WalMart Donation Bins Out Again This Year - Cheap Bastards

[Carla_Danger]

Do you have a problem with making up the difference, with our tax dollars, so Walmart employees can eat?

They don't all need my tax dollars to eat, and if they weren't working at Wal-Mart do you think it would be any different? Do you think if there were no more food stamps Wal-Mart would suddenly raise their pay?

Logically the answer to your question would be yes. If food stamps disappeared , Wal Mart would have to raise wages.

Sounds illogical? No, think it through.

If SNAP (or food stamps) disappeared tomorrow, millions of working people would suddenly not have enough money to buy food. They would then logically HAVE to demand a raise from their employer. Now a big employer like Wal Mart certainly could just shrug and say "**** you" because they always have people lined up wanting work, but the smaller mom and pop type places would have to raise wages or risk losing employees to among other things, starvation or homelessness.

That would filter up, and eventually Wal Mart WOULD have to raise wages in order to compete for employees.

Now the tricky part is , those employers would then demand more value out of those employees or let them go. I mean it just is logical that if you are currently paying someone $8 an hour and suddenly raise them to $10 an hour you expect to see some dividends from that move.

And THAT my friend is the crux of the issue. Big Employers like Wal Mart like having low wage employees and low wage employees like having low demand jobs. SNAP benefits them both. Employers get bodies for low skill jobs at wages that are subsidized by welfare and employees get jobs that demand very little and who's lower wages are subsidized by welfare.

So, BOTH sides of this issue, are as usual, a little right and a little wrong, SNAP benefits low wage employers AND wage employees at a cost to everyone else.

Slave masters are usually smart enough not to starve their slaves.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

If people lived within their means and weren't foolish with their money then our society as a whole would benefit. Yeah, I'd like to buy this or that at $3,000, but it'd be better to hold onto the money instead. If you can't easily afford yourself, chances are it might not be wise to go ahead and start a family. Some people spend their money freely and don't have the prudence to keep a portion of it socked away.

No doubt that is true

But , let's break down $8.79 an hour for a single person

FULL time you're talking 2080 hours so $18,283 per year before taxes (and remember most WM cashiers are NOT getting 40 hours a week)

Now lets just assume that a person earning this has net zero federal or state income tax and figure on the entire amount.

$1523 a month.

Let's make some further assumptions. Let's make things as cheap as possible for our fictitious Wal Mart cashier.

Let's assume a 2 bed room apartment with room mates, anyone know of anywhere where such an apartment (unless a total POS) would be less than $600 a month no utilities included? No? I didn't think so so, we'll figure $300 a month in rent + say another $200 in utilities.

That's $500 a month gone right there
.
Then we have food, everyone has to eat (and again we're assuming no SNAP here) let's figure a modest $5 per meal per day (or of course $15 * 365) That is $81 a month just for basic food needs. Let's round to an even $100 for easier math.

That's $600 a month gone

Now, everyone has to buy the necessities, toilet paper, tooth paste, shampoo, laundry items, etc etc. Let's be super cheap and figure another $100 a month

That's $700 a month gone

Okay, a phone is a MUST today. No one will hire anyone who they can't call. See ya another $50 a month

$750 a month gone

Transportation, EVERYONE has to have transportation, whether that's your own vehicle, a bicycle, the bus, or whatever, everyone has to have a way to get to work and back. This is another AT minimum $100 a month (be realistic no one is walking or riding a bicycle to work year round)

That's $850 per month

Insurances. Everyone has to have insurance now. If you're earning $18K a year you qualify for a subsidy which would make your open market policy cost you around $150 a month if you chose to go that route because your employer didn't offer insurance (Wal Mart does and their policy for a single person would cost the employee almost $200 a month, so we'll go with the cheaper figure)

That's $1000 a month gone.


So, you, and others, are on here bitching about an employee who "wastes" $500 a month on things other than the absolute bare essentials?

I mean what's the point of working any job if you don't have a few extra bucks to spend on something besides barely living?

And more importantly, why should we the people stand idly by while some people are barely eeking by so that their employers can get even richer?

