Walmart subsidizes the U.S. government's welfare program to a tune of. $15,080 per employee a year

[owebo]

Employees don't deserve any of the profit. They agreed to work for a wage. If the want part of the profit, then they can buy stock in the company. Feudalism is where the employees are property. They are virtual slaves. Capitalism is where you are free to contract your labor to whomever you want to sell it to.

You obviously don't know jack shit about economics, and your moral theories are obvious horseshit based purely on your hatred of rich people.

They deserve a fair wage since the stores cannot operate without them. Everyone deserves their fair share of the money earned. That their employees qualify for welfare should make every member of the Walton Family, ashamed of themselves. ALL of it should NOT be going to the shareholders. Walmart could have paid all of their employees $100 a week more, and they would still have made $15 billion dollars, which is a very healthy profit. Taxpayers should absolutely not be subsidizing Walmart's payroll.

Feudalism is not where the employees are property. Under feudal law, the lord provided protection to the peasants and a patch of land to work, and in return, the peasants gave a portion of their crops to the Lord. But the Lords didn't take it all and leave the peasants without enough to eat. Comparably speaking, this is what Walmart is doing - take almost all of the monies earned from the labour of their employees, and telling the government to make up the shortfall so they can eat.

I can't believe you're defending Walmart's dependence on middle class taxpayers' money to subsidize wages they should be paying themselves. Yet you rail against all of the free shit that the poor get, but corporate welfare is fine by you. Typical clueless conservative attitude - picking up the peanuts while being trampled by the elephants.

I know a whole lot more about economics than you do. You thought feudalism was slavery. Your other posts show a lack of knowledge of business, or economics - anything that approaches what life is like in the real world.

Seems you are clueless on economics....

 

[hadit]

When every job has to pay an artificially high wage, those not needing that high a wage or working for a different reason are priced out of the market. My brother in law apprenticed himself to a cabinet maker for two years, then became one of the most successful businesses in his home state. They would make that virtually impossible today.

Wrong. Apprenticeship programs are the one area of employment where wages should be subsidized, because the employer is also teaching the worker and imparting a skill. In Canada, the government pays all or part of the wages for apprentices to encourage skilled trades people to train others.

Walmart, McDonald's and similar corporations are simply taking advantage of the overly large pool of low skill workers who lost their manufacturing jobs.

That is incorrect. Walmart has been around for quite a while now, and supplies goods to customers at the lowest prices possible. Without customer demand for low priced goods, they would not survive with this business model. Again, it is not their responsibility to ensure all employees get a certain standard of living. If society demands that, then society should supply it, not business. As for low skilled manufacturing jobs, those are gone forever, to be replaced by automation. It's inevitable.

 

[Dragonlady]

That is incorrect. Walmart has been around for quite a while now, and supplies goods to customers at the lowest prices possible. Without customer demand for low priced goods, they would not survive with this business model. Again, it is not their responsibility to ensure all employees get a certain standard of living. If society demands that, then society should supply it, not business. As for low skilled manufacturing jobs, those are gone forever, to be replaced by automation. It's inevitable.

Yes, Walmart's has been around for a while, and their business practices have always been predatory. When they were expanding, they would open a story and undercut local stores prices, to the point that the downtown retail community was wiped out, and Walmart was the only game in town. Towns were taking up petitions to keep Walmart out.

Once Walmart had "cratered" the downtown core, they'd put their prices back up to normal. The forced suppliers to off-shore 400,000 American jobs, to cut the prices on the junk they sell.

But the use of the hard earned money of American taxpayers to subsidize their profits was both immoral and unnecessary. For this reason, I refuse to give Walmart any of my money, and there are a lot of other people who feel the same.

