Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Low Wages at a Single Wal-Mart Store


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#31    shrooma

shrooma

    doesn't have one screw fully tightened.....

  • Member
  • 3,506 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 18 June 2013 - 08:08 PM

View PostLilly, on 18 June 2013 - 07:10 PM, said:

Christine Walton has a personal net worth of 16 billion dollars....something to think about.
.
christ!!
I hope she's a'sharin' with zeb & john boy & olivia & ester & john & mary ellen & jim bob & ben & cindy & martha & boone & wade & toni & elizabeth!
(didn't those 'goodnights' take forever??)
:-)

- - - - -disclaimer- - - - -    
all posts- without exception- are humourous.
if you fail to grasp the sublety, then don't whine on like a mardy-arsed
bĄtĒh due to your lack of understanding.

#32    rashore

rashore

    Telekinetic

  • 6,816 posts
  • Joined:26 Feb 2010
  • Gender:Female

Posted 18 June 2013 - 08:20 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 18 June 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

It is not unique of Wal-Mart, in fact the low wages at the expense of all is very instituted, starting with sweat shops and ending with cheap services at discounters.

Buying cheap at the end comes very expensive.

Oh no, it's not unique to Walmart at all. And that sucks. I was just pointing out this whole thing was based off one tiny piece of information, the BC+ program, and BC+ is only for certain people. It would be far more interesting and comprehensive to the whole picture if they had taken time to extrapolate multiple points of information and used multiple employers to get a better idea on what is going on.


#33    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,398 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 18 June 2013 - 08:25 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 18 June 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:



It is not unique of Wal-Mart, in fact the low wages at the expense of all is very instituted, starting with sweat shops and ending with cheap services at discounters.

Buying cheap at the end comes very expensive.
But what happens when everybody is paid a "living wage"? Things become more expensive and the living wage isn't so live able anymore and we are back to square one.

Posted Image

#34    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,303 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 18 June 2013 - 08:31 PM

View PostF3SS, on 18 June 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

But what happens when everybody is paid a "living wage"? Things become more expensive and the living wage isn't so live able anymore and we are back to square one.

Depends on whose dime you are doing it, so far it is on your dime, not on the dime of the corporations causing the problem. Your taxes pay for this. So, again, buying cheap comes expensive. There are losses in the government system dividing that money that you have to pay for too. If these people had decent wages there might be a little less earnings for the company (and given the amount they earn it would not really come to much), but it sure would put a dent into the welfare system.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#35    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,398 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 18 June 2013 - 08:37 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 18 June 2013 - 08:31 PM, said:



Depends on whose dime you are doing it, so far it is on your dime, not on the dime of the corporations causing the problem. Your taxes pay for this. So, again, buying cheap comes expensive. There are losses in the government system dividing that money that you have to pay for too. If these people had decent wages there might be a little less earnings for the company (and given the amount they earn it would not really come to much), but it sure would put a dent into the welfare system.
Yea but we are talking a 1.5 million dollar "tax payer cost" or probably a billion or two combining all Walmart stores which pales in comparison to the 200 billion dollar consumer savings that people of all incomes, but mostly lower, save each year shopping there.

Posted Image

#36    Lava_Lady

Lava_Lady

    Official UM Asylum Resident

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,832 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Hawai'i

  • Wha? /:0\

Posted 18 June 2013 - 08:48 PM

View Postthewild, on 18 June 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

You would be amazed at how many of us regular associates at wal-mart have degrees. One gal is a M.D. in mathmatics, but is retired so she makes change as a cashier. She is super intelligent, and a hoot to chat with. It is amazing how many are just trying to stretch their social security out. I am leaving retail(thank god) to pursue a career in health care. I used most of my paychecks to pay for college. I'm still not done but on the way to a better future.
*edit for spelling :)

I'm not surprised.  Since WalMart is a 24 hr operation it offers a nice variety of shifts for people going to school.  That part is awesome.  I am surprised that WalMart would pay slave labor wages to their associates.  That is sad to me.  There are so many drug abusing, homeless people that really take advantage of the system then there are people working hard to make a living and they get poop for pay.

