The Wal-Mart Problem

[busterb]

You drive 20 miles to buy the flappin junk, then get home and a few days later it don't work, broke. Then drive 20 miles back to return it. Where in the fucks the great savings, with the price of gas.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by imprint

george Walker bush

ronald Wilson reagan

imprint i think the way you spEll is k00l

[elSicomoro]

I love "Big Trouble in Little China."

Speaking of Wal-Mart...

[fargon]

My Wife and recently re-discovered K-Mart, where you you can buy the same cheep crap you get at Wal-Mart for a few pennies more. As I sit here taking stock of clothing (im doing laundry) we are getting away from the wal-mart stuff my clothing is from Markos and Sons in down town La Crosse, and my Wifes clothing is from various other stores around town. We decided to get away from Wal-Mart. Not beacause of politics and policies, instead we want more quality for our money.

I just came across a study done by a state labor policy group at the University of California. They estimate that Walmart costs California taxpayers in the neighborhood of $86 million/year due to the fact that their wages are so low (54% of workers earn $9.00/hr or less) and the fact that they don't offer health insurance. Cali Walmart employees are more likely to be on foodstamps programs and get their health care via the highly expensive route of ER visits which the tax payer is left holding the bag (and the bill) for.

(I know, Beestie, I know. )

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by marichiko

I just came across a study done by a state labor policy group at the University of California. They estimate that Walmart costs California taxpayers in the neighborhood of $86 million/year due to the fact that their wages are so low (54% of workers earn $9.00/hr or less) and the fact that they don't offer health insurance. Cali Walmart employees are more likely to be on foodstamps programs and get their health care via the highly expensive route of ER visits which the tax payer is left holding the bag (and the bill) for.

(I know, Beestie, I know. )

I've already added Wal-Mart to the ever-growing list of institutions (and people, I'm proud to say) that, according to marichiko, lie and cheat. And, while we are on the subject of the list, as a consequence of your profound insights into our foreign policy as documented in another thread, I've sent a memo to Condi Rice that we need to dust off "Cold War" and "Domino Theory" and put them back into the forefront of our foreign policy doctrine where they belong.

But, getting back to the topic at hand, I have three questions:

1. Are you saying that California would be better of by $86M if Wal-Mart closed its doors tomorrow? The only way I can make sense of that assertion is to assume that everyone who works at Wal-Mart turned down a higher paying job to work there.

2. Did the study include in its calculations the income and capital gains California earns by virtue of its holdings (in various state-owned investment portfolios) of Wal-Mart stock?

3. Did the study offer a scenario whereby Wal-Mart raises prices sufficiently high to allow it to raise payroll expense enough to include health-insurance and wages not regarded as "low" and did such a scenario examine whether or not such an increase in its expenses and revenue would "wash out" or have a net decrease in overall profit sufficiently large enough to cause its business model to fail? Or, did the study just assume that Wal-Mart's profit margins are sufficiently large to absorb the increase in payroll expense without raising prices and without suffering a decrease in revenue (and a secondary hit on profit) as a consequence?

Alternatively, you can link the study and I'll answer my own questions.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Beestie

1. Are you saying that California would be better of by $86M if Wal-Mart closed its doors tomorrow?

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.

Originally Posted by Beestie

I've already added Wal-Mart to the ever-growing list of institutions (and people, I'm proud to say) that, according to marichiko, lie and cheat. And, while we are on the subject of the list, as a consequence of your profound insights into our foreign policy as documented in another thread, I've sent a memo to Condi Rice that we need to dust off "Cold War" and "Domino Theory" and put them back into the forefront of our foreign policy doctrine where they belong.

Glad to see you're paying attention. What thread, BTW?

Originally Posted by Beestie

But, getting back to the topic at hand, I have three questions:

1. Are you saying that California would be better of by $86M if Wal-Mart closed its doors tomorrow? The only way I can make sense of that assertion is to assume that everyone who works at Wal-Mart turned down a higher paying job to work there...

