If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Congressional report shows that a single Wal-Mart Supercenter costs taxpayers over $900,000 in food, housing, and medicaid benefits to its employees and their families. But hey, at least you can get a gallon jar of pickles for $1.62, right?   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 178
    More: Stupid, Wal-Mart, Peter Schiff, minimum wage law, wages  
•       •       •

3252 clicks; posted to Business » on 01 Jun 2013 at 2:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-01 10:30:19 AM  
And the very same people who b*tch and moan about public assistance would be the first to biatch and moan when that pickle jar costs an extra couple of cents.
 
2013-06-01 10:36:26 AM  
Hmmm...  I have a real problem with a report issued by the Democratic Party on the evils of a company that is non-union, Republican-leaning, and patronized mostly by the base of the GOP.  Not to mention the language is intentionally sensationalist.

Not saying it's wrong, just... suspect in its total veracity.
 
2013-06-01 10:46:38 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Hmmm...  I have a real problem with a report issued by the Democratic Party on the evils of a company that is non-union, Republican-leaning, and patronized mostly by the base of the GOP.  Not to mention the language is intentionally sensationalist.

Not saying it's wrong, just... suspect in its total veracity.


Well, it's actually based a very simple idea: People have food, shelter, and health needs that will either be met by private companies or the social safety net. If Wal-Mart does not provide these benefits, then the government will.  This report just shows the math involved when a company doesn't pay their employees enough to cover all of those needs. It's pretty classic guns vs butter economics.

I mean, it's either A or B, or I guess if you're a libertarian you could go with C and say "Private charity" should provide those things.
 
2013-06-01 10:48:53 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Hmmm...  I have a real problem with a report issued by the Democratic Party on the evils of a company that is non-union, Republican-leaning, and patronized mostly by the base of the GOP.  Not to mention the language is intentionally sensationalist.

Not saying it's wrong, just... suspect in its total veracity.


Well, to be fair, would you EXPECT the GOP to even consider such an issue, much less research and publish a report? Of course not, the people collecting assistance are all takers, and do nothing but suck at the teat of society.
 
2013-06-01 10:58:07 AM  

Rincewind53: Benevolent Misanthrope: Hmmm...  I have a real problem with a report issued by the Democratic Party on the evils of a company that is non-union, Republican-leaning, and patronized mostly by the base of the GOP.  Not to mention the language is intentionally sensationalist.

Not saying it's wrong, just... suspect in its total veracity.

Well, it's actually based a very simple idea: People have food, shelter, and health needs that will either be met by private companies or the social safety net. If Wal-Mart does not provide these benefits, then the government will.  This report just shows the math involved when a company doesn't pay their employees enough to cover all of those needs. It's pretty classic guns vs butter economics.

I mean, it's either A or B, or I guess if you're a libertarian you could go with C and say "Private charity" should provide those things.


Oh no - it's more.  Look at the language around this.

I'd have no problem with it, oddly, being put out by the Democrats and being all about the math.  But they're using language to emotionally manipulat.e.  Always a sign of bad research or part of the story bing left out somehow.

Again - not disputing the math.  But I do wonder what they're leaving out as they add the heart-strings.
 
2013-06-01 11:11:45 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: patronized mostly by the base of the GOP


Is that really true?  I mean, I know plenty of democrats who shop at walmart in Pennsylvania, not so much here in SoCal.   But isn't it more to do with location than political affiliation?
 
2013-06-01 11:15:20 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Rincewind53: Benevolent Misanthrope: Hmmm...  I have a real problem with a report issued by the Democratic Party on the evils of a company that is non-union, Republican-leaning, and patronized mostly by the base of the GOP.  Not to mention the language is intentionally sensationalist.

Not saying it's wrong, just... suspect in its total veracity.

Well, it's actually based a very simple idea: People have food, shelter, and health needs that will either be met by private companies or the social safety net. If Wal-Mart does not provide these benefits, then the government will.  This report just shows the math involved when a company doesn't pay their employees enough to cover all of those needs. It's pretty classic guns vs butter economics.

