never said it excuses tax breaks.

But when you say, "Capitalism!" in reference to the article, what are you suggesting Wal Mart do? Or were you just sort of yelling, "Capitalism!" for fun?

yes but that isa just management anywhere

BigRedChief
12-09-2012, 06:04 AM
yes, record profits and all time low wages in relation to today's economy. Those two things shouldn't go together.

That's America today. That's not good. Not good at all. Correct. No matter what the RWNJ think in the bubble. Record profits for corporations and record low wages for workers is not a recipe for our long term success.

Surely we can all agree that without a strong middle class there can't be a strong America.

Dallas Chief
12-09-2012, 02:31 PM
Walmart could afford to pay its employees enough to get off of welfare & still have cheap bread. They'd just have to take a bit less in profit. Corporate profit vs wage disparity has never been more pronounced than it is right now. Taxpayers are also subsidizing the record profit levels of the other major retailers as well. Walmart employees would just face the same working-poor wage level if they went to some other big retailer.

The Department of Commerce said last week that corporate profits hit an all-time high in the third quarter of this year, up more than 18% over last year. It also noted that workers are not benefiting from record profits. In fact, wages have now fallen to a record low of 43.5% of GDP.

Let that sink in for a moment....

After-tax profits are at their greatest percentage of GDP in history.

Workers' wages have fallen to their lowest-ever share of GDP.

http://msnbctv.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/chart-profit-v-wage.jpg?w=911&h=475

Oh look a pretty graph! Doesn't matter. Profitability goes down, prices go up or expenses got down, both/either or. You hava board and shareholders to answer. This is all industries and corporate profit by the way, not just Wal-Mart or the retail sector only. Nice selective data... Record profits blah blah blah!!!!

vailpass
12-10-2012, 10:08 AM
yes, record profits and all time low wages in relation to today's economy. Those two things shouldn't go together.

That's America today. That's not good. Not good at all.

and here comes blaise or vailpass or some other dumb **** to tell me how stupid I am for saying that.

Wages and benefits are an expense. A healthy company minimizes expenses wherever possible in order to maximize profit.
There is no morality associated with this principle.

Whether you think this should or shouldn't be has no bearing on the reality of the situation.

Predarat
12-10-2012, 10:14 AM
Correct. No matter what the RWNJ think in the bubble. Record profits for corporations and record low wages for workers is not a recipe for our long term success.

Surely we can all agree that without a strong middle class there can't be a strong America.

Yes this and outsourcing are exactly what is destroying the Middle Class. Also this started and caught fire in dubyas 2nd term, so even as a RWer I can easily say its not all on Obama.

Bump
12-10-2012, 12:15 PM
Correct. No matter what the RWNJ think in the bubble. Record profits for corporations and record low wages for workers is not a recipe for our long term success.

Surely we can all agree that without a strong middle class there can't be a strong America.

agreed. Most people don't understand that though, unfortunately.