Walmart: Everyday Low Wages!

Tagged:  

Go after the entitlements Mr. President! Walmart's six family aires own more wealth than the bottom 40% of America. Walmart is the largest receipt of government welfare. Walmart's everyday low wages cost U.S. taxpayers $2.6 billion annually in government social services for its poverty employees. Walmart, biggest corporate welfare queen in America.

No votes yet

You didn't slight any points of ignorance in the WalMart posting.

First, I'm thinking that the family that started the largest retail chain in the world probably would be rich. Good for them--I hope they buy everything they want because that puts other people to work.

Second, you don't mean to imply that people who stock shelves and scan price labels deserve to make more than minimum wage--do you?

Third, I think you're blaming WalMart for giving jobs to people--could that be true? When I was in MBA school, we did a case study on WalMart and found that the company's growth is outside of the U.S. That is the reason the company is serious when it says that if the workers become unionized--it will shut its U.S. stores. By your logic, that would be good because then the government wouldn't have to provide social services to its poverty-stricken employees!

Well Gault tell that to all the middle class small business owners who lost their livelihoods when the ogre came to their community begging for tax breaks and special treatment. Yes many of those who lost their businesses are probably working for Walmart's everyday low wages. Why do you see this movement among local businesses to buy local? Because of the ogre down the street who has the money to lobby government officials for a better deal. No Walmart is a business model that does more harm than good for all Americans.

Between you and me I run the Walmart street signal on Central Avenue every chance I get. I don't shop there and I don't want them infringing on my freedom of movement.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Your post suffers from what I call the "Inability to connect the dots" syndrome.

Everything you mention as problems (i.e. lobbying politicians, tax breaks, and traffic signals) is related to the government. Still, you support a president and political party that believe more government control is good--control over our health care, our companies, our lightbulbs, our financial system, etc. It doesn't make sense.

Study proves it: Walmart super-stores kill off local small businesses
BY STEVEN BARRISON
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-05-04/local/29523684_1_small-busine...
Quote from article:
"In 2006, the big-box retailer promised to bring jobs to the cash-strapped community. But according to a landmark study by Loyola University, the company's rhetoric didn't match reality: Within two years of Walmart's opening its doors, 82 local stores went out of business."

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

What you posted does not refute what Galt wrote.

Galt and you have shown that Walmart has received tax breaks and special treatment by government. So is Walmart the problem? I'd say government is. Local small business could better compete with Walmart if they were given the same treatment but they are not and thus forced to close their doors.

Either way you slice it government is the root problem by picking winners and losers.

MikeyA

Wolfman can't address that, Mike. Liberals love big government. They imagine that the bigger, the better, until it ultimately controls all the means of production and distribution, invariably shuffling the good stuff to the Liberals like Wolfman who have long supported them.

A pure power play. Sadly for Wolfman, it doesn't work that way. The more the govt seizes the means of production, the more it suppresses production itself. That's what militant socialism taught us... or would have taught us, if Liberals were capable of learning, which they aren't.

GZ

Gz what are you talking about big government of the Walton's and their ilk? Six Waltons control more wealth than 40% of the bottom combined! How much is too much and then "they" end up controlling us all through a oligarchy government. I think we're there now!

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

How much is too much? Well, whatever your income is--it's too much and you should pay a 50% tax rate. See--the question isn't "how much is too much," but who gets TO DECIDE how much is too much.

On a somewhat related subject, I heard today on the NFL Network that the Kansas City player who killed his girlfriend was having money problems. He made $1.9 million this season. How much is too much?

If we had a small government then big business interests can't use it against the people. The worst monopolies exist due TO government, not in SPITE of government.

How many times do you have to be told this? You're like a Liberal robot, repeating the same failed points over and over.

Loyola University Chicago study
The Impact of an Urban Wal-Mart Store on Area Businesses:
An Evaluation of One Chicago Neighborhood’s Experience
http://luc.edu/curl/pdfs/Media/WalMartReport21010_01_11.pdf

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Carpenter's Union, in NYC, were convicted of racketeering, embezzlement, grand theft, forgeries, and many other felonies in a scheme to steal members health insurance premiums to the tune of $11 MILLION !?

Typical union bureaucrats-too much time killing jobs & doing nothing, using their collective natural talents of stealing, to collectively relieve their hard working ,dues paying members, from their hard earned dough !

( All voted for SantaObbamma, 9 or 10 times each.)

1,208 more union corruption stories to go for 2012 alone !!!