I mean, it's either A or B, or I guess if you're a libertarian you could go with C and say "Private charity" should provide those things.

Oh no - it's more.  Look at the language around this.

I'd have no problem with it, oddly, being put out by the Democrats and being all about the math.  But they're using language to emotionally manipulat.e.  Always a sign of bad research or part of the story bing left out somehow.

Again - not disputing the math.  But I do wonder what they're leaving out as they add the heart-strings.


They are assuming everything. They don't actually check to see if the employees are on public assistance. They simply assume that all employees of Walmart are on public health insurance, get food stamps, housing assistance, energy assistance, free school lunches for kids, and includes the Earned Income Tax Credit. That's a damn big assumption. I know that around here the waiting list for Section 8 is over two years and energy assistance is quite hard to get.

It also thinks that Walmart supported the last federal minimum wage increase because it supported higher wages (instead of hoping to drive out smaller businesses who couldn't afford it) and calls for reversing Walmart v. Dukes and making them unionize. Finally, it seems to quote and source mostly newspaper and magazine articles rather than peer-reviewed sources. Not exactly a hallmark of great research
 
2013-06-01 11:16:45 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Rincewind53: Benevolent Misanthrope: Hmmm...  I have a real problem with a report issued by the Democratic Party on the evils of a company that is non-union, Republican-leaning, and patronized mostly by the base of the GOP.  Not to mention the language is intentionally sensationalist.

Not saying it's wrong, just... suspect in its total veracity.

Well, it's actually based a very simple idea: People have food, shelter, and health needs that will either be met by private companies or the social safety net. If Wal-Mart does not provide these benefits, then the government will.  This report just shows the math involved when a company doesn't pay their employees enough to cover all of those needs. It's pretty classic guns vs butter economics.

I mean, it's either A or B, or I guess if you're a libertarian you could go with C and say "Private charity" should provide those things.

Oh no - it's more.  Look at the language around this.

I'd have no problem with it, oddly, being put out by the Democrats and being all about the math.  But they're using language to emotionally manipulat.e.  Always a sign of bad research or part of the story bing left out somehow.

Again - not disputing the math.  But I do wonder what they're leaving out as they add the heart-strings.


 I'd have liked to have seen a more in depth study to see what the actual cost to the taxpayers was vs the theoretical maximum as well, if for no other reason than this is a serious problem and deserves to be taken seriously. Leaving any room for those aligned with corporate interests to latch on to any bit of fuzzy data and highlight that as a reason for the entire report being invalid would be a shame.

On the other hand, I realize that in today's political climate headlines and soundbites are valued more than accurate and exhaustive research and analysis, so I can't completely blame the committee for finding a way to make sure they'll grab some attention. I just like to think that the majority of Americans are capable of taking a deeper look at issues, and I like to hold the Democrats to a higher standard when it comes to releasing factual and well researched data.
 
2013-06-01 11:19:12 AM  
And that doesn't count the customers
 
2013-06-01 11:23:53 AM  
They may have a point to make about how people should be paid more generally, but a Walmart doesn't cost the tax payers 900,000. Phrasing things that way shows what they think of their constituents' intellects.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-06-01 11:38:23 AM  

Rincewind53: Well, it's actually based a very simple idea: People have food, shelter, and health needs that will either be met by private companies or the social safety net. If Wal-Mart does not provide these benefits, then the government will.  This report just shows the math involved when a company doesn't pay their employees enough to cover all of those needs. It's pretty classic guns vs butter economics.


That and the fact that Walmart is known to hand out public assistance forms to new employees so they can afford to eat and have medical care for their children.
 
2013-06-01 11:39:19 AM  

flucto: They may have a point to make about how people should be paid more generally, but a Walmart doesn't cost the tax payers 900,000. Phrasing things that way shows what they think of their constituents' intellects.


Well, they voted for them, didn't they?
 
2013-06-01 12:01:42 PM  
I don't shop at Wal*Mart. Like any other self-conscious white yuppie, I shop at Target.
 
