MoveOn.org is going after Wal-Mart

[Timon]

a provider of jobs and cheap shopping, it doesn't get more evil than that

[selena]

Originally Posted by Timon

a provider of jobs and cheap shopping, it doesn't get more evil than that

I don't like them on some levels. Huge numbers of their workers rely on food stamps and Medicade. I am short on time atm, but here are a couple of representative links substantiating that fact. The web is full of them, from all types of sources.

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch...t_tax_memo.pdf

This from an article in the Times-Picayune:
In Michigan, 15 percent of Wal-Mart workers are on Medicaid, costing the state $20 million a year, Basham said. Food assistance adds another $34 million.

http://www.nola.com/business/t-p/ind...7441080440.xml

Now, do I think that these are rocket science jobs we are talking about, and that the people should be compensated accordingly?

For the largest part, no.

However, I do think that when you are talking about one of the richest companies in the world that my tax dollars should not go to subsidize their labor costs.

WalMart should bear the costs for this kind of stuff, and if that means higher prices as a result, then that is fine. The people who will be paying the higher prices are people who chose to shop at WalMart. The costs will not be rammed down the throats of all tax payers.

Not to mention the numbers of Americans in need...truly in need...disabled, whatever...who are either not being served or are being under served by social service/govt agencies because WalMart employees are getting the resources instead.

To me, that is evil, yep.

I also see some postive things about WalMart, but while not the brightest bulb in the bunch sometimes, I do know that anything cheap comes with a price.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by selena

I don't like them on some levels. Huge numbers of their workers rely on food stamps and Medicade. I am short on time atm, but here are a couple of representative links substantiating that fact. The web is full of them, from all types of sources.

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch...t_tax_memo.pdf

This from an article in the Times-Picayune:
In Michigan, 15 percent of Wal-Mart workers are on Medicaid, costing the state $20 million a year, Basham said. Food assistance adds another $34 million.

http://www.nola.com/business/t-p/ind...7441080440.xml

Now, do I think that these are rocket science jobs we are talking about, and that the people should be compensated accordingly?

For the largest part, no.

However, I do think that when you are talking about one of the richest companies in the world that my tax dollars should not go to subsidize their labor costs.

WalMart should bear the costs for this kind of stuff, and if that means higher prices as a result, then that is fine. The people who will be paying the higher prices are people who chose to shop at WalMart. The costs will not be rammed down the throats of all tax payers.

Not to mention the numbers of Americans in need...truly in need...disabled, whatever...who are either not being served or are being under served by social service/govt agencies because WalMart employees are getting the resources instead.

To me, that is evil, yep.

I also see some postive things about WalMart, but while not the brightest bulb in the bunch sometimes, I do know that anything cheap comes with a price.

What? You see gray instead of black and white?

'Fess up. You're a commie, aren't you?

[selena]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

What? You see gray instead of black and white?

'Fess up. You're a commie, aren't you?

If I told you, I'd have to kill you.

[Timon]

Originally Posted by selena

To me, that is evil, yep.

They are in the business for profit and are simply doing what makes the most economic sense, if they would raise their prices and raise their salaries they may not be able to be able to stay competitive enough to be able to stay in business.

If you think they are being unfair, abusing their workers etc. etc. then complain to the government about changing labor law. Walmart is not a charity organization, they are a for profit organization, and their shareholders expect them to do whatever earns the most money within the law.

If you think that is evil then I am sorry to say you are living in the most evil nation on earth because that's how American free market economics work.

Mornin PD beeeeeheeeeeee

[selena]

Originally Posted by Timon

They are in the business for profit and are simply doing what makes the most economic sense, if they would raise their prices and raise their salaries they may not be able to be able to stay competitive enough to be able to stay in business.

If you think they are being unfair, abusing their workers etc. etc. then complain to the government about changing labor law. Walmart is not a charity organization, they are a for profit organization, and their shareholders expect them to do whatever earns the most money within the law.

If you think that is evil then I am sorry to say you are living in the most evil nation on earth because that's how American free market economics work.

Mornin PD beeeeeheeeeeee

No, I don't recall saying...or intending to have it interpreted as such...that they abused their workers.

As to the rest, we just disagree. I don't see being in business for profit and being responsible in business as mutally exclusive.

I agree with you, that WalMart is breaking no laws by having taxpayers pick up the tab for a portion of their labor costs.

I also think that just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.

[Timon]

Originally Posted by selena

I also think that just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.

Unfortunately shareholders tend to disagree with that

[selena]

Originally Posted by Timon

Unfortunately shareholders tend to disagree with that

Agreed.

I have to admit that if someone handed me a bunch of WalMart stock, that I would not turn it down on principal. I've been stuck in survival mode for too many years to not be honest and say I'd want the cash.

But for the moment or two that I can step back and look at the bigger picture, I can issues with the butterfly effect.

