Wal Mart's Exploitive Practices Attacked By Website

Well what about NAFTA? Isn't that a Free Trade Zone? And yet the Mexicans are pouring in at an even faster rate then ever.

Exactly! The average Mexican isn't better off - their ongoing migration provides abundant testimony to that effect. Nor is the average American.

People forget that lower prices to consumers through free traitin' will surely result in lower incomes for producers. All producers, from the assembly line to the senior partner of an established law practice.

In theory it sounds okay. Except in reality some people don't have a choice. They take whatever is offered. At this point, with all of the talk of illegals etc., nobody has pointed out that bottom wages have dropped down to near illegal levels.

I was recently offered maid services from someone outside the metropolitan area for something a little above four bucks an hour. The woman drives down to the city three days a week to clean toilets, walk dogs, wash dishes and clothing for something like $50 bucks a day cash. I believe she's working a 12 hour day, not including drive time.

If you can think outside of your box long enough to comment on how other people are affected, I would have more respect for you, even if I might disagree with you.

Not everyone is as miserable as you seem to be. BTW, some people like working the nightshifts, is that bad in your eyes also. It really is simple, if you don't like Walmart-don't go there. Some people like Walmart and I truly don't understand why you think only your opinion of how things should work is the only one that counts.

I don't like it that Wal Mart is open 24/7. That means some people have to work on their sabbath and at night when the store is practically empty. For the life of me, I don't see why Wal Mart is so greedy to work people like that.

It might just have to do with the fact that some people actually find it helpful to be able to shop then. I don't believe that Wal Mart is being "greedy" because if it wasn't cost-effective to stay open, they wouldn't!!!! I have a friend who works the night shift at a Wal Mart - she actually asked for that shift - it fits into her lifestyle - imagine that!

Exactly! The average Mexican isn't better off - their ongoing migration provides abundant testimony to that effect.

Nonsense, it isn't the "average" Mexican crossing the borders, it is the poor trying to find a better opportunity.

But that wouldn't be allowed in the "world according to Aliska". boy, what a wonderful world that would be. LOL!!!!!

People forget that lower prices to consumers through free traitin' will surely result in lower incomes for producers. All producers, from the assembly line to the senior partner of an established law practice.

Absolutely. You're correct again!!!

Profits on an IRS income-tax basis, as reported in the national income accounts, have moved up to 10.9 percent of GDP — the highest level since 1968. On an after-tax basis the profit share of GDP is at a post-WWII high of 8.1 percent.

More Non-Inflationary Prosperity

Just another rebuttal of a fact free protectionist post.

And have you noticed the Oprah types have failed to respond with any facts of their own. Of course they have no facts. That's why they're Oprah types.

How do I explain your graph? It's probably cooked. It is meaningless. Is it true? How do I know? Is it commensurate with the rising cost of living? Whose wages exactly are going up?

I look around me and see that things are good for people in my neighborhood. Now. I look around and see that things are not so good for a lot of other people to the point that they feel beaten down before they ever get a start.

Drugs and alcohol have taken their toll, too. And when the mtv generation wakes up and finds out that few employers want to hire people with funny hair jobs, nose rings and tattoos, they will probably blame somebody.

There are some fine young people. By the time they get through college, I wonder if the jobs they are dreaming of will have gone overseas. But college will get them first in line for a government job, no matter what their major.

I'd best leave the rest of the young and restless alone.

And when the mtv generation wakes up and finds out that few employers want to hire people with funny hair jobs, nose rings and tattoos, they will probably blame somebody.

And if they are anything like you, they will blame Walmart.

Here's some facts -- from The Economist

Whatever happened to the belief that any American could get to the top?