Once again the poster puts the blame on the business and not the true culprit, the government. The elected elite who only want to stay in power will do whatever it takes to stay there. If it means selling your local business down the river so be it. This is an old and tired story and is not likely to change anytime soon. Perhaps the poster would like to see Wal Mart close it's stores and put all the non union workers out on the street, or to allow the union to come into Wal Mart thereby raising the cost of all it's goods.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

If the Walmarts of the world closed then maybe small business will get an even shake to thrive and compete without all the corporate welfare rigged by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street oligarchs. Think of our best days when American manufacturing and small business formed a symbiotic relationship were all thrived and government was awash in funding. Now we have "free" markets for those in the top percentile and the rest are sliding into serfdom.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

all growth, equity, and bond funds.
Then moron, check what Uncle SantaObamma's Treasury notes are paying !

Vapid bacteria like you no doubt are all in with Obozo's Mutual Destruction Fund or a Jon Corzine/ Bernie Madoff-scam !
Laughing hysterically...

Costco's business model is kicking Walmart's ass in many ways. By taking care of their employees with above average wages and good health benefits, Costco is experiencing many rewards in the areas of low turnover, higher sales per employee, and customer loyalty, all of which helps lower their total overhead. Because Costco's employees are well compensated they can give back to the community instead of having to look for financial help.

The point of your original post is clear: Walmart, after getting government help to locate, keeps the majority of its employees poor, hence the need for its workers to seek assistance from government. It's a vicious circle that only helps the rich, while burdening the taxpayers. Hopefully such a business model will someday fall by the wayside.

Here's a link to an article in the Ivey Business Journal about how businesses profit from taking care of their employees like Costco, instead of just giving them jobs like Walmart.

http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/the-organization/how-businesse...

So how would these Walmarts of the world be closed, Wolfie? From government order? The same government power to just close businesses, can be applied to any business that YOU start. Once again you Liberals demonstrate that you have no capital and/or have never started a business. You have no idea about business origination, nor of business operations, which is why you don't believe in the rights of private property.

As for the rest of the people "sliding into serfdom", that only happens in the USA because you goddamned middle class morons can't stop whipping your pens across bank application forms. You keep borrowing and spending. So you end up slaves. See that big light bulb clicking on over your head? Wait, does it EVER do that?

You goddamned middle class morons keep screwing yourselves over, then you keep looking for the government to dig you out of each deep hole you find yourselves in. Another light bulb moment for ya: CREDIT IS NOT A RIGHT. Credit isn't necessary, even to live as the middle class. You can easily live your entire life without borrowing a single dollar. And you'll have a better life to boot, since you won't have to pay the ruinous costs of credit (interest charges! ever heard of them!?!?).

Perhaps the poster would like to see Wal Mart close it's stores and put all the non union workers out on the street, or to allow the union to come into Wal Mart thereby raising the cost of all it's goods.

Or perhaps Walmart could stop externalizing their negative costs. Paying a living wage works out to an increase of $0.46 per trip for the average shopper, or about $12 per year and this meager increase would result in tens of thousands of people leaving public assistance programs.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

I'm suprised they haven't hired you yet as CEO.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

But I'm actually Mike Duke.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

Again I'll use waitresses as an example.

Where is the outrage at the government taxing them? A large majority of them are on food stamps. Where's the outrage at their resteraunts getting to pay over less than half the minimum wage?

On top of that here's comes our government savior who then comes and taxes their tips, the reason they get paid less than the average employee!

Now if you believe in women's rights this is the fight you should have. Why? Women make up over 70% of the wait staff in this country. The government is waging a war on poor women and instead of discussing it the liberals are taking on the fight of the unions.

Why do the unions have such a problem with Walmart? Because by unionizing only Walmart they would double the number of union workers in this country. Take heed, the unions have tried to unionize Target too but they haven't demonized them to the extent of Walmart despite there being no discernable difference in their labor practices. Why is this? Because Target is not as large as Walmart.

Once again. The liberals here are only waging the unions war to try to double the size of the unionized workers in the country. They really don't care about workers wages.

MikeyA

"Again I'll use waitresses as an example..."

'Why do the unions have such a problem with Walmart?"

Unionization of Walmart is irrelevant to the discussion. I'm talking about the burden Walmart shifts onto taxpayers, which we have to pay regardless of whether we choose to shop at one of their stores.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

Organizing waitresses to unionize will help waitresses/waiters/tipped employees improve their lot in life. i suppose you are all for that.

I'll stand up with you on waitresses getting better pay... and no tax, or at least less tax, on their tips. I tip pretty good already, but I'd be willing to pay more for a meal if I knew the waitresses were benefiting. Do you feel the same, or are you just using this as an example?

I don't agree with you that liberals are taking up a union fight. It's not about having a union just for the sake of having a union; it's about workers being treated well. If a company does that on its own, more power to them, keep unions out. That's why if you go to many of the liberal blogs right now you can see posts praising the business model of Costco. There are some Costcos that are union, but not all of them. I have not seen any posts calling for the unionization of all Costcos. That's because to the average liberal it's about treatment, not unions. Costco is showing that workers can be treated well without unions, and they are making a profit doing it. This is what we need more of in America.

