Who's the Biggest Welfare Queen? Wal-Mart!

[gblowfish]

They force their employees to live off federal assistance in many, many ways. Flame away, neocons:

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13...ZSJi8.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!

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

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]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

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-am...a-median-wage/

[blaise]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

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]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

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]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

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

http://financemymoney.com/average-am...a-median-wage/

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

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by Literature

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]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

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]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

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

http://financemymoney.com/average-am...a-median-wage/

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

[Fish]

Originally Posted by blaise

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/reta...ard_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/fil...esBenefits.pdf

[blaise]

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]

Originally Posted by Fish

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/fil...esBenefits.pdf

How atrocious that these poor people can never look for work elsewhere in their lifetimes.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by blaise

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]

[quote=loochy;9177257]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.[/QUOTE]

[loochy]

Originally Posted by El Jefe

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]

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.