Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
jugoso

Low Wages at a Single Wal-Mart Store

81 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

While up-to-date data on Wal-Mart’s wage and employment practices are not always readily available, new demographic data released by Wisconsin’s Medicaid program provided the needed information to uncover the scope of the taxpayer subsidization of Wal-Mart. The report finds that a single 300-employee Wal-Mart Supercenter in Wisconsin may cost taxpayers anywhere from $904,542 to nearly $1.75 million per year, or about $5,815 per employee. Wisconsin has 100 Wal-Mart stores, 75 that are Wal-Mart Supercenters.

“Wal-Mart is the nation’s largest private-sector employer, yet they pay such low wages that many of its workers are unable to provide their families with the necessities of life. The labor policies of Wal-Mart, and those of companies that emulate its low-road approach, end up leaving taxpayers holding the bag,” said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), senior Democrat on the committee.

http://democrats.edw...y-year-says-new

Edited by jugoso
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, man. Just wow. Talk about the rich getting richer...

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I would think there is more Corporate subsidization than food stamps, SS and all the rest the citizens collect from the government.

n 1990 the federal government spent 4.7 billion dollars on all forms of international aid. Pollution control programs received 4.8 billion dollars of federal assistance while both secondary and elementary education were allotted only 8.4 billion dollars. More to the point, while more than 170 billion dollars is expended on assorted varieties of corporate welfare the federal government spends 11 billion dollars on Aid for Dependent Children. The most expensive means tested welfare program, Medicaid, costs the federal government 30 billion dollars a year or about half of the amount corporations receive each year through assorted tax breaks. S.S.I., the federal program for the disabled, receives 13 billion dollars while American businesses are given 17 billion in direct federal aid

http://en.wikipedia....rporate_welfare

Added up, 62.4 billion dollars goes to citizens, while 170 billion dollars goes to corporate welfare according to this quote.

Edited by StarMountainKid
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And all are surprised because of...?

If people don't make enough working to make a living they will live at the expense of the community.

But this fits in perfectly with what we lately call "capitalism": privatize the gains and socialize the losses.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how much would it cost the taxpayers if they were all unemployed? I'm thinking more than it is costing now.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even small independent businesses pay minimum or close to minimum wage for cashiers. How much are you supposed to pay people that don't even know how to count if the cash register doesn't tell them the amount of change owed?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how much would it cost the taxpayers if they were all unemployed? I'm thinking more than it is costing now.

Why would Wal-Mart have to close down without passing on so much responsibilities in tax subsidies to the people? Their net profit in 2011 was 18,000,000,000 $$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would Wal-Mart have to close down without passing on so much responsibilities in tax subsidies to the people? Their net profit in 2011 was 18,000,000,000 $$

Sorry, I didn't ask you if Wal-Mart was closing, I asked how much would it cost the taxpayers if those people were unemployed? Hint: It would cost more. Therefore Wal-Mart is really saving the taxpayers money. Then there are the taxes Wal-Mart pays. Seems Wal-Mart is a win-win for the taxpayers.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even small independent businesses pay minimum or close to minimum wage for cashiers. How much are you supposed to pay people that don't even know how to count if the cash register doesn't tell them the amount of change owed?

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

I mentioned them because people are always going on about Walmart causing the demise of the mom and pop stores. Sorry, but it was the public who stopped shopping at the mom and pop stores that caused them to close.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only have three more days of employment with them. So, I will give you some facts about how they pay.

90 day eval, they tell you how you are doing, what you can improve on, or even if they want you in the roster anymore. Yearly eval they tell you how you are functioning. This is either Needs improvement, Solid performer or Role model for other associates. You do get a raise annual of either .40, .50, or 60 cents an hour more. If your manager writes you a crap review you get nothing. Almost everyone I know gets a 40 cent raise per year. Leaving associate level to dept management or supervisor used to net you a 1.10 more an hour. Last year they cut it to a 40 cent raise. The store manager nets 60K a year and I never see the man. Unless he's texting the honeys or worrying about the regional management showing up. SO yeah, I give up.

Plus most of my friends are on govt. assistance because they are single moms or divorcees or elderly trying to keep afloat. And the store makes an average of about $250,000 A DAY.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even small independent businesses pay minimum or close to minimum wage for cashiers. How much are you supposed to pay people that don't even know how to count if the cash register doesn't tell them the amount of change owed?

That's kind of demeaning to say. Most of us are intelligent there is not much else to choose from around here except health care or fast food.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

maybe 'cause Wal-Mart is making $26.2 billions a year and with a sales increase of 1.9% is getting a ROA of 8.9%. Where do you think the extra cash comes from?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe 'cause Wal-Mart is making $26.2 billions a year and with a sales increase of 1.9% is getting a ROA of 8.9%. Where do you think the extra cash comes from?

