Just How Big Is Wal-Mart?

[GotZoom]

A bit harsh. How is "the world [taking] care of you" if you want to make a living wage. And guess what? Wal-Mart is the largest employer in the U.S., so you're talking about people giving up the available jobs in their areas.

It's very easy to talk about getting educated, etc., but in a world where student loans are being cut, the cost of college is sky-high, and medical care is the single largest reason for the filing of bankruptcy petitions, it's kind of putting your head in the sand. Also, we ARE paying for Wal-Mart's employess. I have no problem with Sam's family being rich and getting richer. I don't feel like subsidizing them.



Funny...I don't believe people should have things "handed" to them at all. But nor do I think we should subsidize mega corporations who don't need our subsidies. Given a choice between helping people and helping the elite, I'd rather help people.

I'm more interested in why he/she is "stuck" making minimum wage. What did they do in school? Or not do in school? Did his/her parents make her work hard in school, do homework, etc.

There is a definite possibility that the guy/girl working the register at Wally-World has fallen on hard times. Bad breaks, spouse left them high and dry, etc. I agree. And for them, my heart goes out to them and hopefully with hard work, dedication, and some help from others, they will make it. If they had a good upbringing, working hard to get ahead isn't a difficult task for them.

The ones who skipped school, didn't study, blew off what their parents told them to do, things along those lines - well, they made their bed..now it sucks for them to lay in it.

 

[manu1959]

A bit harsh. How is "the world [taking] care of you" if you want to make a living wage. And guess what? Wal-Mart is the largest employer in the U.S., so you're talking about people giving up the available jobs in their areas.

It's very easy to talk about getting educated, etc., but in a world where student loans are being cut, the cost of college is sky-high, and medical care is the single largest reason for the filing of bankruptcy petitions, it's kind of putting your head in the sand. Also, we ARE paying for Wal-Mart's employess. I have no problem with Sam's family being rich and getting richer. I don't feel like subsidizing them.

Funny...I don't believe people should have things "handed" to them at all. But nor do I think we should subsidize mega corporations who don't need our subsidies. Given a choice between helping people and helping the elite, I'd rather help people.

the govt is the largest employer in the US...and you pay their salary and health care and retirement.....with your tax dollars....at least sam gives you something for your buck and if you don't like what he sells you can go somewhere else...

 

[jillian]

Stay on your job, become more educated and trained, be responsibile with your money, make sacrifices.

You know...work hard.

People at Wal-Mart work pretty hard. I think they should be fairly compensated for that. You know...a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

A lot of them join the "We Hate Wal-Mart" bandwagon. There are towns that Wal-Mart changed their minds about after the townspeople got together and complained at zoning and city council meetings.

Maybe they have a point?

I don't shop at Wal-mart that often because I have so many other choices.

But you know what? Wal-Mart has just as much right to run a business as anyone else does.

You know... I think it's great when people run successful businesses. I just have a problem with paying people wages they can't afford to live on and then making the rest of us foot the bill for their health coverage so some ridiculously wealthy kids of a successful man can get richer.

I really believe that if someone is working a full time job, they should be able to, minimally, subsist....especially when we're talking a few cents more per item to make sure that happens.

And not everyone is smart enough and capable enough to do better...I'm not sure we can have the same expectations of everyone else that we might have of ourselves.

 

[GotZoom]

So you should pay the person right off the street with no training or experience say..$10.00 per hour? Which means the people who have worked hard and have been there a while should make more...say...$15.00 per hour.

Now the price of goods increases so the store can pay their employee's wages.

The people at Wal-Mart do work hard. If they don't, they will be fired. I'm sure the ones who work hard are paid accordingly. Pay raises, promotions, etc.

That is how it should work.

Work hard, stay on the job, receive a higher salary.

 

[jillian]

the govt is the largest employer in the US...and you pay their salary and health care and retirement.....with your tax dollars....at least sam gives you something for your buck and if you don't like what he sells you can go somewhere else...