 

[depotoo]

And I believe their starting wage is in the $9 range-not $7.25. But don't let facts hit msnbc in the butt..

dang I was wrong, this is from a year ago, it is much higher-
Walmart told The Associated Press late Monday that department managers of complex and service-oriented jobs in areas like produce, electronics and auto care will start at $13 per hour and top out at $24.70 per hour, beginning next month. Starting next February, they will be paid at least $15 per hour. Previously, the pay range was from $10.30 to $20.09. Meanwhile, managers of less-complicated departments like clothing, and consumer products like paper towels and luggage, will earn from $10.90 to $20.71 per hour. Previously, they earned from $9.90 to $19.31.

$7;25×40×52=15,080

According to MSNBC the US government then kicks in another $5,800
None


So if walmart didn't exists the us welfare system would be paying 20 grand per person instead of 6 grand per person.

 

[hadit]

That is incorrect. Walmart has been around for quite a while now, and supplies goods to customers at the lowest prices possible. Without customer demand for low priced goods, they would not survive with this business model. Again, it is not their responsibility to ensure all employees get a certain standard of living. If society demands that, then society should supply it, not business. As for low skilled manufacturing jobs, those are gone forever, to be replaced by automation. It's inevitable.

Yes, Walmart's has been around for a while, and their business practices have always been predatory. When they were expanding, they would open a story and undercut local stores prices, to the point that the downtown retail community was wiped out, and Walmart was the only game in town. Towns were taking up petitions to keep Walmart out.

Once Walmart had "cratered" the downtown core, they'd put their prices back up to normal. The forced suppliers to off-shore 400,000 American jobs, to cut the prices on the junk they sell.

But the use of the hard earned money of American taxpayers to subsidize their profits was both immoral and unnecessary. For this reason, I refuse to give Walmart any of my money, and there are a lot of other people who feel the same.

Okay, let's see if we have this straight:

You think Walmart employees need to make more money, but you refuse to give Walmart any money to pay their employees, thus contributing to wage stagnation. You think society subsidizes Walmart employees, but fail to realize that, without Walmart, there would be some 2 million more people needing FULL support from society. IOW, Walmart is subsidizing the government.

I think I see why you're confused.

 

[depotoo]

And I dare woonder why their prices have increased...

 

[Dragonlady]

Okay, let's see if we have this straight:

You think Walmart employees need to make more money, but you refuse to give Walmart any money to pay their employees, thus contributing to wage stagnation. You think society subsidizes Walmart employees, but fail to realize that, without Walmart, there would be some 2 million more people needing FULL support from society. IOW, Walmart is subsidizing the government.

I think I see why you're confused.

Bullshit. Without Walmart there would be other smaller retailers, thousands upon thousands of them, employing more people than Walmart. Walmart destroyed jobs everywhere they went. Read the corporation's history.

Walmart's employees are receiving $9 billion in government aid. Even if you don't shop at Walmart, you still put $2,500 into their profits.

It's difficult to know whether the 400,000 manufacturing jobs would still have been lost, but we do know that they were lost due to Walmart's insistence on lower prices. Imagine the taxes paid by those 400,000 people when they were working. The taxes paid by the retailers Walmart destroyed in their expansion and the taxes from their employees.

Walmart continues to be one of the most profitable companies in the World. They could afford to pay enough that their workers wouldn't qualify for aid, and still be very profitable, but they don't. I shop where workers are paid a living wage.

 

[Wyatt earp]

That is incorrect. Walmart has been around for quite a while now, and supplies goods to customers at the lowest prices possible. Without customer demand for low priced goods, they would not survive with this business model. Again, it is not their responsibility to ensure all employees get a certain standard of living. If society demands that, then society should supply it, not business. As for low skilled manufacturing jobs, those are gone forever, to be replaced by automation. It's inevitable.

Yes, Walmart's has been around for a while, and their business practices have always been predatory. When they were expanding, they would open a story and undercut local stores prices, to the point that the downtown retail community was wiped out, and Walmart was the only game in town. Towns were taking up petitions to keep Walmart out.

Once Walmart had "cratered" the downtown core, they'd put their prices back up to normal. The forced suppliers to off-shore 400,000 American jobs, to cut the prices on the junk they sell.