I will respond to all of you here for the sake of brevity.

"Unionization of Walmart is irrelevant to the discussion. I'm talking about the burden Walmart shifts onto taxpayers, which we have to pay regardless of whether we choose to shop at one of their stores." No it's not. If that were the case we'd have the same demonization of Target as I pointed out, we don't. In fact, when a new Target is opened the liberals generally welcome it with open arms.

"Organizing waitresses to unionize will help waitresses/waiters/tipped employees improve their lot in life. i suppose you are all for that." I would have no problem with it as long as the quality of service doesn't suffer. Unfortunatley the structure of unions generally prevents this. Also, whether it's sustainable is questionable, for instance, are you aware the profit margin of food service is barely 5%. http://www.forbes.com/sites/sageworks/2012/01/11/restaurants-serve-up-hi... You are talking to a former union employee and a former waiter.

What you don't understand is unlike Walmart, food service is an area where a low income person can have an immediate positive affect on their take home pay. It only requires motivation, iniative, and hard work.

"I don't agree with you that liberals are taking up a union fight. It's not about having a union just for the sake of having a union; it's about workers being treated well. If a company does that on its own, more power to them, keep unions out." If that were really true we'd see many other businesses come under fire, but as I pointed out with Target as a specific example that does not happen. I agree with you about Costco. Those are the businesses we all should support and we have the ability as consumers to affect that by not frequenting those establishments, unfortunately the ones who generally don't change their consumer habits are the low income. That does not mean we should punish the Company through government. When we involve government we open a large can of worms of unintended consequences. I want government out of the job of picking winners and losers because they are exceptionally bad at it.

Likewise I have long advocated for allowing businesses to allow a company to be waived from the minimum wage if they provide health benefits to their workers. Healthcare is long cited as a reason to increase minimum wage. With every increase though the workers don't use the extra money for healthcare, they use it to spend more at Walmart. What does happen with minimum wage increases is union jobs that are guaranteed to be X percentage above minimum wage get a non-negiotiated pay raise. Do you wonder why unions are the biggest fighters for minimum wage increases?

You liberals fall into the union trap every time. "It's a fool's paradise and they(sic) are leading you down the primrose path."- Ed Rooney, Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Sorry HB I couldn't find a convenient video of it for you.

MikeyA

Michigan takes steps to go "right to work" or as some unionbots call it "right to work for less". Ask the Hostess workers about right to work for less. In any case Thursday at 7:30a Michael LaFaive of the Mackinaw Center (a well known right wing extremist organization-that's for you Paul) will be my guest to talk about the new move that will put Ohio even further behind it's neighbors.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

I couldn't fit in the title anything about Bain and CC and bankruptcy but I'm sure someone else will.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Yes nice segway to promote your half baked one-sided program. We all know the drill, more union bashing by the corporate owned Mackinaw Center. We seen last year when Caterpillar relocated from Canada to Indiana after they became right to work. The Canadians were making some $30/hr now Indianans are doing the same jobs for $12. Yes keep promoting right to work Fred and you to will be working for minimum wages.

Caterpillar Closes Plant in Canada After Lockout
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020388990457720095301457596...

Quote from article:
"Caterpillar's decision, ending a standoff with locked-out workers huddled around barrels of burning scrap wood outside the London factory gates, may benefit another downtrodden manufacturing city: Muncie, Ind., where Caterpillar last year opened a locomotive plant and where it is trying to fill jobs at about half the pay workers in Ontario received. At a job fair in Muncie Saturday, Caterpillar will be offering jobs at that plant at wages ranging from $12 to $18.50 per hour. Wages for most workers at the Ontario plant are about 35 Canadian dollars an hour (US$35.03)."

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

$12-$18.50 an hour for Indiana workers who were making nothing an hour before being hired. I wonder if any of them read this post? Segway is a two wheeled vehicle by the way. I'm pretty sure you meant segue.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

The world raced to sell into the largest Middle class market in the world. They worked with Wall Street to lobby trade agreements so they could sell into our rich market while limiting our products in theirs. After 30 years of unfair trade that shifted our wealth to the top around the world, America is tapped out with debt, tapped out with a huge trade deficit, tapped out with huge government debt. Why? Because the average Joe does not have disposable income. When you cut wages in half you kill the consumer.