I'm a firm believer in equilibrium. Absolutely a company like Wal Mart has to make a big profit in order to encourage both themselves and other companies to continue to expand. Without the incentive of getting rich, who would invest in the Wal Marts of the world? However, how much is enough? If the minimum wage were $2 an hour, do you think some of these companies would pay much more than that ? Hint, they wouldn't.

It's no different than saying if there weren't a law telling DuPont that instead of just dumping their toxic waste in the river that they must spend millions cleaning it up, that they would voluntarily spend that money? Hint, they wouldn't.


A board of directors of a large company, or well any company really, has one mandate - make the shareholders as much money as legally possible.

That necessitates a government to set the laws and tell a company "no you can't do that"

Child labor laws, the minimum wage, safety regulations, all those things didn't come to pass because the government was bored (most of these laws came before Congress was as corrupt as it is now) they came to pass because companies were abusing employees.

Do you realize that at one point in our history we had employers killing employees who dared to ask for a raise? And NOTHING was done about it.

 

[initforme]

Again anyone with half a brain does not care if a full time employee gets some gov't assistance. I think the problem is only with those that refuse to wok. I have zero problem with a full time worker getting gov't assistance. Nor do others.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Do you have a problem with making up the difference, with our tax dollars, so Walmart employees can eat?

They don't all need my tax dollars to eat, and if they weren't working at Wal-Mart do you think it would be any different? Do you think if there were no more food stamps Wal-Mart would suddenly raise their pay?

Logically the answer to your question would be yes. If food stamps disappeared , Wal Mart would have to raise wages.

Sounds illogical? No, think it through.

If SNAP (or food stamps) disappeared tomorrow, millions of working people would suddenly not have enough money to buy food. They would then logically HAVE to demand a raise from their employer. Now a big employer like Wal Mart certainly could just shrug and say "**** you" because they always have people lined up wanting work, but the smaller mom and pop type places would have to raise wages or risk losing employees to among other things, starvation or homelessness.

That would filter up, and eventually Wal Mart WOULD have to raise wages in order to compete for employees.

Now the tricky part is , those employers would then demand more value out of those employees or let them go. I mean it just is logical that if you are currently paying someone $8 an hour and suddenly raise them to $10 an hour you expect to see some dividends from that move.

And THAT my friend is the crux of the issue. Big Employers like Wal Mart like having low wage employees and low wage employees like having low demand jobs. SNAP benefits them both. Employers get bodies for low skill jobs at wages that are subsidized by welfare and employees get jobs that demand very little and who's lower wages are subsidized by welfare.

So, BOTH sides of this issue, are as usual, a little right and a little wrong, SNAP benefits low wage employers AND wage employees at a cost to everyone else.

Slave masters are usually smart enough not to starve their slaves.

Which is why I guarantee a little digging would reveal that these large corporations donate millions to guarantee that SNAP continues unabated.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Again anyone with half a brain does not care if a full time employee gets some gov't assistance. I think the problem is only with those that refuse to wok. I have zero problem with a full time worker getting gov't assistance. Nor do others.

Wrong. I have a HUGE problem with it.

A full time employee should NOT qualify for government assistance. It's shameful.

Note - I am talking about a single person with no dependents, if you are making $8 an hour and have 3 or 4 kids to support, I believe you should be charged with neglect and have your kids taken from you.

 

[thereisnospoon]

They are the number one beneficiary of food stamps. They pay off lobbyists to make sure there are plenty of funds to go out to subsidize food in the Ag bill. It's how they make their pay day.

Yup.

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance
Report Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers 6.2 Billion In Public Assistance - Forbes

""""Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15."""

Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Progressives, huh?....Credibility just went right down the pooper.
Ahh. I call bullshit right here....
“It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.”
Really....So every Walmart worker in a store is collecting a mean amount of $4400 each in public assistance?
Have you any idea the absurdity of that statistic?
I'm not defending Walmart.
I am OFFENDING these liberal freaks and their exhaustive and ultimately fruitless vendetta against ONE company. Especially in light of the fact that the entire retail industry is well known for low labor rates. There's a reason for this. Retail work does not require any special skills. Because low skill workers come in large numbers and that labor is a commodity and subject to the laws of supply and demand, dictates wages come in on the lower end of the scale.
And because no one is forced to work retail, those that believe they are not being paid enough are free to move on to other work.
Now, if one wishes to make more, perhaps they could have a chat with HR and inquire about management training...Idea?