But the use of the hard earned money of American taxpayers to subsidize their profits was both immoral and unnecessary. For this reason, I refuse to give Walmart any of my money, and there are a lot of other people who feel the same.

Okay, let's see if we have this straight:

You think Walmart employees need to make more money, but you refuse to give Walmart any money to pay their employees, thus contributing to wage stagnation. You think society subsidizes Walmart employees, but fail to realize that, without Walmart, there would be some 2 million more people needing FULL support from society. IOW, Walmart is subsidizing the government.

I think I see why you're confused.

That's the entire premis of the thread walmart subsize the US welfare program..

 

[hadit]

Okay, let's see if we have this straight:

You think Walmart employees need to make more money, but you refuse to give Walmart any money to pay their employees, thus contributing to wage stagnation. You think society subsidizes Walmart employees, but fail to realize that, without Walmart, there would be some 2 million more people needing FULL support from society. IOW, Walmart is subsidizing the government.

I think I see why you're confused.

Bullshit. Without Walmart there would be other smaller retailers, thousands upon thousands of them, employing more people than Walmart. Walmart destroyed jobs everywhere they went. Read the corporation's history.

Walmart's employees are receiving $9 billion in government aid. Even if you don't shop at Walmart, you still put $2,500 into their profits.

It's difficult to know whether the 400,000 manufacturing jobs would still have been lost, but we do know that they were lost due to Walmart's insistence on lower prices. Imagine the taxes paid by those 400,000 people when they were working. The taxes paid by the retailers Walmart destroyed in their expansion and the taxes from their employees.

Walmart continues to be one of the most profitable companies in the World. They could afford to pay enough that their workers wouldn't qualify for aid, and still be very profitable, but they don't. I shop where workers are paid a living wage.

Walmart made $17 billion in profit last year. They have 2 million employees that make an average of $8.81/hr. Note that is already above minimum wage. If they simply erased their entire profit for the year, they could give every employee a $4/hr raise. Of course, that's ludicrous because you can't erase your entire profit. So, cut it in half and every employee gets a $2/hr raise, bringing the average to $10.81/hr and cutting Walmart's profit margin from an already very small 3% to 1.5% and the average pay not enough to raise a family on. IOW, emotional arguments don't cut the mustard. That small a margin can be wiped out very easily, leaving Walmart unable to sustain the higher wages. So you can see that, when you look at actual numbers, Walmart is subsidizing government.

 

[bripat9643]

That is incorrect. Walmart has been around for quite a while now, and supplies goods to customers at the lowest prices possible. Without customer demand for low priced goods, they would not survive with this business model. Again, it is not their responsibility to ensure all employees get a certain standard of living. If society demands that, then society should supply it, not business. As for low skilled manufacturing jobs, those are gone forever, to be replaced by automation. It's inevitable.

Yes, Walmart's has been around for a while, and their business practices have always been predatory. When they were expanding, they would open a story and undercut local stores prices, to the point that the downtown retail community was wiped out, and Walmart was the only game in town. Towns were taking up petitions to keep Walmart out.

Once Walmart had "cratered" the downtown core, they'd put their prices back up to normal. The forced suppliers to off-shore 400,000 American jobs, to cut the prices on the junk they sell.

But the use of the hard earned money of American taxpayers to subsidize their profits was both immoral and unnecessary. For this reason, I refuse to give Walmart any of my money, and there are a lot of other people who feel the same.

That's the same thing they used to say about Standard Oil. It was total bullshit, of course. The thing that made Standard's competitors hate them was the fact they came in with low prices and kept their price low. Inefficient producers simply couldn't compete. The same goes for Walmart.

Walmart doesn't get taxpayer money, so feel free to shop there.

 

[depotoo]

See post #124. The answer me how much more you think a simple clerk should earn.
Also answer what would happen if Walmart did not employee people without skills.

Okay, let's see if we have this straight:

You think Walmart employees need to make more money, but you refuse to give Walmart any money to pay their employees, thus contributing to wage stagnation. You think society subsidizes Walmart employees, but fail to realize that, without Walmart, there would be some 2 million more people needing FULL support from society. IOW, Walmart is subsidizing the government.