[Robin]

I didn't know anything much about Wal*Mart until I moved to Texas about 18 months ago. But I have seen the devastation they have wreaked. When they came to Kingsville, TX, within about 2 years the entire Downtown area, with the exception of about two stores was deserted and boarded up. Next the roads surrounding Downtown started having more and more boarded up businesses. Then Sears left, then JC Penney left. Now we have a huge Wal*Mart on the outskirts of the city and the center is dead (except, that is, some entrepreneurs are trying to start businesses that Wal*Mart can't compete with, souvenirs, restaurants and so on).

The next city along, Alice, had their Downtown devastated too! And the smaller towns around actually have lost nearly all their shops and look like ghost towns. I estimate probably 200 plus retail businesses locally were put out of business. If each business had 3 employees that's 600 people. Which is way MORE than Wal*Mart employ.

I don't blame Wal*Mart, they discovered a superb business strategy and milked it all the way. But... there *is* another side to the story. Maybe it's worse in poorer areas like South Texas - but it's there.

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by selena

I don't like them on some levels. Huge numbers of their workers rely on food stamps and Medicade. I am short on time atm, but here are a couple of representative links substantiating that fact. The web is full of them, from all types of sources.

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch...t_tax_memo.pdf

This from an article in the Times-Picayune:
In Michigan, 15 percent of Wal-Mart workers are on Medicaid, costing the state $20 million a year, Basham said. Food assistance adds another $34 million.

http://www.nola.com/business/t-p/ind...7441080440.xml

Now, do I think that these are rocket science jobs we are talking about, and that the people should be compensated accordingly?

For the largest part, no.

However, I do think that when you are talking about one of the richest companies in the world that my tax dollars should not go to subsidize their labor costs.

WalMart should bear the costs for this kind of stuff, and if that means higher prices as a result, then that is fine. The people who will be paying the higher prices are people who chose to shop at WalMart. The costs will not be rammed down the throats of all tax payers.

Not to mention the numbers of Americans in need...truly in need...disabled, whatever...who are either not being served or are being under served by social service/govt agencies because WalMart employees are getting the resources instead.

To me, that is evil, yep.

I also see some postive things about WalMart, but while not the brightest bulb in the bunch sometimes, I do know that anything cheap comes with a price.

So you take people who would be making no money and would be on Welfare, give them a job at Walmart, give them some $$$, get them off Welfare and it's bad that they are still getting SOME government aid? Or maybe they should raise the prices, people stop shopping there, and they have to lay off employees.

If they aren't getting the pay and benefits their work deserves, they can go work elsewhere.

One of John's former workers at Walmart opened a restaurant here in town and hired several Walmart employees. She's paying $2 an hour more than they were making at WM and most make tips. She said 80% of the ones she hired from WM quit and went back to WM because they didn't want to actually work

[Timon]

Originally Posted by Peaches

So you take people who would be making no money and would be on Welfare, give them a job at Walmart, give them some $$$, get them off Welfare and it's bad that they are still getting SOME government aid? Or maybe they should raise the prices, people stop shopping there, and they have to lay off employees.

I was thinking something similar when an article was quoted that said 15% are getting medical aid...

How many hours per week are those people working, how long have they been working for Wallmart, how old are they?

Example: a single mother who can only work part-time at the cash register, would she be part of that 15%?

[SykkBoy]

Originally Posted by Timon

I was thinking something similar when an article was quoted that said 15% are getting medical aid...

How many hours per week are those people working, how long have they been working for Wallmart, how old are they?

Example: a single mother who can only work part-time at the cash register, would she be part of that 15%?

Not to mention the 65 year old greeters who are generally already on medicaid anyways and can only work so many hours per week to keep their benefits.

[Timon]

Originally Posted by SykkBoy

Not to mention the 65 year old greeters who are generally already on medicaid anyways and can only work so many hours per week to keep their benefits.

exactly!

[selena]

Originally Posted by Peaches

So you take people who would be making no money and would be on Welfare, give them a job at Walmart, give them some $$$, get them off Welfare and it's bad that they are still getting SOME government aid? Or maybe they should raise the prices, people stop shopping there, and they have to lay off employees.

If they aren't getting the pay and benefits their work deserves, they can go work elsewhere.

One of John's former workers at Walmart opened a restaurant here in town and hired several Walmart employees. She's paying $2 an hour more than they were making at WM and most make tips. She said 80% of the ones she hired from WM quit and went back to WM because they didn't want to actually work

You've got alot of valid points in that post, I must admit. When I re-read this thread, I can see that I swayed back and forth on the issue, really. Which is what will happen when I'm running on no sleep.

Seriously though, as I said in one of my first posts on this, I see both value and harm in WalMart.

When I worked for a bookie, we'd call that a push, Miss Peaches.

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by selena

You've got alot of valid points in that post, I must admit. When I re-read this thread, I can see that I swayed back and forth on the issue, really. Which is what will happen when I'm running on no sleep.

Seriously though, as I said in one of my first posts on this, I see both value and harm in WalMart.

When I worked for a bookie, we'd call that a push, Miss Peaches.

And pushes shouldn't be newsworthy