I'd be a grump too.

Good on you though.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."  - F. Scott Fitzgerald


#37    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,303 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 18 June 2013 - 08:51 PM

View PostF3SS, on 18 June 2013 - 08:37 PM, said:

Yea but we are talking a 1.5 million dollar "tax payer cost" or probably a billion or two combining all Walmart stores which pales in comparison to the 200 billion dollar consumer savings that people of all incomes, but mostly lower, save each year shopping there.

Hmmm... so they are privy to the miraculous multiplication of bread and fish? I wonder how they do that with a total cash flow of only 30 15 billion. And there is nothing wrong with selling cheap, there is something wrong with getting back their generosity through the back door out of the same consumer pocket who they promise savings.

Edit, looked in the wrong column, sorry.

Edited by questionmark, 18 June 2013 - 08:55 PM.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#38    jugoso

jugoso

    One Love

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,587 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • "Freedom is free of the need to feel free. Free your mind and you ass will follow. The kingdom of heaven is within"
    G.Clinton

Posted 18 June 2013 - 09:26 PM

View PostF3SS, on 18 June 2013 - 07:15 PM, said:

Jugoso, how many anti Walmart threads will you make. This was all settled in the last thread and I'll quote my settling arguments again...
Edit: especially the part that states Walmart saves consumers $200B annually in savings.

Hey F3SS, I hadn´t seen your post # 18 before I had responded to another post. I certainly wouldn´t ignore it.
It´s an awful lot of infomation and I don´t have much time to respond to it all. I will question you on these points

Quote

7. Erase the Walmart CEO’s entire salary, and you can raise average hourly wages by just a penny or so.
8. Erase the entire Walton family fortune and you get an average $1/hour boost to Walmart workers.

You do realize that Wal-Mart is an international company, don´t you? Are you also aware that 20% of all Wal-Marts are located in Mexico? The minimum wage down here is about 60 pesos per DAY (about 50 cents US). One of my students works at Walmart and earns less tha 1$ a day. So I´m wondering if the above takes this into consideration? Raising salaries down here by 1$ an hour would mean increasing their pay by about 10 times. That´s something that nobody is expecting or asking for. I have a feeling the calculations above don´t take this into consideration.

They also used to pay the workers down here partially with vouchers redemable only at Wal-Mart stores until the Mexican Supreme court forbid them from doing so.

And I promise to start fewer anti-Walmart threads than pro/anti gun threads! ;)

Edited by jugoso, 18 June 2013 - 09:41 PM.

"Freedom is free of the need to feel free.
Free your mind and you ass will follow.
The kingdom of heaven is within"
G.Clinton

#39    rashore

rashore

    Telekinetic

  • 6,816 posts
  • Joined:26 Feb 2010
  • Gender:Female

Posted 18 June 2013 - 09:30 PM

View PostF3SS, on 18 June 2013 - 08:37 PM, said:

Yea but we are talking a 1.5 million dollar "tax payer cost" or probably a billion or two combining all Walmart stores which pales in comparison to the 200 billion dollar consumer savings that people of all incomes, but mostly lower, save each year shopping there.

If you are saying 1.5 million because of the OP... It would be 1.5 alone, it would not tabulate to anything else including all Walmarts. Because that's the outside figure on if every single WI Walmart employee that could be eligible for BC+ were actively enrolled, and no other states have BC+.
That's part of my problem with the whole report- it just does not include enough information, not to address WI alone, and for sure not enough to address the nation as a whole- let alone international Walmart, blech.
And zippo for other top employers, which would be really helpful as well. It's not just Walmart, it's other employers too.
These folks took the most recent state that submitted figures, which was Wisconsin, and took off from there. Imagine if California (one of the higher welfare states) had been the most recent to submit, or Delaware, one of the lower welfare states.