I think I see why you're confused.

Bullshit. Without Walmart there would be other smaller retailers, thousands upon thousands of them, employing more people than Walmart. Walmart destroyed jobs everywhere they went. Read the corporation's history.

Walmart's employees are receiving $9 billion in government aid. Even if you don't shop at Walmart, you still put $2,500 into their profits.

It's difficult to know whether the 400,000 manufacturing jobs would still have been lost, but we do know that they were lost due to Walmart's insistence on lower prices. Imagine the taxes paid by those 400,000 people when they were working. The taxes paid by the retailers Walmart destroyed in their expansion and the taxes from their employees.

Walmart continues to be one of the most profitable companies in the World. They could afford to pay enough that their workers wouldn't qualify for aid, and still be very profitable, but they don't. I shop where workers are paid a living wage.

 

[Dragonlady]

Walmart made $17 billion in profit last year. They have 2 million employees that make an average of $8.81/hr. Note that is already above minimum wage. If they simply erased their entire profit for the year, they could give every employee a $4/hr raise. Of course, that's ludicrous because you can't erase your entire profit. So, cut it in half and every employee gets a $2/hr raise, bringing the average to $10.81/hr and cutting Walmart's profit margin from an already very small 3% to 1.5% and the average pay not enough to raise a family on. IOW, emotional arguments don't cut the mustard. That small a margin can be wiped out very easily, leaving Walmart unable to sustain the higher wages. So you can see that, when you look at actual numbers, Walmart is subsidizing government.

Again, your facts are wrong. Only 1.4 million of Walmart's employees are in the USA. The other 600,000 people work in Walmart's stores in other countries, and those employees are better paid than American employees because the minimum wage for other countries is higher.

For example, in Ontario, where I live, Walmart employees are paid $11.25 per hour because that's the Ontario minimum wage. In addition, Walmart pays for 1% of wages as health care taxes for all its employees (OHIP), contributes to their Canada Pension Plan (think Social Security), unemployment insurance premiums, and they still manage to have the cheapest prices of all of the big box stores. Walmart is the biggest retailer in Canada, and they're highly profitable here.

So clearly Walmart can do the right thing, but until this year, they chose not to. Any company which is so destructive to the US economy should not be rewarded, they should be destroyed.

 

[depotoo]

Do the right thing? Would you rather them price themselves out of business so then all those people have no job? Or are you willing to pay the excess so they can stay open?

Walmart made $17 billion in profit last year. They have 2 million employees that make an average of $8.81/hr. Note that is already above minimum wage. If they simply erased their entire profit for the year, they could give every employee a $4/hr raise. Of course, that's ludicrous because you can't erase your entire profit. So, cut it in half and every employee gets a $2/hr raise, bringing the average to $10.81/hr and cutting Walmart's profit margin from an already very small 3% to 1.5% and the average pay not enough to raise a family on. IOW, emotional arguments don't cut the mustard. That small a margin can be wiped out very easily, leaving Walmart unable to sustain the higher wages. So you can see that, when you look at actual numbers, Walmart is subsidizing government.

Again, your facts are wrong. Only 1.4 million of Walmart's employees are in the USA. The other 600,000 people work in Walmart's stores in other countries, and those employees are better paid than American employees because the minimum wage for other countries is higher.

For example, in Ontario, where I live, Walmart employees are paid $11.25 per hour because that's the Ontario minimum wage. In addition, Walmart pays for 1% of wages as health care taxes for all its employees (OHIP), contributes to their Canada Pension Plan (think Social Security), unemployment insurance premiums, and they still manage to have the cheapest prices of all of the big box stores. Walmart is the biggest retailer in Canada, and they're highly profitable here.

So clearly Walmart can do the right thing, but until this year, they chose not to. Any company which is so destructive to the US economy should not be rewarded, they should be destroyed.