2013-06-01 12:05:09 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Hmmm...  I have a real problem with a report issued by the Democratic Party on the evils of a company that is non-union, Republican-leaning, and patronized mostly by the base of the GOP.  Not to mention the language is intentionally sensationalist.

Not saying it's wrong, just... suspect in its total veracity.


it's ok. the CEO of wal mart will still be rich no matter what.  so that's what's really important here.
 
2013-06-01 12:06:46 PM  

vudutek: Benevolent Misanthrope: Hmmm...  I have a real problem with a report issued by the Democratic Party on the evils of a company that is non-union, Republican-leaning, and patronized mostly by the base of the GOP.  Not to mention the language is intentionally sensationalist.

Not saying it's wrong, just... suspect in its total veracity.

Well, to be fair, would you EXPECT the GOP to even consider such an issue, much less research and publish a report? Of course not, the people collecting assistance are all takers, and do nothing but suck at the teat of society.


I'd expect the GOP to publish this and say "What an awesome business plan!"
 
2013-06-01 12:08:11 PM  

NFA: Rincewind53: Well, it's actually based a very simple idea: People have food, shelter, and health needs that will either be met by private companies or the social safety net. If Wal-Mart does not provide these benefits, then the government will.  This report just shows the math involved when a company doesn't pay their employees enough to cover all of those needs. It's pretty classic guns vs butter economics.

That and the fact that Walmart is known to hand out public assistance forms to new employees so they can afford to eat and have medical care for their children.


As someone who was a manager for walmart in 9 different stores, I never saw this once. Ever. Not that I enjoy defending those idiots.

On another note, walmart has data showing that 4% of it's workforce is on public assistance when they start. Which drops down to 2% if they stay past 6 months, then 1% @ 2 years. This was 2008 data though so I'm curious to see it now.
 
2013-06-01 12:25:58 PM  

jayphat: NFA: Rincewind53: Well, it's actually based a very simple idea: People have food, shelter, and health needs that will either be met by private companies or the social safety net. If Wal-Mart does not provide these benefits, then the government will.  This report just shows the math involved when a company doesn't pay their employees enough to cover all of those needs. It's pretty classic guns vs butter economics.

That and the fact that Walmart is known to hand out public assistance forms to new employees so they can afford to eat and have medical care for their children.

As someone who was a manager for walmart in 9 different stores, I never saw this once. Ever. Not that I enjoy defending those idiots.

On another note, walmart has data showing that 4% of it's workforce is on public assistance when they start. Which drops down to 2% if they stay past 6 months, then 1% @ 2 years. This was 2008 data though so I'm curious to see it now.


How does one get off of public assistance if they're making Wal-Mart wages?  Do you have any proof of these figures?
 
2013-06-01 12:35:10 PM  
Oh man, that reminds me. I haven't eaten enough pickles today. I got sidetracked eating all those olives.
 
2013-06-01 12:36:09 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Hmmm... I have a real problem with a report issued by the Democratic Party on the evils of a company that is non-union, Republican-leaning, and patronized mostly by the base of the GOP.


I don't think that's true.  They're just the ones that don't feel bad about it.
 
2013-06-01 12:39:44 PM  

gimmegimme: How does one get off of public assistance if they're making Wal-Mart wages? Do you have any proof of these figures?


Not sure, but I think they look at total family income.  So if you barely qualified with one unemployed person in the family, a Wal-Mart job could push them above the limit.
 
2013-06-01 12:42:38 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: gimmegimme: How does one get off of public assistance if they're making Wal-Mart wages? Do you have any proof of these figures?

Not sure, but I think they look at total family income.  So if you barely qualified with one unemployed person in the family, a Wal-Mart job could push them above the limit.


So the 9 dollars an hour you make at Wal-Mart could eliminate hundreds of dollars in aid that a family receives?

So you can have a job or your kid can have health insurance and a home.  Tough choice!
 
2013-06-01 01:26:34 PM  
 Great.  Eliminate the wal marts - so these same people have no jobs at all.  that'll help!!

www.authenticpua.com
 
2013-06-01 01:28:16 PM  
So don't farking apply for a job there.