I mean.. look at it in alcohol. Lots of that in Wi :)
30,000 walmart employees at 100 stores of 300 each... 3,000 drink 10 Budweisers a day, and that's confirmed statewide total. Gosh, if you push that out, that means at one store, they could drink 3,000 Buds a day! That could mean billions if you go further! But it really isn't accurate, since some folks don't drink, or drink other beers. The study would mean more if they included all kinds of beer, people who don't drink or drink other various beverages, what is being drunk at the top 5 other employers with confirmed Bud drinking. And it means not much to add to figures for other states that have a lot of no drinking or other beers or alcoholic beverages are more popular- or say Bud was only sold in WI, so there were no totals for other states.
And heck, at 10 beers a day, yeah, alcohol problem. And pointing out Bud drinking only addresses alcoholism in those that drink it, and does not give a clear picture of alcoholism among the populace in general.
Ok, it's an awkward comparison, but the best I could come up with at the moment- didn't think cheese would have made a good comparison.

It sucks all around. But I think it's more useful to use comprehensive studies than to take one piece of data and push it out to alarmist levels that really wouldn't apply.

And jeez F3SS, if you didn't mean 1.5 mil because of the OP.. I'm sorry, I totally ranted off on your comment for no good reason.


#40    Purifier

Purifier

    Psychic Eye

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,950 posts
  • Joined:12 Feb 2010
  • Gender:Male

  • Wild Card

Posted 18 June 2013 - 10:33 PM

Most hardcore capitalist will tell you, that if your not making enough at Wally World, "either get a higher paying job or get a second  job to make up the rest of your needed income." Especially in the case of; "instead of going to the welfare office and getting food stamps to make up the rest."

Anyway, this is what I've heard.

So anybody got a good counter argument against that? Because I haven't found one yet.





View PostBama13, on 18 June 2013 - 06:32 PM, said:

Not just small independent business. Fast food restauramts pay minimum wage. Convience stores pay minimum wage. Why aren't people up in arms about them? Why single out Wal-Mart?


Well actually, some fast food restaurants like McDonalds pay a little more. I recall one of my kids starting out around $8 dollars an hour, with her first job at that restaurant. Don't know about the convenience stores though, it would be interesting to collect data across the nation to see what all of their starting pay is. I'd be willing to bet that not all of them start with the minimum wage. I think it has to do with the amount people who are willing and available to work for low wages, like college kids, seniors and so on. If not enough are available or willing, then those places probably start raising their starting pay a little to get applicants.

Study the past, if you would divine the future.
- Confucius

#41    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 18 June 2013 - 11:28 PM

Walmart is ethically wrong on so many levels, and the government subsidies aren't helping.




#42    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,398 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:21 AM

View Postjugoso, on 18 June 2013 - 09:26 PM, said:

Hey F3SS, I hadnīt seen your post # 18 before I had responded to another post. I certainly wouldnīt ignore it.
Itīs an awful lot of infomation and I donīt have much time to respond to it all. I will question you on these points


You do realize that Wal-Mart is an international company, donīt you? Are you also aware that 20% of all Wal-Marts are located in Mexico? The minimum wage down here is about 60 pesos per DAY (about 50 cents US). One of my students works at Walmart and earns less tha 1$ a day. So Iīm wondering if the above takes this into consideration? Raising salaries down here by 1$ an hour would mean increasing their pay by about 10 times. Thatīs something that nobody is expecting or asking for. I have a feeling the calculations above donīt take this into consideration.

They also used to pay the workers down here partially with vouchers redemable only at Wal-Mart stores until the Mexican Supreme court forbid them from doing so.

And I promise to start fewer anti-Walmart threads than pro/anti gun threads! ;)

Hey sorry man. I didn't even know you started two threads until I looked back for my posts and saw it was you and... My bad but I think we had this conversation before. I remember some math telling a different story though.



