The Wal-Mart Problem
 

Well, this is interesting: Maryland has passed a law that requires large companies to spend 8% of its payroll to cover the insurance cost for their employees.

...and yet...

I find the legislation amusing, since I'm currently bracing myself for the trend of the next five years: large companies completely discontinuing insurance coverage. What will happen when people that get paid a decent living wage are forced to pay out of pocket for their families?

"The savings will be passed on to the consumer!" Yay!

Is there a large company that has completely discontinued insurance coverage?

Not yet, but the rumors are circulating, especially for "management" employees that are paid a high enough salary that they should be able to cover it on their own. The change is due, in part, because of bloated pensions and the inability of companies to cover the wave of retirements over the next fifteen years.

The argument goes that "management" ("anyone salary", where I come from) should be able to cover themselves and that due to variations in family and coverage needs that the company has no incentive to provide blanket coverage. Hourly employees that work full time would have to be covered by law, however.

What is it with big multi national companies 8% of their profits I'll bet Wal-mart and companies would never miss 8% of their proft ,that works out at $80,000 per million a drop in the bucket to Wal-Mart.
When is enough profit enough?What ever happened to social responsibility to their employees..

Not 8% of profit, 8% of payroll. :cool:

Oh, in that case 8% of a few lousey dimes. Chinamart should be able to pick up the spare change to cover that by sending someone out to the parking lot once a day to scarf up dropped pennies.

I find it ironic that Chinamart damn near exclusively sells items manufactured in a communist economy, imports them under the banner of free trade, and squalls like a mashed cat at having to provide its own employees anything approaching a living wage, or god forbid, health insurance, as well.

By the way, there is no Federal law requiring that hourly employees be provided with health insurance. Or if there is, its got more holes in it than a Swiss cheese. Hourly employees here in Colorado commonly go without company health insurance and not because they want to, it just isn't offered.

As for the big companies whining about upcoming retirement costs, they get no sympathy from me. Shudda planned. Isn't that what they teach you at MBA school?

At first, I didn't like the idea. But, now that I think about it, I like the idea of penalizing companies with top-heavy salaries. Its sort of wealth redistribution within a company which, given runaway top mgt salaries, is not necessarily bad.

Of course, they shouldn't say payroll but rather compensation. Payroll is a defined term. Compensation catches all monies paid to employees whether its payroll or stock ownership.

That's not irony, that's called consistency.

I think the thing that pisses me off is how they chain-gang the workers into accepting such horrible jobs in the first place! I mean, it would be one thing if Walmart clearly indicated up front how much money, and what sort of additional benefits they would be giving people in echange for their work, and then gave people the option of whether or not they wanted to accept those terms ...

And also, it infuriates me how they move into a new area, and then force all of the consumers in the area to only shop at their stores. I mean, the way they send out bands of roving senior citizens to burn down opposing retailers and distributed small-pox blankets to the owners is unconscionable! If only there were some way to withhold our patronage on an individual basis, maybe the monster would starve and waste away.

Alas, it appears we must be held if death's grim sway.

China's markets are freer than Maryland's. The Communists realized twenty years ago that their closed markets left the country unproductive and that the better strategy would be to open the markets while keeping a reign on people and power. Their resulting, remarkable boom is one reason all the stuff is made there... and also why oil is $66/bl.

LOL, good to see that you haven't lost your touch, Smoothmoniker! Still driving around in your stretch limo hummer?

I've been meaning to complain to the authorities about the little old lady who whopped me upside of the head with her cane and dragged me into Wally World and forced me to buy a bunch of brightly colored beads and a small pocket mirror in exchange for the island of Manhatten. Alas, I've been too sick with small pox to make it into the police station. :p

I'm sensing a pattern here.

Yeah?

Me too!

Six small pox blankets for you! :eyebrow:

All anyone knows is what we write in our posts.

:eyebrow:

It helps to read them, too.


Since I’m putting off an unpleasant chore, and since I’m feeling rather sullen at the moment, I’m going to give an answer to your comments that you don’t especially deserve. The following is largely from the CIA World Fact book. That’s CIA as in Central Intelligence Agency – not exactly a hotbed of bleeding liberal propaganda. The last I knew, the CIA does not check on my economic status before writing up its reports, either.

According to the CIA, China is (gasp!) run under a communist system of government.

The restructuring of its economy and resulting efficiency gains have contributed to a more than ten-fold increase in GDP since 1978. Measured on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis, China in 2005 stood as the second-largest economy in the world after the US. The Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party in October 2005 approved the draft 11th Five-Year Plan and the National People's Congress is expected to give final approval in March 2006. The plan calls for a 20 percent reduction in energy consumption per unit of GDP by 2010 and an estimated 45 percent increase in GDP by 2010.

According to a second hotbed of mindless liberalism, The Economist, China develops her economy through exporting, so the Chinese government protects her exporting companies. China subsidizes these companies, lends them low interest loans, and gives them tax refunds. Also, most importantly, Chinese government controls her foreign exchange rate and keeps the rate low. Under these protections, Chinese exporting companies have lots of advantages in competition with foreign companies.

Chinese companies have little concern for interest rates on bank loans since credit is allocated with little regard to its price. Despite China's reforms of recent years, the government still controls more than half of the economy. Most state-owned enterprises do not care about the cost of borrowing because they have no need to make profits


Back to the CIA’s lefty writings:

(US companies) face higher barriers to entry in their rivals' home markets than the barriers to entry of foreign firms in US markets… The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households...Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups.

Some fun comparisons, again from the CIA Fact book:


Foreign reserves and gold: USA, $86.94 billion; China, $795.1 billion
External debt: USA $8.837 trillion; China, $242 billion
Population below poverty line: USA, 12%; China, 10%

So, Comrade Beestie, how many shares of free market Wally World stock did you say you owned? The Central Committee wants to know.

The list continues to grow.