THE United States likes to think of itself as the very embodiment of meritocracy: a country where people are judged on their individual abilities rather than their family connections. The original colonies were settled by refugees from a Europe in which the restrictions on social mobility were woven into the fabric of the state, and the American revolution was partly a revolt against feudalism. From the outset, Americans believed that equality of opportunity gave them an edge over the Old World, freeing them from debilitating snobberies and at the same time enabling everyone to benefit from the abilities of the entire population. They still do.
To be sure, America has often betrayed its fine ideals. The Founding Fathers did not admit women or blacks to their meritocratic republic. The country's elites have repeatedly flirted with the aristocratic principle, whether among the brahmins of Boston or, more flagrantly, the rural ruling class in the South. Yet America has repeatedly succeeded in living up to its best self, and today most Americans believe that their country still does a reasonable job of providing opportunities for everybody, including blacks and women. In Europe, majorities of people in every country except Britain, the Czech Republic and Slovakia believe that forces beyond their personal control determine their success. In America only 32% take such a fatalistic view.
But are they right? A growing body of evidence suggests that the meritocratic ideal is in trouble in America. Income inequality is growing to levels not seen since the Gilded Age, around the 1880s. But social mobility is not increasing at anything like the same pace: would-be Horatio Algers are finding it no easier to climb from rags to riches, while the children of the privileged have a greater chance of staying at the top of the social heap. The United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society.
The past couple of decades have seen a huge increase in inequality in America. The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think-tank, argues that between 1979 and 2000 the real income of households in the lowest fifth (the bottom 20% of earners) grew by 6.4%, while that of households in the top fifth grew by 70%. The family income of the top 1% grew by 184%—and that of the top 0.1% or 0.01% grew even faster. Back in 1979 the average income of the top 1% was 133 times that of the bottom 20%; by 2000 the income of the top 1% had risen to 189 times that of the bottom fifth.
Thirty years ago the average real annual compensation of the top 100 chief executives was $1.3m: 39 times the pay of the average worker. Today it is $37.5m: over 1,000 times the pay of the average worker. In 2001 the top 1% of households earned 20% of all income and held 33.4% of all net worth. Not since pre-Depression days has the top 1% taken such a big whack.

More dynastic than dynamic
Most Americans see nothing wrong with inequality of income so long as it comes with plenty of social mobility: it is simply the price paid for a dynamic economy. But the new rise in inequality does not seem to have come with a commensurate rise in mobility. There may even have been a fall.
The most vivid evidence of social sclerosis comes from politics. A country where every child is supposed to be able to dream of becoming president is beginning to produce a self-perpetuating political elite. George Bush is the son of a president, the grandson of a senator, and the sprig of America's business aristocracy. John Kerry, thanks to a rich wife, is the richest man in a Senate full of plutocrats. He is also a Boston brahmin, educated at St Paul's, a posh private school, and Yale—where, like the Bushes, he belonged to the ultra-select Skull and Bones society.
snips
The most remarkable feature of the continuing power of America's elite—and its growing grip on the political system—is how little comment it arouses. Britain would be in high dudgeon if its party leaders all came from Eton and Harrow. Perhaps one reason why the rise of caste politics raises so little comment is that something similar is happening throughout American society. Everywhere you look in modern America—in the Hollywood Hills or the canyons of Wall Street, in the Nashville recording studios or the clapboard houses of Cambridge, Massachusetts—you see elites mastering the art of perpetuating themselves. America is increasingly looking like imperial Britain, with dynastic ties proliferating, social circles interlocking, mechanisms of social exclusion strengthening and a gap widening between the people who make the decisions and shape the culture and the vast majority of ordinary working stiffs.

It's sticky out there
All this may sound a bit impressionistic. But more and more evidence from social scientists suggests that American society is much “stickier” than most Americans assume. Some researchers claim that social mobility is actually declining. A classic social survey in 1978 found that 23% of adult men who had been born in the bottom fifth of the population (as ranked by social and economic status) had made it into the top fifth. Earl Wysong of Indiana University and two colleagues recently decided to update the study. They compared the incomes of 2,749 father-and-son pairs from 1979 to 1998 and found that few sons had moved up the class ladder. Nearly 70% of the sons in 1998 had remained either at the same level or were doing worse than their fathers in 1979. The biggest increase in mobility had been at the top of society, with affluent sons moving upwards more often than their fathers had. They found that only 10% of the adult men born in the bottom quarter had made it to the top quarter.
The Economic Policy Institute also argues that social mobility has declined since the 1970s. In the 1990s 36% of those who started in the second-poorest 20% stayed put, compared with 28% in the 1970s and 32% in the 1980s. In the 1970s 12% of the population moved from the bottom fifth to either the fourth or the top fifth. In the 1980s and 1990s the figures shrank to below 11% for both decades. The figure for those who stayed in the top fifth increased slightly but steadily over the three decades, reinforcing the sense of diminished social mobility.