/rocket surgery
 
2013-06-01 01:53:53 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Benevolent Misanthrope: Hmmm... I have a real problem with a report issued by the Democratic Party on the evils of a company that is non-union, Republican-leaning, and patronized mostly by the base of the GOP.

I don't think that's true.  They're just the ones that don't feel bad about it.


Fair enough.
 
2013-06-01 01:54:08 PM  

RobertBruce: Great.  Eliminate the wal marts - so these same people have no jobs at all.  that'll help!!

[www.authenticpua.com image 360x450]


Dancin_In_Anson: So don't farking apply for a job there.

/rocket surgery


They make a great point.  Big problems have very simple solutions.
 
2013-06-01 01:57:31 PM  

RobertBruce: Great.  Eliminate the wal marts - so these same people have no jobs at all.  that'll help!!

[www.authenticpua.com image 360x450]


Or, you know, they could pay their employees more so the tax payers don't have to subsidize them though welfare programs.
 
2013-06-01 01:58:59 PM  

Aarontology: RobertBruce: Great.  Eliminate the wal marts - so these same people have no jobs at all.  that'll help!!

[www.authenticpua.com image 360x450]

Or, you know, they could pay their employees more so the tax payers don't have to subsidize them though welfare programs.


Why do you hate America and democracy and the free market and Chuck Norris and baby bald eagles taking their first flight?
 
2013-06-01 02:01:20 PM  

RobertBruce: Great.  Eliminate the wal marts - so these same people have no jobs at all.  that'll help!!

[www.authenticpua.com image 360x450]


 No one is saying eliminate the Wal-Marts. What needs to be done is to raise the minimum wage so that it becomes a living wage, so that someone earning it can support themselves without the need to use public assistance, and to put protections for workers in place to prevent the kind of crap that some companies do like classifying all or almost all employees as part time so that they don't have to pay for benefits.

Since we've allowed unions to be destroyed in most sectors there is no recourse for employees to bargain with large wealthy corporations - the government must thus step in to balance the playing field. Imagine that, the government working to benefit the general citizenry instead of wealthy corporate interests.

Of course, this will all come with increased costs for Wal-Mart, who will then have the decision of whether to pass those costs on to customers in the form of higher prices, or to cut their profit margin instead. If they choose to raise prices the market should react and people will start considering other places to shop, or competitors will capitalize on the move to undercut Wal-Mart, maybe both. If they cut their profit margins, it means that the executives and shareholders will earn less, but considering the vast income disparity between the people actually doing all of the work and the people making all of the money, that wouldn't be a bad thing.
 
2013-06-01 02:01:28 PM  

Aarontology: RobertBruce: Great.  Eliminate the wal marts - so these same people have no jobs at all.  that'll help!!

[www.authenticpua.com image 360x450]

Or, you know, they could pay their employees more so the tax payers don't have to subsidize them though welfare programs.


Or, Congress - including Democrats - could raise the legally mandated minimum wage to an amount that people can live on.  Once upon a time, families lived on one wage-earner making minimum.  Let that sink in fr a moment.
 
2013-06-01 02:05:03 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Aarontology: RobertBruce: Great.  Eliminate the wal marts - so these same people have no jobs at all.  that'll help!!

[www.authenticpua.com image 360x450]

Or, you know, they could pay their employees more so the tax payers don't have to subsidize them though welfare programs.

Or, Congress - including Democrats - could raise the legally mandated minimum wage to an amount that people can live on.  Once upon a time, families lived on one wage-earner making minimum.  Let that sink in fr a moment.


cdn.theatlantic.com

That's strange...what happened after Reagan got into office?
 
2013-06-01 02:10:34 PM  
 
2013-06-01 02:10:41 PM  

gimmegimme: Why do you hate America and democracy and the free market and Chuck Norris and baby bald eagles taking their first flight?


Baby bald eagles taste like crap, that's why.

Benevolent Misanthrope: Or, Congress - including Democrats - could raise the legally mandated minimum wage to an amount that people can live on. Once upon a time, families lived on one wage-earner making minimum. Let that sink in fr a moment.