 

[thereisnospoon]

They are the number one beneficiary of food stamps. They pay off lobbyists to make sure there are plenty of funds to go out to subsidize food in the Ag bill. It's how they make their pay day.

You know this how?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Cheap, cheap bastards.... THey are number 6- 9 of the top 10 wealthiest Americans according to Forbes. And yet they are not too proud to beg from their own employees. Shame.....

They are worth $140,000,000,000 and they won't pay a living wage.



#6 Christy Walton & family $41.1 B $38 B 59 Jackson, WY Wal-Mart
#7 Jim Walton $40 B $36 B 66 Bentonville, AR Wal-Mart
#8 Alice Walton $38.5 B $34.9 B 65 Fort Worth, TX Wal-Mart
#9 S. Robson Walton $38.5 B $34.8 B 70 Bentonville, AR

Henry Ford would be disgusted.

Henry Ford said often he wanted to make a product that even his own employees could afford, that's how you do it.
These fuckers are 21st century railroad barons who use a new minority to abuse, Hispanics and Blacks, instead of the Chinese.

Are you going to start crying now?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

They are the number one beneficiary of food stamps. They pay off lobbyists to make sure there are plenty of funds to go out to subsidize food in the Ag bill. It's how they make their pay day.

Yup.

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance
Report Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers 6.2 Billion In Public Assistance - Forbes

""""Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15."""

Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Progressives, huh?....Credibility just went right down the pooper.
Ahh. I call bullshit right here....
“It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.”
Really....So every Walmart worker in a store is collecting a mean amount of $4400 each in public assistance?
Have you any idea the absurdity of that statistic?
I'm not defending Walmart.
I am OFFENDING these liberal freaks and their exhaustive and ultimately fruitless vendetta against ONE company. Especially in light of the fact that the entire retail industry is well known for low labor rates. There's a reason for this. Retail work does not require any special skills. Because low skill workers come in large numbers and that labor is a commodity and subject to the laws of supply and demand, dictates wages come in on the lower end of the scale.
And because no one is forced to work retail, those that believe they are not being paid enough are free to move on to other work.
Now, if one wishes to make more, perhaps they could have a chat with HR and inquire about management training...Idea?

Yes, of course that study is bogus.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Again anyone with half a brain does not care if a full time employee gets some gov't assistance. I think the problem is only with those that refuse to wok. I have zero problem with a full time worker getting gov't assistance. Nor do others.

Wrong. I have a HUGE problem with it.

A full time employee should NOT qualify for government assistance. It's shameful.

Note - I am talking about a single person with no dependents, if you are making $8 an hour and have 3 or 4 kids to support, I believe you should be charged with neglect and have your kids taken from you.

You had me until the last sentence.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Again anyone with half a brain does not care if a full time employee gets some gov't assistance. I think the problem is only with those that refuse to wok. I have zero problem with a full time worker getting gov't assistance. Nor do others.

Wrong. I have a HUGE problem with it.

A full time employee should NOT qualify for government assistance. It's shameful.

Note - I am talking about a single person with no dependents, if you are making $8 an hour and have 3 or 4 kids to support, I believe you should be charged with neglect and have your kids taken from you.

You had me until the last sentence.

It's neglect to have children you can't provide the basics for Carla. You're not doing those children any good by allowing them to be neglected, and the parents of those children should be charged with a crime.

 

[MikeK]

How the **** do you idiots even know that is for real??? What a bunch of gullible retards.

If you doubt the credibility of this report you could easily have researched it via Google.

Go here: Walmart Store Holding Thanksgiving Charity Food Drive -- For Its Own Employees - Forbes

It's rather clear you don't wish to believe this report but the important question is, why!