The Wall Street Journal consistently slants labor news. The wages at Caterpillar (Indiana) are mostly $12 an hour. Very few are at $18. A long way from $30/hr in Canada. So these workers will not be paying income tax to help with our growing federal debt. Fred your coworker Don is another one who has taken a paycut and has become one of Romney's so-called underclass leaches. Do I blame Don for this? No and all the Dons in the U.S. make our economy continue to flounder while those who have benefited the most during this wealth shift delude themselves as to who is really responsible...including yourself Fred. In your case you are one of only a few of your staff that make a living wage. The vast majority are making near poverty wages. When America was greatest was when we made things and sold them around the world. As I have said for decades the service economy will not work for America. It generates to little wealth and taxes ultimately making America globally weak and vulnerable. With deregulation and free trade pushed by Republicans and their wealthy donors we have become a banana republic.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

When you cut wages in half you kill the consumer.

If only that would happen, then it would fix itself. The half of the huge problem here was the offering of credit. None of that was forced, leading to the other half of the huge problem: The consumers signed up for debts at levels that go beyond merely setting new records.

So the consumers really killed themselves. They demanded their shops be filled with cheap goods, but those cheap goods could only have been produced using cheap labor, which meant NOT BY THEM.

If this were a true system of slavery, then it would work. Billions of 'people' overseas would be forced at gunpoint to produce, which we American slobs would then consume at our leisure. We'd 'buy' those goods using wages obtained from being part of the imperial violence system.

But even in the Third World, labor still has liberty. And here in the First World, capital still has liberty. The end result is that capital flees our shores, taking jobs with it, collapsing not only our tax base but our job base, hence undermining our consumerism. The global mean wage (~$2/hr) then determines wages worldwide. Labor in the First World will have to adapt or bankrupt. There's no third option (except for the Golden Class who have sunk their claws into government, but I digress).

Amen! Now after reading that GZ I'll go the the medicine cabinet and take two Zanex!

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Why stop at two? The government has no limit, why should you?

MikeyA

No I'll not need any drugs. I'm not suffering from extend tours in Iraq or Afghanistan. We all know the wealthy do not fight our wars but in your case you get a free pass....on the drugs that is.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Naw don't need em.

Besides the wealthy don't need to fight wars as long as they show their patriotism by buying Fiats.

MikeyA

"Yes keep promoting right to work Fred and you to will be working for minimum wages."

That's better than not working, receiving zero income. Notice well your welfare state is broke; you can't actually fulfill your plan to put everyone on a living wage.

The 'right to work' stuff is actually the natural right of employers and workers. Nobody should be forced to join a union. You're against natural liberties as most Liberals are. That just marks you as the enemy of American liberties. So it's good to know this now, while we're making lists. Lists of people we'll have to visit later, should there be a need to clean house.

So where does it end GZ? Will we and our children all be working in Chinese FoxCon slave shops? What is the goal here GZ?

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

The goal was for capital to make money and for the middle class to become rich. Obviously the latter was impossible to achieve. So the former goal was reached, and easily so, since it was fueled by the delusional expectations expressed by the latter.

If you're foreseeing that Foxconn-esque sweatshops are in our future, then what are you doing to prepare for it? I mean, other than filling message boards like this one with your Liberal balderdash? If you got cancer, for instance, you'd then get your affairs in order, right? So why isn't the middle class preparing for its own death?

The answer is that the middle class is fairly stupid. It engages in delusion. Like our government, it borrows and spends and pretends the future will take care of itself.

Really, you're mentally unprepared for what it will take for your class of person to survive, Wolfie. It really doesn't matter what I said, since you just won't follow anything I advise. You should be preparing for a future of little to no income. That means you're working on energy efficiency now. Almost none of you are doing that; you live in what are effectively wooden boxes that take a lot of energy to heat and cool, and remain connected to utilities that are expensive. You live so far from your workplaces that you have to blow through a lot of gasoline to get to and from work. Who among you actually maintain a family vegetable garden? The truth is most of you are 99.9% reliant on Krogers and Meijers for your food. Etc.

Really, that's what it all boils down to. You keep imagining that there's some sort of public mandate brewing that will fix all this once expressed through the force of government. That's bullshit of the highest order. You expect your property rights to be observed, and yet refuse to observe them for employers and landlords. It's cognitive dissonance. And it's drenched in hypocrisy.

So: Downsize your lifestyle first, before you can even begin running off at the mouth about who gets to keep what. But that means you'd feel POOR. Recent articles firmly establish that the Boomers are entering retirement while still in deep debt, in pretty much record numbers. You dirtbags just won't change. You won't give up when you've already clearly lost. No wonder the capitalists laugh at you. You're really like children to them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. People shouldn't shop there. I know it's a big catch 22 low wages mean you have to shop at a low place like that. But if we all shop at small businesses than they will stay in business. I'm proud to say I haven't been to a walmart or target or any big box store in over 2 years.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.