View Postrashore, on 18 June 2013 - 09:30 PM, said:

If you are saying 1.5 million because of the OP... It would be 1.5 alone, it would not tabulate to anything else including all Walmarts. Because that's the outside figure on if every single WI Walmart employee that could be eligible for BC+ were actively enrolled, and no other states have BC+.
That's part of my problem with the whole report- it just does not include enough information, not to address WI alone, and for sure not enough to address the nation as a whole- let alone international Walmart, blech.
And zippo for other top employers, which would be really helpful as well. It's not just Walmart, it's other employers too.
These folks took the most recent state that submitted figures, which was Wisconsin, and took off from there. Imagine if California (one of the higher welfare states) had been the most recent to submit, or Delaware, one of the lower welfare states.

I mean.. look at it in alcohol. Lots of that in Wi :)
30,000 walmart employees at 100 stores of 300 each... 3,000 drink 10 Budweisers a day, and that's confirmed statewide total. Gosh, if you push that out, that means at one store, they could drink 3,000 Buds a day! That could mean billions if you go further! But it really isn't accurate, since some folks don't drink, or drink other beers. The study would mean more if they included all kinds of beer, people who don't drink or drink other various beverages, what is being drunk at the top 5 other employers with confirmed Bud drinking. And it means not much to add to figures for other states that have a lot of no drinking or other beers or alcoholic beverages are more popular- or say Bud was only sold in WI, so there were no totals for other states.
And heck, at 10 beers a day, yeah, alcohol problem. And pointing out Bud drinking only addresses alcoholism in those that drink it, and does not give a clear picture of alcoholism among the populace in general.
Ok, it's an awkward comparison, but the best I could come up with at the moment- didn't think cheese would have made a good comparison.

It sucks all around. But I think it's more useful to use comprehensive studies than to take one piece of data and push it out to alarmist levels that really wouldn't apply.

And jeez F3SS, if you didn't mean 1.5 mil because of the OP.. I'm sorry, I totally ranted off on your comment for no good reason.

Yea it came from the op. Where else? And if it doesn't tabulate then it further cements what was said in my post. This thread is about, or I thought it was about a single store. And yes I think you lost me. All I could think about was drinking a ton of beer. It's cool though.

Edited by F3SS, 19 June 2013 - 02:38 AM.

Posted Image

#43    FurthurBB

FurthurBB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,359 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2008

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:40 AM

View PostBama13, on 18 June 2013 - 06:32 PM, said:

Not just small independent business. Fast food restauramts pay minimum wage. Convience stores pay minimum wage. Why aren't people up in arms about them? Why single out Wal-Mart?

Where I live neither convience stores or fast food restaurants pay minimum wage.  I am not saying that is the case everywhere because I don't know that.


#44    FurthurBB

FurthurBB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,359 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2008

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:47 AM

View Postquestionmark, on 18 June 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

And, if I may ask, how many people get Medicaid if they don't get other aid, i.e. food stamps?

In my state roughly 70% of families that receive some kind of public assistance receive only medicaid for dependent children.  Now, I don't know about single people because in my state you have to be disabled if you do not have dependent children to receive anything other than temporary food stamps which have to be renewed on a month by month basis.


#45    FurthurBB

FurthurBB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,359 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2008

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:52 AM

View Postquestionmark, on 18 June 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

It is not unique of Wal-Mart, in fact the low wages at the expense of all is very instituted, starting with sweat shops and ending with cheap services at discounters.

Buying cheap at the end comes very expensive.

Yes, it does and in more ways than one.  I truthfully have not shopped at Walmart in over 10 years after I saw an offensive commercial and thought I do not need to support a company whose values I do not believe in, especially when there are many other places to shop for the toiletries, paper products, cleaning products, etc as these were the only things I ever bought there.  It hasn't hurt me one bit.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users