Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
It takes longer to fix things than to break them, so I suspect it would take longer than a day to build up the higher paying jobs that Wal-Mart destroyed.
|
You lost me. What jobs did Wal-Mart destroy?
The way I see it, 44,000 Californians have jobs that would otherwise be in the unemployment line and on total public assistance. And speaking of total public assistance, its interesting that California does not seem to have a problem with the children of illegal immigrants attending public schools or with illegal immigrants picking every peice of fruit or vegatable grown in the state.
Where's the study showing how much the benefits paid to illegal immigrants employed by Californian farm co-ops at
below minimum wages? Where is the Cellar outrage about that? When the cost of tomatoes rises to $10.00 pound because California mandates that all migrant workers must be paid $15.00/hr and provided with full insurance coverage then I suspect you'll sing a different tune.
And where's the study that shows how the artificially high wages paid to union grocery store workers has inflated food prices to the extent that workers making $9.00/hr have to go on food stamps to feed their families?
I read the study over and while the facts within it appear to be reasonable, I don't understand what the study is intended to prove. It does not look at the cost to California of benefits to the 44,000 Wal-Mart employees in the scenario where Wal-Mart never opened a store in the state who were presumably either unemployed or making even less? It does not look at the benefit to everyone who shops there of the lower cost of the same basket of goods purchased at a union store. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if the unions funded this study.
The minimum wage in CA is 6.75/hr. Wal-Mart pays over $9.00 per hour. And I can't imagine that everyone in CA earning minimum wage has full health insurance coverage.
I guess my reaction to the study is so what? And who's behind it?