Posted on 08/03/2004 12:59:00 PM PDT by take
Associated Press Study: Wal-Mart Policies Cost Taxpayers Monday August 2, 8:37 pm ET By Michael Liedtke, AP Business Writer Study: Calif. Taxpayers Pay $86M Annually to Subsidize Wal-Mart Workers' Public Assistance
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s compensation policies cost California taxpayers $86 million annually to provide health care and other public assistance to the retailer's underpaid workers, according to an analysis released Monday. Wal-Mart disputed the study by the University of California Berkeley's Institute for Industrial Relations, contending many of its key findings are badly flawed.
The study estimated Wal-Mart employs roughly 44,000 California workers who make an average of $9.70 per hour -- 31 percent below the $14.01-per-hour average of other large retailers with at least 1,000 employees. The study calculated Wal-Mart's wages using 2001 payroll figures disclosed in a sex discrimination lawsuit against the retailer.
But Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart said the study's job and wage estimates for California are outdated. The world's largest retailer employs 60,500 California workers who are paid an average of $10.37 per hour, said Wal-Mart spokeswoman Cynthia Lin. "The (study's) conclusions are questionable because they are based on faulty assumptions."
UC Berkeley's study is based on the premise that Wal-Mart's paltry pay scale forces the retailer's workers to supplement their incomes with Medicaid, food stamps and other taxpayer-backed assistance programs at an unusually high rate.
California taxpayers contribute an average of $1,952 per Wal-Mart worker -- 39 percent more than the average public assistance cost of $1,401 per worker at other large retailers with at least 1,000 employees, the study concluded.
"People understand the benefits of Wal-Mart -- they have lower prices," said Arindrajit Dube, a research economist who co-authored the study. "What might not be obvious is those low prices are fed by taxpayer-funded compensation."
Wal-Mart rejected that notion, maintaining its wages are similar to those of its rivals. And the company said 90 percent of its workers have health insurance -- either through the company or coverage provided by the employer of a spouse or parent. Wal-Mart also employs many elderly workers eligible for Medicare, the federal health insurance for senior citizens.
On The Net:
UC Berkeley study:
http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/lowwage
Wal-Mart Stores Inc.:
www.walmartstores.com
this is true here in GEORGIA
the glaring line in this is that OTHER RETAILERS employees take just 1,100 dollars in food stamps etc. These are not full time people, they are first hires and returning from --- workers who are getting off welfare and food stamps on getting on them.
I got flamed for mentioning this in another thread..... but it's true... you may pay less at the register with Wal-Mart, but make up the difference in the end.
Socialism does not work.
So, if it's a problem, cut the programs.
Maybe so, but what does this story have to do with it? Many, perhaps most, "mom and pop" stores -- the stores Wal-Mart is demonized for competing with and beating -- pay no better wages and certainly no better health-care benefits. So when can we expect the big lefty "study" "proving" that mom&pop stores cost taxpayers money by having the temerity not to pay their workers higher wages?
If Wal Mart were complelled to pay the $14/hour "prevailing" wage plus full benefits how many of these 44,000 people would not have any job at all? How many of the hundreds of tax paying Wal Mart stores in California would then be closed?
How many of these $9/hour workers are using their Wal Mart job as secondary employment or move up to full paying jobs with benefits?
This study seems rather flawed.
And Wal Mart holds a gun to the heads of its employees, right ?
That's the way to go. Socialism has always supported only the employer by enabling him to pay less to his employee. That's why Socialism is beloved in corrupt Latin American countries, because it supports the rich, and not the poor. That's why Kerry loves it.
That said, Wal-Mart is no worse than any other, and in fact is probably better, because it takes chances on its hires, employs many older people who are just making up their Social Security gap, and seems to be a good starting point if you're somebody who actually wants to make a start.
If you don't like their wages, do well, build a good resume, and get a job somewhere else where they pay you better. That's the American way.
I never said it did fella.
So it ok for the Goverment to provide health care?
This problem could be solved by ending public assistance.
Boom. Instantly no more taxpayer money is spent to 'subsidize' walmart employees or the employees of any other companies.
IL launches compulsory mental health screening for children and pregnant women http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=17748
I love this logic. If you don't pay your employees sufficiently high salaries so that none of them are utilizing public assistance, then you are costing the state money. For reasons unknown to me there are apparently more than a few 'conservatives' who buy into this silliness. All I can think of is maybe they got laid off by a corporation and, as a result, they now think that corporations are the scourge of the earth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.