Either way. Even when people trot out the "OMG INCREASED PRICES FOR CHINESE MADE PLASTIC shiat" they're saying they'd rather involuntarily have to pay for these programs than voluntarily purchase something at a slightly higher price.

Plus, it would open up the market so that other competitors to wal-mart can get into the game isntead of being incredibly undercut by pouring in money to unprofitable wal-mart locations because the chain as a whole has enough money to do so.
 
2013-06-01 02:23:48 PM  

gimmegimme: Benevolent Misanthrope: Aarontology: RobertBruce: Great.  Eliminate the wal marts - so these same people have no jobs at all.  that'll help!!

[www.authenticpua.com image 360x450]

Or, you know, they could pay their employees more so the tax payers don't have to subsidize them though welfare programs.

Or, Congress - including Democrats - could raise the legally mandated minimum wage to an amount that people can live on.  Once upon a time, families lived on one wage-earner making minimum.  Let that sink in fr a moment.

[cdn.theatlantic.com image 558x423]

That's strange...what happened after Reagan got into office?


Holy shiat!  Reagan's been in control this whole time???  Why did no one tell me?!  Actually, it's more interesting what happened after Bush/Cheney got into office.

I'm a Democrat.  But I can also admit my party of choice have been part of the problem, for fark's sake.
 
2013-06-01 02:48:53 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: patronized mostly by the base of the GOP


Citation???

Just because you don't like what you read doesn't make it questionable.

/worked at Walmart - have seen them in action.
 
2013-06-01 02:55:54 PM  
Even if this is the case, which is doubtful, Walmart saves low income families many times that each year.

Walmart does more for low income people more efficiently than any government program could hope to.
 
2013-06-01 02:56:39 PM  

edmo: Benevolent Misanthrope: patronized mostly by the base of the GOP

Citation???

Just because you don't like what you read doesn't make it questionable.

/worked at Walmart - have seen them in action.


Go back and read the thread.  I admitted I was wrong about that.
 
2013-06-01 02:58:17 PM  

cabbyman: Walmart does more for low income people more efficiently than any government program could hope to.


Then why does wal-mart need the government to subsidize them through welfare programs instead of paying those low income people more and giving them benefits?

They're making *you* pay for their profits.
 
2013-06-01 03:02:02 PM  
cabbyman:
Walmart does more for low income people more efficiently than any government program could hope to.

if your goal was to f*ck over poor people and min wage workers then yes, I'd agree with your assessment.  I'd also assume you have no soul but that's another discussion for a later time.
 
2013-06-01 03:02:46 PM  
Why single out Wal-Mart?

Are they the only company in the country paying minimum wage?

The problem isn't Wal-Mart, it's political hacks that demagogue the hell out their political "enemies".
 
2013-06-01 03:02:52 PM  
Or you just take the employer out of the equation when it comes to your healthcare system.  I find it amusing that your boss is some how in charge of your health plan in the first place, its really bizzare to me in fact.  The rest of the first world is waiting on you guys, come on you can do it little America, come on boy!  Come to the 21rst century, come on boy!
 
2013-06-01 03:07:00 PM  
Wait, I think I missed something important here. I can get a gallon of pickles for $1.62??
 
2013-06-01 03:08:03 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Aarontology: RobertBruce: Great.  Eliminate the wal marts - so these same people have no jobs at all.  that'll help!!

[www.authenticpua.com image 360x450]

Or, you know, they could pay their employees more so the tax payers don't have to subsidize them though welfare programs.

Or, Congress - including Democrats - could raise the legally mandated minimum wage to an amount that people can live on.  Once upon a time, families lived on one wage-earner making minimum.  Let that sink in fr a moment.


Yeah, because raising the minimum wage wouldn't have any unintended consequences...

Maybe if we didn't print money like crazy, and could actually manufacture things in this country at a competitive price, a family could live on one income.
 
2013-06-01 03:09:06 PM  
Not to mention the tax breaks these local communities give to Wal-Mart to open up shop in their communities only to employ people who still have to depend on the government for welfare because their pay is so low.
 