 

[hadit]

Walmart made $17 billion in profit last year. They have 2 million employees that make an average of $8.81/hr. Note that is already above minimum wage. If they simply erased their entire profit for the year, they could give every employee a $4/hr raise. Of course, that's ludicrous because you can't erase your entire profit. So, cut it in half and every employee gets a $2/hr raise, bringing the average to $10.81/hr and cutting Walmart's profit margin from an already very small 3% to 1.5% and the average pay not enough to raise a family on. IOW, emotional arguments don't cut the mustard. That small a margin can be wiped out very easily, leaving Walmart unable to sustain the higher wages. So you can see that, when you look at actual numbers, Walmart is subsidizing government.

Again, your facts are wrong. Only 1.4 million of Walmart's employees are in the USA. The other 600,000 people work in Walmart's stores in other countries, and those employees are better paid than American employees because the minimum wage for other countries is higher.

For example, in Ontario, where I live, Walmart employees are paid $11.25 per hour because that's the Ontario minimum wage. In addition, Walmart pays for 1% of wages as health care taxes for all its employees (OHIP), contributes to their Canada Pension Plan (think Social Security), unemployment insurance premiums, and they still manage to have the cheapest prices of all of the big box stores. Walmart is the biggest retailer in Canada, and they're highly profitable here.

So clearly Walmart can do the right thing, but until this year, they chose not to. Any company which is so destructive to the US economy should not be rewarded, they should be destroyed.

You haven't addressed the fact that with a 3% profit margin, there is little room to inflate wages. Your emotional "They have plenty of money" doesn't cut it.

 

[Muhammed]

$7;25×40×52=15,080

According to MSNBC the US government then kicks in another $5,800
None


So if walmart didn't exists the us welfare system would be paying 20 grand per person instead of 6 grand per person.

Worst spin attempt ever.

Prove me wrong...

Walmart solely exist to support th US government welfare program...

What else could it be?

To encourage illegal immigration.

Put the CEO in prison and I bet there would be no more illegal aliens stocking shelves at Walmart.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Again, your facts are wrong. Only 1.4 million of Walmart's employees are in the USA. The other 600,000 people work in Walmart's stores in other countries, and those employees are better paid than American employees because the minimum wage for other countries is higher.

For example, in Ontario, where I live, Walmart employees are paid $11.25 per hour because that's the Ontario minimum wage. In addition, Walmart pays for 1% of wages as health care taxes for all its employees (OHIP), contributes to their Canada Pension Plan (think Social Security), unemployment insurance premiums, and they still manage to have the cheapest prices of all of the big box stores. Walmart is the biggest retailer in Canada, and they're highly profitable here.

So clearly Walmart can do the right thing, but until this year, they chose not to. Any company which is so destructive to the US economy should not be rewarded, they should be destroyed.

Okay, but do you think you could buy Walmart products cheaper in Canada or the US?

If the minimum wage there for Walmart is $11.25 per hour, then it's $11.25 per hour for all other stores.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, Walmart's has been around for a while, and their business practices have always been predatory. When they were expanding, they would open a story and undercut local stores prices, to the point that the downtown retail community was wiped out, and Walmart was the only game in town. Towns were taking up petitions to keep Walmart out.

Once Walmart had "cratered" the downtown core, they'd put their prices back up to normal. The forced suppliers to off-shore 400,000 American jobs, to cut the prices on the junk they sell.

Then I suggest you get on the phone to the attorney general of that state and file a case of price fixing since price fixing is illegal in the US.

 

[Londoner]

Walmart is the largest employer in the world, yet it barely pays its employees enough to survive.

You can say to the Walmart slave "get another job", but we're talking about the world's largest employer. This isn't just an irrelevant statistical anomaly - this is the new normal.

Contrast this with the profits of Walmart's owners, who have enough financial leverage to finance elections across continents. Talk about concentrated power. The Walmart wage structure symbolizes a new American aristocracy where a tiny cabal of capitalist elites and their political puppets run the nation.