 

[Carla_Danger]

Again anyone with half a brain does not care if a full time employee gets some gov't assistance. I think the problem is only with those that refuse to wok. I have zero problem with a full time worker getting gov't assistance. Nor do others.

Wrong. I have a HUGE problem with it.

A full time employee should NOT qualify for government assistance. It's shameful.

Note - I am talking about a single person with no dependents, if you are making $8 an hour and have 3 or 4 kids to support, I believe you should be charged with neglect and have your kids taken from you.

You had me until the last sentence.

It's neglect to have children you can't provide the basics for Carla. You're not doing those children any good by allowing them to be neglected, and the parents of those children should be charged with a crime.

In this country, it's not a crime to have children. Plus, there are a lot of single parents who live with their parents, to make ends meet.

Actually, your last sentence is just wrong on so many levels, I don't have the strength right this minute. But if your goal is to save taxpayers, taking children from poor families is not going to do it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Walmart really ought just shut down entirely.

That'll save all those folks from being forced to work all those low paying jobs!

There ya go...Then these silly libs can ***** about how unfair Walmart is for laying off all those millions of workers.
Look, whenever this subject comes up one must remember that but for Walmart's staunch anti union stance, we would not be discussing this.
it wouldn't matter if not a single Walmart worker became a member of a labor collective. The fact that Walmart management is anti union is what sets these libs hair on fire.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Again anyone with half a brain does not care if a full time employee gets some gov't assistance. I think the problem is only with those that refuse to wok. I have zero problem with a full time worker getting gov't assistance. Nor do others.

Wrong. I have a HUGE problem with it.

A full time employee should NOT qualify for government assistance. It's shameful.

Note - I am talking about a single person with no dependents, if you are making $8 an hour and have 3 or 4 kids to support, I believe you should be charged with neglect and have your kids taken from you.

You had me until the last sentence.

It's neglect to have children you can't provide the basics for Carla. You're not doing those children any good by allowing them to be neglected, and the parents of those children should be charged with a crime.

In this country, it's not a crime to have children. Plus, there are a lot of single parents who live with their parents, to make ends meet.

Actually, your last sentence is just wrong on so many levels, I don't have the strength right this minute. But if your goal is to save taxpayers, taking children from poor families is not going to do it.

Oh, I'm quite literally suggesting that it SHOULD be a crime to have children you can't afford to raise properly.

I honestly don't care if you approve of that idea or not. It is insane that we have a system that ENCOURAGES morons to produce more morons that they can't afford to raise.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Cheap, cheap bastards.... THey are number 6- 9 of the top 10 wealthiest Americans according to Forbes. And yet they are not too proud to beg from their own employees. Shame.....

They are worth $140,000,000,000 and they won't pay a living wage.



#6 Christy Walton & family $41.1 B $38 B 59 Jackson, WY Wal-Mart
#7 Jim Walton $40 B $36 B 66 Bentonville, AR Wal-Mart
#8 Alice Walton $38.5 B $34.9 B 65 Fort Worth, TX Wal-Mart
#9 S. Robson Walton $38.5 B $34.8 B 70 Bentonville, AR

Henry Ford would be disgusted.

Henry Ford said often he wanted to make a product that even his own employees could afford, that's how you do it.
These fuckers are 21st century railroad barons who use a new minority to abuse, Hispanics and Blacks, instead of the Chinese.

I'm glad I live in the Midwest where the concept of One stop shopping was invented. The Walton's ripped off the idea from the Meijer family, who, incidentally, not only allows their employees to unionize, but also hasn't gone public.

This allows them to make all the decisions and keep control of the business so they don't have to be accountable, by law to stockholders. The profit motive is NOT their biggest or only overriding concern. They have never had growing to big or expansion so large that they lose their identity, values and soul at the expense of communities and folks they serve.

In my town, the Meijer and Wall-mart are side by side. You notice the difference EVEN IN THE PARKING LOTS. The people who drive in the Meijer parking lot are more attentive, courteous and kind. They pay attention, and wait for each other at the stop signs. The parking lot lines are straight, because the drivers have no problem pulling in and out of them.