Not all social scientists accept the conclusion that mobility is declining. Gary Solon, of the University of Michigan, argues that there is no evidence of any change in social-mobility rates, down or up. But, at the least, most people agree that the dramatic increase in income inequality over the past two decades has not been accompanied by an equally dramatic increase in social mobility.
Take the study carried out by Thomas Hertz, an economist at American University in Washington, DC, who studied a representative sample of 6,273 American families (both black and white) over 32 years or two generations. He found that 42% of those born into the poorest fifth ended up where they started—at the bottom. Another 24% moved up slightly to the next-to-bottom group. Only 6% made it to the top fifth. Upward mobility was particularly low for black families. On the other hand, 37% of those born into the top fifth remained there, whereas barely 7% of those born into the top 20% ended up in the bottom fifth. A person born into the top fifth is over five times as likely to end up at the top as a person born into the bottom fifth.
Jonathan Fisher and David Johnson, two economists at the Bureau of Labour Statistics, looked at inequality and social mobility using measures of both income and consumption. They found that mobility “slightly decreased” in the 1990s. In 1984-90, 56% and 54% of households changed their rankings in terms of income and consumption respectively. In 1994-99, only 52% and 49% changed their rankings.
Two economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston analysed family incomes over three decades. They found that 40% of families remained stuck in the same income bracket in the 1990s, compared with 37% of families in the 1980s and 36% in the 1970s. Aaron Bernstein of Business Week points out that, even though the 1990s boom lifted pay rates for low-earners, it did not help them to get better jobs.
There is also growing evidence that America is less socially mobile than many other rich countries. Mr Solon finds that the correlation between the incomes of fathers and sons is higher in the United States than in Germany, Sweden, Finland or Canada. Such cross-national comparisons are rife with problems: different studies use different methods and different definitions of social status. But Americans are clearly mistaken if they believe they live in the world's most mobile society.

Back to the 1880s
This is not the first time that America has looked as if it was about to succumb to what might be termed the British temptation. America witnessed a similar widening of the income gap in the Gilded Age. It also witnessed the formation of a British-style ruling class. The robber barons of the late 19th century sent their children to private boarding schools and made sure that they married the daughters of the old elite, preferably from across the Atlantic. Politics fell into the hands of the members of a limited circle—so much so that the Senate was known as the millionaires' club.
Yet the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw a concerted attempt to prevent America from degenerating into a class-based society. Progressive politicians improved state education. Philanthropists—many of them the robber barons reborn in new guise—tried to provide ladders to help the lads-o'-parts (Andrew Carnegie poured millions into free libraries). Such reforms were motivated partly out of a desire to do good works and partly out of a real fear of the implications of class-based society. Teddy Roosevelt advocated an inheritance tax because he thought that huge inherited fortunes would ruin the character of the republic. James Conant, the president of Harvard in 1933-53, advocated radical educational reform—particularly the transformation of his own university into a meritocracy—in order to prevent America from producing an aristocracy.

Pushy parents, driven brats
The evils that Roosevelt and Conant worried about are clearly beginning to reappear. But so far there are few signs of a reform movement. Why not?
The main reason may be a paradoxical one: because the meritocratic revolution of the first half of the 20th century has been at least half successful. Members of the American elite live in an intensely competitive universe. As children, they are ferried from piano lessons to ballet lessons to early-reading classes. As adolescents, they cram in as much after-school coaching as possible. As students, they compete to get into the best graduate schools. As young professionals, they burn the midnight oil for their employers. And, as parents, they agonise about getting their children into the best universities. It is hard for such people to imagine that America is anything but a meritocracy: their lives are a perpetual competition. Yet it is a competition among people very much like themselves—the offspring of a tiny slither of society—rather than among the full range of talents that the country has to offer.
The second reason is that America's engines of upward mobility are no longer working as effectively as they once were. The most obvious example lies in the education system. Upward mobility is increasingly determined by education. The income of people with just a high-school diploma was flat in 1975-99, whereas that of people with a bachelor's degree rose substantially, and that of people with advanced degrees rocketed.
The education system is increasingly stratified by social class, and poor children have a double disadvantage. They attend schools with fewer resources than those of their richer contemporaries (school finances are largely determined by local property taxes). And they have to deal with the legacy of what Michael Barone, a conservative commentator, has labelled “soft America”. Soft America is allergic to introducing accountability and measurement in education, particularly if it takes the form of merit pay for successful teachers or rewards for outstanding pupils. Dumbed-down schools are particularly harmful to poor children, who are unlikely to be able to compensate for them at home.
America's great universities are increasingly reinforcing rather than reducing these educational inequalities. Poorer students are at a huge disadvantage, both when they try to get in and, if they are successful, in their ability to make the most of what is on offer. This disadvantage is most marked in the elite colleges that hold the keys to the best jobs. Three-quarters of the students at the country's top 146 colleges come from the richest socio-economic fourth, compared with just 3% who come from the poorest fourth (the median family income at Harvard, for example, is $150,000). This means that, at an elite university, you are 25 times as likely to run into a rich student as a poor one.
One reason for this is government money. The main federal programme supporting poorer students is the Pell grant: 90% of such grants go to families with incomes below $41,000. But the federal government has been shifting resources from Pell grants to other forms of aid to higher education. Student loans are unrelated to family resources. Federal tax breaks for higher education benefit the rich. State subsidies for higher education benefit rich and poor alike. At the same time, colleges are increasingly using financial aid to attract talented students away from competitors rather than to help the poor.
Another reason may be “affirmative action”—programmes designed to help members of racial minorities. These are increasingly used by elite universities, in the belief that race is a reasonable proxy for social disadvantage, which it may not be. Flawed as it may be, however, this kind of affirmative action is much less pernicious than another practised by many universities: “legacy preferences”, a programme for the children of alumni—as if privileged children were not already doing well enough out of the education system.
snips