2013-06-01 03:10:52 PM  

St Andrew: Benevolent Misanthrope: Aarontology: RobertBruce: Great.  Eliminate the wal marts - so these same people have no jobs at all.  that'll help!!

[www.authenticpua.com image 360x450]

Or, you know, they could pay their employees more so the tax payers don't have to subsidize them though welfare programs.

Or, Congress - including Democrats - could raise the legally mandated minimum wage to an amount that people can live on.  Once upon a time, families lived on one wage-earner making minimum.  Let that sink in fr a moment.

Yeah, because raising the minimum wage wouldn't have any unintended consequences...

Maybe if we didn't print money like crazy, and could actually manufacture things in this country at a competitive price, a family could live on one income.


So you want to decrease the minimum wage to that of China.  What could go wrong?
 
2013-06-01 03:14:18 PM  

gimmegimme: On another note, walmart has data showing that 4% of it's workforce is on public assistance when they start. Which drops down to 2% if they stay past 6 months, then 1% @ 2 years. This was 2008 data though so I'm curious to see it now.

How does one get off of public assistance if they're making Wal-Mart wages?  Do you have any proof of these figures?


99% of Walmart employees, after 2 years, give up on life, kill their children, and go to prison if they fail at suicide.  Prison expenses are not considered "public assistance".
 
2013-06-01 03:15:48 PM  

poughdrew: gimmegimme: On another note, walmart has data showing that 4% of it's workforce is on public assistance when they start. Which drops down to 2% if they stay past 6 months, then 1% @ 2 years. This was 2008 data though so I'm curious to see it now.

How does one get off of public assistance if they're making Wal-Mart wages?  Do you have any proof of these figures?

99% of Walmart employees, after 2 years, give up on life, kill their children, and go to prison if they fail at suicide.  Prison expenses are not considered "public assistance".


You'd think that 2 years of earning 9 dollars an hour part time with no benefits would allow a person to buy a McMansion and a Maserati.  Huh.
 
2013-06-01 03:16:25 PM  

St Andrew: Benevolent Misanthrope: Aarontology: RobertBruce: Great.  Eliminate the wal marts - so these same people have no jobs at all.  that'll help!!

[www.authenticpua.com image 360x450]

Or, you know, they could pay their employees more so the tax payers don't have to subsidize them though welfare programs.

Or, Congress - including Democrats - could raise the legally mandated minimum wage to an amount that people can live on.  Once upon a time, families lived on one wage-earner making minimum.  Let that sink in fr a moment.

Yeah, because raising the minimum wage wouldn't have any unintended consequences...

Maybe if we didn't print money like crazy, and could actually manufacture things in this country at a competitive price, a family could live on one income.


Or... corporations would have to take a smaller profit and not depend on the government to prop up their businesses no matter how hard they work to drive them into the ground or otherwise f*ck up.
 
2013-06-01 03:20:06 PM  

St Andrew: Why single out Wal-Mart?

Are they the only company in the country paying minimum wage?

The problem isn't Wal-Mart, it's political hacks that demagogue the hell out their political "enemies".


 There are other companies doing the same thing, but Wal-Mart is one of the largest and most visible. Plus they've had enough bad press recently that people are willing to see them as villains.

There was discrimination in places other than Montgomery when Rosa Parks stood up for her rights. The country just needed someone to light the fire and make the struggle visible for it to gain momentum and spread like it did. Vast income inequality and corporate malice are major in society today. Most people realize something is wrong, but without a visible enemy to fight against there is nothing to gather up in arms over. It might as well.be Wal-Mart.
 
2013-06-01 03:24:24 PM  
There is a economic study by one of Obama's economic advisers that explains that Walmart does more to help poor people than anything bad you can point to about their wages.  It's the weekend, google for it yourself
 
2013-06-01 03:26:06 PM  

MugzyBrown: There is a economic study by one of Obama's economic advisers that explains that Walmart does more to help poor people than anything bad you can point to about their wages.  It's the weekend, google for it yourself


You're the one that made the claim, it's up to you to back it up with facts.

You failed to get on the debate team didn't you?
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report