If someone works for the government, they should get their salary, health care and retirement benefits from their employer, no? Not exactly welfare, is it?

 

[Shattered]

People at Wal-Mart work pretty hard. I think they should be fairly compensated for that. You know...a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

You have GOT to be kidding me...yes?

A large portion of those employees are paid to push keys on a register that does all the thinking for them, and lean on the conveyor belt when they haven't got anyone waiting to check out..

Another portion of them are paid to stand in the aisles hiding in the toy section goofing off... Walk in to one department, and ask for assistance in another department...you can count the people that come running to assist you on less than one finger..(it took me an hour anf 15 minutes to get a couple of fish from a tank)...

Another portion of them are paid to stand out in the parking lot goofing off with their friends, while pretending to get all the runaway shopping carts rounded up that are flying through the parking lot dinging the hell out of peoples doors because people are too damned lazy to return them to the store, or a stall.

MUST I go on?

That said.. How much do you think these people "deserve" to earn?

 

[jillian]

So you should pay the person right off the street with no training or experience say..$10.00 per hour? Which means the people who have worked hard and have been there a while should make more...say...$15.00 per hour.

Now the price of goods increases so the store can pay their employee's wages.

The people at Wal-Mart do work hard. If they don't, they will be fired. I'm sure the ones who work hard are paid accordingly. Pay raises, promotions, etc.

That is how it should work.

Work hard, stay on the job, receive a higher salary.

Actually, that hasn't really been borne out. Last time the minimum wage went up, the economy flourished and poverty decreased. But the last time minimum wage workers got a raise was in 1997...and we know what's happened to the cost of living since then -- especially fuel costs.

Some stuff to think about --

Here are 3 economic questions relating to the other NCLB test - No Corporation Left Behind - and poverty. The current federal minimum wage per hour is: (a) $6.45 (b) $7.10 (c) $5.15 or (d) $4.85. A full-time worker (2,080 hours per year) with 2 children, and earning the current minimum wage would have an income: (a) above the poverty level (b) below the poverty level (c) just about at poverty level. Because inflation is uncertain, federal law adjusts the minimum wage accordingly every 3 years: (a) true (b) false.

The "federal" minimum wage is still only $5.15 per hour, and this adjustment was last made back in September 1997. According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) data, this was 1 of 3 adjustments since 1990 when the minimum wage was $3.80 per hour. Some states enacted laws that provide higher minimum wages, such as Alaska at $7.15 per hour. A worker under 20 years of age can be paid $4.25 per hour for the first 90 days under current federal law minimum wage law. This was obviously devised for part-time summer employment of students. Okay, questions 1 and 3 have been answered.

A full-time worker (2,080 hours per year) being paid $5.15 minimum wage would earn $10,712 per year - well below the 2003 federal poverty line of $14,403 for a family of 3. Although food-stamps and the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) helps, a mother and 2 children would still remain in poverty (answer to question 2). Importantly, EPI points out, "not all workers can find full-time work, and others are unable to balance full-time work with family responsibilities." Sound familiar? This scenario is difficult even for current middle-class employees. With "non-profits" now in charge of "reformed" welfare, their rules and regulation demands can be horrific, depending on the disgruntled underpaid "client administrator" and the high turnover of staff at any given time. Stories of punishment abound with poor single mothers being tossed out of the "program" or simply demoralized, leaving for a variety of reasons. Many directly related job issues could be and often are handled within normal full-time, employee-employer job conditions, if they were regular employees. But similar to their children attending alleged "failing" public schools being "sanctioned," unfair W-2 welfare "sanctions" have become a way of life too.