At Wall-mart, everyone is rude, in a rush and doesn't pay attention. You are liable to get hit if you don't watch yourself. They cut you off, and don't know how to drive worth a damn. They also angle the parking space line, so you need to pull in to the lanes the correct way, or else you can't park, because none of the customers know how to pull in and out of spaces.


Don't even get me started on the service desk. Or how NOBODY is ever around if you need help at a Wall-mart. Those stores are awful. They only time I go into them is around Christmas because they have a slightly better selection if my kid wants something I can't find.

I'll gladly pay the extra couple cents a product might cost at Meijer. That extra five bucks every shopping trip is worth every penny to keep a morally decent store like Meijer in my state.


Wall-mart drives me nuts and disgusts me.

Ahh that didn't take long.
Someone played the "union card".
Don't be surprised if Meijer gets bought out by a larger retailer.
Especially if Meijer is doing well. The best time to buy a competitor is when their position is strong.
Save for some grocers in the northeast, mid west and California, unions are almost non existent in retail.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Isn't it wonderful that you have a choice of where to shop!

Now, why do you feel qualified to tell others they should not have that choice?

Well, you have a good point there Henry.

It is on those RARE occasions that I DO go to Wall-mart, that I notice their clientele. It saddens me to no end that the elites are taking advantage of those folks.

I know how the political system works. It is called corporatism, which is essentially fascism. I am not in favor of that. I like the free market. I HATE the government picking winners and losers.

I get my organic food at a local mom and pop place. In the summer I get my produce at the farmers market.



But I know how the Waltons USE the federal government to bilk the taxpayers of millions of dollars to make sure that the food stamp program stays in place.

Do you know that food stamps artificially inflate the cost of food for everyone else? Who do you think benefits from that?

THAT IS NOT the free market. That is an incestuous relationship between corporations and the government.

The people that lose the most are the people of Wall-Mart. They are the ones that feed the beast, all because they like the cheapest price. They don't know that BECAUSE they like the cheapest price, they have caused the BEAST to grow out of control.

I am just trying to raise awareness, that NO, what we have here IS NOT a free system, it is corruption at it's worst.

These people that shop their are like heroine junkies making the problem worse. Their none to bright Henry, none to bright.



You stand with them, I won't. I think it is cruel of the Waltons to take advantage of them, just like it is cruel of the Waltons to not allow their employees to unionize while these people are pissing and shitting on the floors. And believe me, their customer DO that.

Oh shut up. You are just complaining. If you had a substantive argument I would engage.
Just admit your entire approach here is to further the cause of organized labor.
Here's a fact for you. Union membership continues to drop. Now just under 7% of the private sector is unionized. And that is in part because workers have seen the light. They know that unions are businesses and given the choice to continue operating and paying their top brass gobs of money, or throwing their members under the bus, the bus wins.
These unions do nothing for the workers while the workers get to be taxed 5% or more of their earnings so that union delegates and union bosses get to drive expensive cars and live in large homes in far flung suburbs. All the while they belong to the same hypocrisy you accuse of the corporations.
I find much irony in that.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Don't donate. Your problem is solved. Many of the employees are just living beyond their means and having children they can not afford.

When rats have a reduced food supply they don't breed. I know that people aren't as smart as rats. They can learn from them though.

Maybe the ones having babies they can't afford are republicans and don't believe in abortion.

That is just a stupid response.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wal-Mart is asking employees to donate? Good for them. I'm glad to hear these employees are doing well enough to do that.

I've worked for organizations before who've asked some employees to help others for the holidays. It's really nothing more than an expression of the heart; maybe so they can buy more toys for their kids or something. I mean, if the co-workers were really in need, they would be in need all year.

I am sure they are. . .

One car repair or medical bill away from homelessness.

Oh please stop it with the dramatics...
What's next? An entire farm full of straw men?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

More idiotic proof that liberals can NOT be convinced to agree on anything. It all has to be there way or forget it.

Bear says "pay a single employee enough that they don't need welfare, but make it illegal to have kids you can't afford" carla , and others, say "oh bear that's not fair poor people have a right to have kids, doesn't matter if they can afford them or not"