If you want to make America prosperous again, if you want to give a whole population of hard working families the chance to better themselves and climb the ladder of success, than you can start by making sure the largest employer pays a living wage. If Walmart doesn't like it, than stop protecting their overseas trade routes for free. Unwind their tax breaks and make them pay for the services they get from the state.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Walmart is the largest employer in the world, yet it barely pays its employees enough to survive.

You can say to the Walmart slave "get another job", but we're talking about the world's largest employer. This isn't just an irrelevant statistical anomaly - this is the new normal.

Contrast this with the profits of Walmart's owners, who have enough financial leverage to finance elections across continents. Talk about concentrated power. The Walmart wage structure symbolizes a new American aristocracy where a tiny cabal of capitalist elites and their political puppets run the nation.

If you want to make America prosperous again, if you want to give a whole population of hard working families the chance to better themselves and climb the ladder of success, than you can start by making sure the largest employer pays a living wage. If Walmart doesn't like it, than stop protecting their overseas trade routes for free. Unwind their tax breaks and make them pay for the services they get from the state.

What services from the state? Walmart doesn't get services from the state.

Walmart is consumer driven. That is to say Walmart provides American customers with what they want, and we want the cheapest prices we can get. Quality no longer matters, it's how much we can buy for as little as we can buy it.

That's why Walmart is the biggest employer. Forcing Walmart to pay higher wages or pressuring politicians to increase minimum wage is not the answer. The answer is for the American consumer to change their attitude about purchases. But that will never happen.

However let's say we implemented your plan. What do you think Walmart would do? That's right, increase the prices of their products. So what? People will just have to pay those prices, right? Wrong.

The largest enemy of brick and mortar stores is the internet. Companies on the internet can undercut everybody including Walmart because there is no store, there are no shelf stockers, They don't have to heat or air condition hundreds of huge buildings. There are no cashiers.

So now that we are forced to shop the internet, hundreds of thousands of those low paying jobs will vanish, and those workers won't even have that to supplement their government goodies.

That's not a solution to the problem, that's exchanging the problem for something much worse.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So if they make any profit above zero they are immoral? What do you think a "just" level of profit is, 10%? 5%? 0%?

since everyone who works at Walmart is there voluntarily, how are they doing anything immoral? What is your definition of "moral?" What is the arbitrary number that makes one rate of pay moral and another immoral? What is the basis for drawing this line?

Because libs believe that company owners, CEO's, and investors should all share the wealth they've made with the company with the employees.

For a lib, forget about what the job is worth. That's meaningless. Forget about the fact they can pay wages and still attract willing workers. Again, meaningless to a lib. Forget the fact that companies heavily rely on investors, and investors put their money where the best growth is. Meaningless to a liberal.

What matters is that owners, CEO's and investors live the same lifestyle as the workers.....or perhaps just slightly better. To live much better is immoral as far as liberals are concerned.

"Just how much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

The Walmart employees worked for that money. Walmart was, at the time, the second most profitable company in America. That profit was made on the labour of Walmart Employees. To suggest that the employees don't deserve their fair share of such profit, is to promote feudalism.

They can leave if they don't like the pay and go to work somewhere else, except for the little fact that they don't have the skills to work anywhere paying any more.

. Couldn't they aqquire the skills if had plenty more options, instead of finding themselves working for the giant that gobbled everyone else up ? Like some else said here, other retailers had to adjust their labor rates against the giant to stay in business against it, but that drove everyone to the bottom eventually. Large corporations like Walmart should be broken up, and the individual areas that exist on the floor of Walmart (I.e sporting goods, hardware, pet supplies, etc.) should be sold to independent operators who will then own the small businesses they would operate under the Walmart platform. It would be like selling franchises, only that you would walk into your business when the Walmart doors open up each day, instead of having your own brick & mortar operation.

Once again you fall back on your Communist principles. That is not how we do things in this country. Why don't you seek out a country where they do these sort of things? I here Venezuela is nice this time of year if you don't mind starving to death.