In its proposal to increase the federal minimum wage to $7 per hour, EPI data showed the current minimum wage is 26 percent lower in 2004 than it was in 1979. "In addition, comparing the wages of minimum wage workers to average hourly wages, we find that the wages of minimum wage workers have not kept up with the wages of other workers. The federal minimum wage is 33 percent of the average hourly wage of American workers, the lowest since 1949." A proposal that sets "annual increases" to the federal minimum wage to adjust for changes in the cost of living, said the EPI, would ensure that the combination of full-time work and the EITC would keep this family of 3 example "above" poverty. For Republican "compassionate conservatives," this increased federal minimum wage proposal would be anathema. Their successful hit jingle "Poverty is no excuse" could fall from both the public educational and political radar screens.

http://www.educationnews.org/writers/daniel/nclb-poverty-is-no-excuse.htm

 

[manu1959]

jillian,

have you ever been an employer?

 

[GotZoom]

That is all fine and good. But there is another way that employers look at things.

I have 3 employees. Two are amazing. Work hard, never late, my business improves because of them. The other one is a problem. Late, short with customers, hurts my company.

I let go of the problem child. But the other two...I need them. I need to make them happy as employees. How do I do that? Show them they are valuable to me. How? Increase their pay. Let them know how important they are and how much I want them to be a part of my team and my company.

I have no problem paying them more if they continue to be an outstanding employee and my company's bottom line improves by them working for me.

They work hard - prove their value to me; I return the favor by showing how valuable they are and how much I appreciate their hard work.

 

[manu1959]

If someone works for the government, they should get their salary, health care and retirement benefits from their employer, no? Not exactly welfare, is it?

they should get what they negotiate and their skills deserve..... if that means a living wage, helath care and retirement fine...if not get better skills.....a living wage, health care, and a retierment package are earned not deserved.....it is not a right

 

[Shattered]

they should get what they negotiate and their skills deserve..... if that means a living wage, helath care and retirement fine...if not get better skills.....a living wage, health care, and a retierment package are earned not deserved.....it is not a right

<i>You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to manu1959 again.</i>

 

[Mr. P]

No... people dislike Wal-Mart because they destroy the character of the communities they go into and their employees end up using government health care to supplement what Wal-Mart doesn't give them.

Last year, the Wal-Mart & SAM'S CLUB Foundation made a $1 million donation to the VFW...

In addition, Wal-Mart donated $6 million to help build the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C. ...

Last year, Wal-Mart generated $8.5 billion in sales tax revenues for our communities.

Wal-Mart donated more than $200 million to help charities and organizations throughout the U.S. According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, this makes Wal-Mart the largest corporate giver in the country.

 

[manu1959]

Last year, the Wal-Mart & SAM'S CLUB Foundation made a $1 million donation to the VFW...

In addition, Wal-Mart donated $6 million to help build the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C. ...

Last year, Wal-Mart generated $8.5 billion in sales tax revenues for our communities.

Wal-Mart donated more than $200 million to help charities and organizations throughout the U.S. According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, this makes Wal-Mart the largest corporate giver in the country.

cheap bastards....they should pay me not to work....

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

I don't have a problem with Walmart competing and dominating retail if they're giving customers what they want. Their wages may not be sky high, but neither were the mom and pop stores they replaced. And free trade with China is a good thing.

People who are against big-box stores never identify the core reason why they replaced smaller-scale retail. And that reason is massive government spending on roads. Let me explain.

If you've got a smallish business, your business plan is low volume, higher markup. If you're a big box store, your strategy is the opposite. You cut your markup and save customers money--great! But to counteract this, you must have enormous volumes of sales, which means large volumes of customers.

The way those customers get to your stores is of course, cars. Which means lots and lots of "free" government-provided roads. Notice how the rise of big box stores in the 60's and 70's follows the construction of interstate highways? Ever notice how they tend to be at the intersection of two freeways?

Government-provided goods never work like market goods, and this is no exception. By using the power of emminent domain, building roads at cost, etc. you end up creating distortions that wouldn't exist otherwise, subsidizing the types of businesses that thrive on high volume. For example, my local Walmart at the intersection of Highway 6 and 90 near Houston--there is ALWAYS a traffic jam of people getting in and out, even with two multilane highways. So, the state of Texas is building an immense overpass to alleviate traffic.