Ah, the whole "hate them because they are successful" thingy. Got it. Won't do it. I refuse to hate something/someone just because they are successful. I'm certain all for-profit business are in business to make a profit. I won't hold them making a profit against them.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the whole "hate them because they are successful" thingy. Got it. Won't do it. I refuse to hate something/someone just because they are successful. I'm certain all for-profit business are in business to make a profit. I won't hold them making a profit against them.

There is no hate thing, there is just the fact that they are getting rich with the tax money you refuse to pay while cheering and applauding that you have to feed those they underpay.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christine Walton has a personal net worth of 16 billion dollars....something to think about.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's kind of demeaning to say. Most of us are intelligent there is not much else to choose from around here except health care or fast food.

I didn't mean it to be. :tu:

Both of my parents owned businesses that I was raised in and I have been a business owner for almost thirty years. I have seen a drastic change in that time. The average applicant today can barely spell, follow orders or read a ruler even after graduating college. I don't understand it. I wonder how they expected to get a job in a field they spent a lot of money and four years studying for even if those jobs were available.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

I just came across this article on theblaze and this Pete Suderman guy came up with the same logical conclusions I did, especially points 6,7,8 & 9. So you don't blow it off I'm just going to paste the whole article. And I'm also going to follow up by posting the articles from the links on points 14 & 17. All these articles really do wonders to render your arguments invalid.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/reason-senior-editor-dismantles-the-lefts-cheif-anti-walmart-talking-points/

It’s no secret that many on the left (and even some on the right) really, truly dislike Walmart and its business practices. Indeed, just yesterday the union-backed OUR Walmart tried to disrupt the big box retailer’s Black Friday sales by staging a nationwide protest. Luckily for Walmart, the protest did little damage and the much-touted employee walkout never materialized.

But let’s talk about the long-standing and persistent hatred against the company. Let’s face it, ever since Walmart became an economic powerhouse, they’ve been attacked, maligned, smeared, and, in some cases, blocked by certain communities from even opening stores.

We all know the arguments against the retailer: Walmart puts mom-and-pop stores out of work; Walmart doesn’t pay its employees enough; Walmart doesn’t offer the healthcare benefits its employees deserve; Walmart operates on “greed.”

But there has to be another side to this argument. Is there anything to be said that might explain the retailer’s massive and continued success? Perhaps.

Peter Suderman, senior editor for Reason.com, on Saturday used Twitter to lay out his observations on the big box giant. Luckily for us, a tweet from The Heritage Foundation’s excellent Lachlan Markay notified us as to what was happening on Suderman’s timeline and we were able to follow along.

Below are Suderman’s thoughts on Walmart, its employee pay, and what would happen if unions get their way [author's note: We've put Suderman's tweets into list format because it’s much easier to read that way]:

Really enjoyed talking Walmart and Black Friday on @upwithchris [MSNBC’s Chris Hayes] this morning. I’m going to add a few stray observations on twitter.

1. Walmart’s customer base is heavily concentrated in the bottom income quintile, which spends heavily on food.

2.The bottom income quintile spends about 25 percent of income on food compared to just 3.5 percent for the top quintile.

3. So the benefits of Walmart’s substantially lower prices to the lowest earning cohort are huge, especially on food.

4. Obama adviser Jason Furman has estimated the welfare boost of Walmart’s low food prices alone is about $50b a year.

5. Walmart’s wages are about average for retail. Not amazing. But not the worst either.

6. Paying Walmart’s workers more would mean the money has to come from somewhere. But where?

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.

9. Raise prices to pay for increased wages and you cut into the store’s huge low-price benefits for the poor. It’s regressive.

10. But what about Costco? They pay more, right? Yes, but it’s a different, smaller market.

11. Walmart’s average customer earns roughly $35k. Costco’s average customer earns about $75k.

12. Costco only has about half as many employees as Walmart. What would happen if Walmart adopted a Costco model and shrank to Costco size?

13. Not at all clear that the remaining half of Walmart workers would be better off. Many would almost certainly be worse off. Unemployed.

14. Obama econ adviser Jason Furman did a lot of the work on Walmart’s progressive benefits. His case: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dialogues/features/2006/is_walmart_good_for_the_american_working_class/the_low_prices_are_good_news.html

15. Finally, as someone who’s actually been a regular, small-town Walmart shopper, I’d like to argue for its community benefits.

16. Yes, some small stores close when Walmart opens. But in small towns, Walmart can become real community hubs – more so, because of size.

17. As for Walmart workers getting health benefits thru Medicaid, that’s due in part to a policy liberals argued for: wapo.st/axXXNE

We’re not sure which is more impressive: The all-encompassing nature of Suderman’s observations or the fact that he was able to do it in 140-character bursts.