Alternatively, you can link the study and I'll answer my own questions.

No, I am not making that leap of logic. I merely quoted what the study says tax payers must pay for Walmart workers. The figure is on page 10 here:

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/lowwage/walmart.pdf

[wolf]

What ever they are paying, it's less than if those folks were not working at walmart.

$9/hour is significantly better than the "minimum wage jobs" we so often hear about, too. If WalMart is as evil as people say they aren't wouldn't they be paying everybody federal minimum wage?

[Trilby]

Whatever. I don't buy Wal-mart because just going into that store depresses the shit out of me. It reeks of, of something, I just can't place it. Poverty? Maybe. White trashiness? Yeah! That's it!

[Tonchi]

Mabe it's the sight of Third World children raging completely unsupervised through the aisles, shrieking, fighting, crying, opening packages or dropping them on the floor, mauling all the toys and stuffed animals, dripping with mucus and food they are shoving into their faces? That part does it for me, but to up the repulsion factor even more, a recent survey even found SEMEN on the handlebars of a Walmart shopping cart.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Brianna

Whatever. I don't buy Wal-mart because just going into that store depresses the shit out of me. It reeks of, of something, I just can't place it. Poverty? Maybe. White trashiness? Yeah! That's it!

I hit Wallyworld grocery shopping the other day thinking I'd compare prices... Prices were lower but ya talk about a depressing atmosphere.

[Beestie]

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?

Originally Posted by Beestie

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.

You are making a pretty big leap there, Beestie. The report was about Walmart. It does not pretend to address any possible problems or attitudes about other California labor issues. The report doesn't mention anything about Silicon Valley, either. Does this mean that Californians have no interest or opinions about the computer industry?

Originally Posted by Beestie

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.

Oh, I imagine you could generate some comments about migrant workers if you cared to make a post about them. I'm sure UG and others would be happy to oblige. However, again, this was not the topic. And how do you know that we would start singing in a different key when you complain that you can't even hear the song in the first place?

Originally Posted by Beestie

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if the unions funded this study.

I checked and the study comes from an institute which is a part of the University of California. Tax payers and students fund the California system of higher education, the last I heard. Naturally, some of these tax payers probably belong to unions. Some of them are probably corporate executives.

Originally Posted by Beestie

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.

No, I don't imagine that everyone getting the minimum wage in Cali has health insurance, either. Probably a lot of those minimum wage earners are kids working part time flipping burgers. Probably a lot of those minimum wage earners are a lot of different people doing different things working for all kinds of different companies. However, we are talking about a mega-international company named "Walmart."

Here's the most recent stats on Wal-mart's profits that I could find:

Wal-Mart Reports Record Sales and Earnings for 1st Quarter 2006
Net sales for the first quarter were $70.9 billion, an increase of 9.5 percent over the first quarter of fiscal 2005. Net income for the quarter was $2.5 billion, an increase of 13.6 percent from $2.2 billion in the first quarter of fiscal 2005.

Thats from the Wal-Mart web site. Now, either you buy into the idea of "welfare" or you don't. But if you object to tax payers footing the bill for the health care of a low income, single Mom and her kids, then you should certainly object to tax payers having to foot the bill for an outfit making such an enormous profit by importing goods from a country whose system is anything BUT free market. You can't have one set of rules for one group and a different set for the other without exciting comment from the people involved.

And, BTW, $9.00/hour puts a family of 4 well below the Federal poverty guidelines.

[keryx]

Mr Fargon posted the truth. While we buy from Wal-mart, we do not buy everything we consume from there, or do all our business there. We never buy fresh meat products there, as the grocery store chain in town offers better quality and variety for a better price. We also prefer to get our pictures developed at the photography store (for less money!), buy chocolates and nuts at the specialty candy store, and buy fair trade coffee from the cafe. All these stores are located in the downtown area, which needs the economic boost. We do pay more for some items, but the quality is worth it.