You can bet that this wouldn't fly with a free market road company, who would probably stick Walmart with a hefty part of the bill for the overpass. Walmart could either pay the monthly subscription for road access, or see their road access cut off. Suddenly Walmart has to pay the full price for their business model, and it's not as attractive anymore relative to small-scale neighborhood retail. I'm not saying Walmart would go extinct; but I doubt they would have the total dominance they do today.

 

[Mr. P]

I don't have a problem with Walmart competing and dominating retail if they're giving customers what they want. Their wages may not be sky high, but neither were the mom and pop stores they replaced. And free trade with China is a good thing.

People who are against big-box stores never identify the core reason why they replaced smaller-scale retail. And that reason is massive government spending on roads. Let me explain.

If you've got a smallish business, your business plan is low volume, higher markup. If you're a big box store, your strategy is the opposite. You cut your markup and save customers money--great! But to counteract this, you must have enormous volumes of sales, which means large volumes of customers.

The way those customers get to your stores is of course, cars. Which means lots and lots of "free" government-provided roads. Notice how the rise of big box stores in the 60's and 70's follows the construction of interstate highways? Ever notice how they tend to be at the intersection of two freeways?

Government-provided goods never work like market goods, and this is no exception. By using the power of emminent domain, building roads at cost, etc. you end up creating distortions that wouldn't exist otherwise, subsidizing the types of businesses that thrive on high volume. For example, my local Walmart at the intersection of Highway 6 and 90 near Houston--there is ALWAYS a traffic jam of people getting in and out, even with two multilane highways. So, the state of Texas is building an immense overpass to alleviate traffic.

You can bet that this wouldn't fly with a free market road company, who would probably stick Walmart with a hefty part of the bill for the overpass. Walmart could either pay the monthly subscription for road access, or see their road access cut off. Suddenly Walmart has to pay the full price for their business model, and it's not as attractive anymore relative to small-scale neighborhood retail. I'm not saying Walmart would go extinct; but I doubt they would have the total dominance they do today.

# Wal-Mart collected on behalf of the state of Texas more than $1.3 billion in sales taxes in 2005.
# Wal-Mart paid more than $240.2 million in state and local taxes in the state of Texas in 2005.

Surely the state used some of that for roads.

 

[Redhots]

This is why the Left hates Walmart: they are a prime example of the success of capitalism. And oh, by the way, that's 1.6 million jobs created by Walmart.

Q: What do you call Walmart without $Billions worth of government subsidies?










A: Closed.

:funnyface

 

[Hobbit]

Q: What do you call Walmart without $Billions worth of government subsidies?










A: Closed.

:funnyface

The government paying Wal-Mart as opposed to the other way around? I may have to put you on ignore just in case whatever mental disease you have is contagious.

 

[Redhots]

And free trade with China is a good thing.

Short term ya, long term no.

Wait till they decide to stop holding our debt because I don't know... oil starts trading on the euro...

Iraq tried to, Iran wants to, Saudi Arabia wants to (and they're having security talks with China now; BIG NEWS) other OPECs want to, so does Russia.

And here America will sit with our worthless service jobs because we let our manufacturing base be bled dry and outsourced.

The future does not look pretty... :crutch:

 

[MtnBiker]

Wait till they decide to stop holding our debt

Why would they want to do that?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I worked for Wal-Mart, so my strong dislike stems from their internal management practices. When I went through training, I watched video after video of Sam Walton telling me that the customer is #1. When I actually began work, I realized that this just wasn't the case anymore. Wal-Mart cares nothing of their customers. When stores are stocked, customers are the last thing on their mind. What is on their mind is the customers money. It doesn't matter if the customer is serviced, as long as they get the money. Try asking for help on a Saturday afternoon. Customers choke this down because of low prices. Wal-Mart simply can't be beat on prices.

As for Wal-Mart on other fronts, Wal-Mart is a helluva boost to the economy. The taxes it pays more than makes up for the government programs its employees have to use to survive. Wal-Mart is the new Standard Oil, waiting for a trust buster to come along and break it up.