From #14

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dialogues/features/2006/is_walmart_good_for_the_american_working_class/the_low_prices_are_good_news.html

Is Wal-Mart Good for the American Working Class?

Although we've never met, I'm tempted to call you "Barb," the name you were given in your weeks as a Wal-Mart employee. I myself have never worked at Wal-Mart, and I can only remember shopping there once. In fact, I instinctively recoil at the big-box shopping centers spreading their uniformity across the American landscape. But I try hard not to let my personal and somewhat elitist shopping inclinations get in the way of an appraisal of Wal-Mart's positive role in America's economy and society. (For my full appraisal, see this paper I did for a panel at the Center for American Progress.

Are you as surprised as I am by how quickly Wal-Mart's critics move past the issue of low prices? You will hear comments like, "Yes, Wal-Mart may have somewhat low prices, but let's talk about its impact on workers, the environment, trade with China, etc." But given just how important these low prices are to the hundreds of millions of Americans that shop there, I hope I can beg your indulgence to linger on them for a few moments.

A range of studies has found that Wal-Mart's prices are 8 percent to 39 percent below the prices of its competitors. The single most careful economic study, co-authored by the well-respected MIT economist Jerry Hausman, found that grocery sales by Wal-Mart and other big-box stores made consumers better off to the tune of 25 percent of food consumption. That doesn't mean much for those of us in the top fifth of the income distribution—we spend only about 3.5 percent of our income on food at home and, at least in my case, most of that shopping is done at high-priced supermarkets like Whole Foods. But that's a huge savings for households in the bottom quintile, which, on average, spend 26 percent of their income on food. In fact, it is equivalent to a 6.5 percent boost in household income—unless the family lives in New York City or one of the other places that have successfully kept Wal-Mart and its ilk away.

Where do these low prices come from? Paul Krugman, writing back in 1993, provides an answer: "The most significant American business success story of the late 20th century may well be Wal-Mart, which has applied extensive computerization and a home-grown version of Japan's 'just in time' inventory methods to revolutionize retailing." Many economists didn't expect the service sector to contribute much to productivity. Many non-economists still have a hard time believing it has. But Harvard economist Ken Rogoff has the numbers, and they are mind boggling:

[T]ogether with a few sister "big box" stores (Target, Best Buy, and Home Depot), Wal-Mart accounts for roughly 50% of America's much vaunted productivity growth edge over Europe during the last decade. Fifty percent! Similar advances in wholesaling supply chains account for another 25%! The notion that Americans have gotten better at everything while other rich countries have stood still is thus wildly misleading. The US productivity miracle and the emergence of Wal-Mart-style retailing are virtually synonymous.

OK, enough indulging. Maybe you're ready to grant my point that Wal-Mart's low prices are great for the 298 million Americans who don't work there. But what about the 1.3 million Americans who do work for Wal-Mart? Here the evidence is murkier, in part because Wal-Mart refuses to release the data on its wages and benefits that could clear up a number of questions. What we do know is that its wages and benefits are about average for the retail sector—which is to say, not so great. It is harder to quantify other aspects of the job, like the quality of the work, the number of breaks, the prospects for advancement. You should let me know how you think it compares.

Studies have reached conflicting conclusions about the impact of Wal-Mart on local labor markets, with some finding that it creates more jobs than it displaces and others finding that it reduces jobs and nominal wages. Personally, I don't put a huge amount of stock in any of these findings because I believe that Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve decide the total number of jobs nationwide. If anything, the greater competition and productivity growth associated with the growth of Wal-Mart may have played a role in allowing the Federal Reserve to tolerate the high level of job creation in the 1990s.

But I understand why progressives are so upset about low wages and inadequate benefits. I am also upset by the rise of inequality and the relatively slow economic progress that the bottom 80 percent of Americans have made over the last several decades. I just think Wal-Mart is the wrong place to put the blame or to expect the solution. But I'll postpone that discussion for another day.

From #17

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/27/AR2005112700687.html

Progressive Wal-Mart. Really.

By Sebastian Mallaby

Monday, November 28, 2005

There's a comic side to the anti-Wal-Mart campaign brewing in Maryland and across the country. Only by summoning up the most naive view of corporate behavior can the critics be shocked -- shocked! -- by the giant retailer's machinations. Wal-Mart is plotting to contain health costs! But isn't that what every company does in the face of medical inflation? Wal-Mart has a war room to defend its image! Well, yeah, it's up against a hostile campaign featuring billboards, newspaper ads and a critical documentary movie. Wal-Mart aims to enrich shareholders and put rivals out of business! Hello? What business doesn't do that?

Wal-Mart's critics allege that the retailer is bad for poor Americans. This claim is backward: As Jason Furman of New York University puts it, Wal-Mart is "a progressive success story." Furman advised John "Benedict Arnold" Kerry in the 2004 campaign and has never received any payment from Wal-Mart; he is no corporate apologist. But he points out that Wal-Mart's discounting on food alone boosts the welfare of American shoppers by at least $50 billion a year. The savings are possibly five times that much if you count all of Wal-Mart's products.

These gains are especially important to poor and moderate-income families. The average Wal-Mart customer earns $35,000 a year, compared with $50,000 at Target and $74,000 at Costco. Moreover, Wal-Mart's "every day low prices" make the biggest difference to the poor, since they spend a higher proportion of income on food and other basics. As a force for poverty relief, Wal-Mart's $200 billion-plus assistance to consumers may rival many federal programs. Those programs are better targeted at the needy, but they are dramatically smaller. Food stamps were worth $33 billion in 2005, and the earned-income tax credit was worth $40 billion.

Set against these savings for consumers, Wal-Mart's alleged suppression of wages appears trivial. Arindrajit Dube of the University of California at Berkeley, a leading Wal-Mart critic, has calculated that the firm has caused a $4.7 billion annual loss of wages for workers in the retail sector. This number is disputed: Wal-Mart's pay and benefits can be made to look good or bad depending on which other firms you compare them to. When Wal-Mart opened a store in Glendale, Ariz., last year, it received 8,000 applications for 525 jobs, suggesting that not everyone believes the pay and benefits are unattractive.

But let's say we accept Dube's calculation that retail workers take home $4.7 billion less per year because Wal-Mart has busted unions and generally been ruthless. That loss to workers would still be dwarfed by the $50 billion-plus that Wal-Mart consumers save on food, never mind the much larger sums that they save altogether. Indeed, Furman points out that the wage suppression is so small that even its "victims" may be better off. Retail workers may take home less pay, but their purchasing power probably still grows thanks to Wal-Mart's low prices.

To be fair, the $4.7 billion of wage suppression in the retail sector excludes Wal-Mart's efforts to drive down wages at its suppliers. "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price," the new anti-Wal-Mart movie that's circulating among activist groups, has the requisite passage about Chinese workers getting pennies per day, sweating to keep Wal-Mart's shelves stocked with cheap clothing. But no study has shown whether Wal-Mart's tactics actually do suppress wages in China or elsewhere, and suppression seems unlikely in poor countries. The Chinese garment workers are mainly migrants from farms, where earnings are even worse than at Wal-Mart's subcontractors and where the labor is still more grueling.

Wal-Mart's critics also paint the company as a parasite on taxpayers, because 5 percent of its workers are on Medicaid. Actually that's a typical level for large retail firms, and the national average for all firms is 4 percent. Moreover, it's ironic that Wal-Mart's enemies, who are mainly progressives, should even raise this issue. In the 1990s progressives argued loudly for the reform that allowed poor Americans to keep Medicaid benefits even if they had a job. Now that this policy is helping workers at Wal-Mart, progressives shouldn't blame the company. Besides, many progressives favor a national health system. In other words, they attack Wal-Mart for having 5 percent of its workers receive health care courtesy of taxpayers when the policy that they support would increase that share to 100 percent.

Companies like Wal-Mart are not run by saints. They can treat workers and competitors roughly. They may be poor stewards of the environment. When they break the law they must be punished. Wal-Mart is at the center of the globalized, technology-driven economy that's radically increased American inequality, so it's not surprising that it has critics. But globalization and business innovation are nonetheless the engines of progress; and if that sounds too abstract, think of the $200 billion-plus that Wal-Mart consumers gain annually. If critics prevent the firm from opening new branches, they will prevent ordinary families from sharing in those gains. Poor Americans will be chief among the casualties.

Edited by F3SS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There is no hate thing, there is just the fact that they are getting rich with the tax money you refuse to pay while cheering and applauding that you have to feed those they underpay.

"there is just the fact that they are getting rich with the tax money"

Then hate the people giving them the tax money. I don't blame welfare people for getting welfare, I blame the government for giving it to them.

"tax money you refuse to pay"

I pay my taxes, thank you very much.

"while cheering and applauding that you have to feed those they underpay"

The article mentioned how much in Medicaid it cost Wisconsin. I didn't know Medicaid provided food.

Edited by Bama13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No wonder the employees are so grumpy and apathetic.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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 :)

Edited by thewild
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christine Walton has a personal net worth of 16 billion dollars....something to think about.

Bill Gates says shes a piker. Let's all get mad at MicroSoft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 mages 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.

So evil Wal-Mart helped you make it through college to get a better job. Good for you! Good luck with your new job. Sorry you hate the company that helped make it possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No wonder the employees are so grumpy and apathetic.

They're not in Tallahassee, Florida. Very friendly and helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*edit for spelling :)

:w00t: We don't judge here...those are typos.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.