All snakes, no ladders
America's great companies are also becoming less successful agents of upward mobility. The years from 1880 to 1960 were a period of great corporate behemoths. These produced a new class of Americans—professional managers. They built elaborate internal hierarchies, and also accepted their responsibilities to both their workers and their local communities. But since the 1970s the pressure of competition has forced these behemoths to become much leaner—to reduce their layers, contract out some activities, and shift from full-time to part-time employees. It has became harder for people to start at the bottom and rise up the company hierarchy by dint of hard work and self-improvement. And it has also become harder for managers to keep their jobs in a single company.
There are a few shafts of sun on the horizon. George Bush's No Child Left Behind Act tries to use a mixture of tests and punishments for lousy schools to improve the performance of minority children. Senator Edward Kennedy bangs the drum against legacy preferences. But the bad news outdoes the good. The Republicans, by getting rid of inheritance tax, seem hell-bent on ignoring Teddy Roosevelt's warnings about the dangers of a hereditary aristocracy. The Democrats are more interested in preferment for minorities than building ladders of opportunity for all.
In his classic “The Promise of American Life”, Herbert Croly noted that “a democracy, not less than a monarchy or an aristocracy, must recognise political, economic, and social distinctions, but it must also withdraw its consent whenever these discriminations show any tendency to excessive endurance.” So far Americans have been fairly tolerant of economic distinctions. But that tolerance may not last for ever, if the current trend towards “excessive endurance” is not reversed.

Actually it is not my WALMART training to be nice to people it is the way I was raised!

Since you don't know me I resent the remark that I must have something else going for me on the side!What exactly are you trying to imply?

I am the sole supporter for my family and We are making it just fine.I don't buy fancy things,my kids don't have every new gadget or the most expensive clothes!

The Mom and Pop stores in my area still exist and as a matter of fact, they come to WALMART to buy the Merchandise they sell at their stores!

I haven't seen any businesses closing when WALMART moved in, in our area ,in fact they have learned to adapt and become more competitive in the market place!

How can you possibly blame WALMART for all the ills in the world?

There are a lot more things and companies that contribute to the outsourcing of jobs and slave labor in China then WALMART!

BTW, the people in China and other places have to work too,to make a living!

How do we in the Western world know that Chinese consider working for a manufacturer as slavery!

If that is the case we are all slaves no matter where we work!

You are completely blinded by your hatred for WALMART and
it doesn't matter what I or anyone else says about some of the things you say,even if it proofs you wrong!

BTW, the thread has to do with how WALMART treats their employees,so I felt compelled to give everyone my side of the story!

Remember this?

Well this was China's answer then and it continues today.

Tanks and dead bodies on Tiananmen Square at dawn of June 4th, 1989 (student bodies are in the lower-left corner).

Ten armed soldiers beating a student to death in Tiananmen Square during the massacre (Jun 4th, 1989).

Plainclothes police hold a knife to a Falun Gong practitioner's throat on Tiananmen Square

China is a totalitarian state that as recently as 2002 threatened to exterminate with nuclear weapons all of our West Coast cities. They practice slave labor, product dumping and ignore all treaties they don't feel like upholding, regardless of their signatures.

It's been 16 years since the Tianiman Square massacre and lots of Free Trade, yet nothing has "changed" except that China is now a major industrial power house spending gobs on new weapons.

You've got that right!

I went to both stores once and didn't like it.

I prefer the store I work in,even though I can't buy groceries there,but I go to my local supermarket and buy all the Food items I need there!

Which means that I support my local supermarket and other retailers,because I don't always purchase my things at WALMART!

How do I explain your graph? It's probably cooked.

ROFLMAO. Please, feel free to find an uncooked graph showing your feelings are correct.

It is meaningless. Is it true? How do I know?

More research, less Oprah.

Is it commensurate with the rising cost of living? Whose wages exactly are going up?

Do I have to translate everything down to your level? You see where it says "Average Real Hourly Earnings"?

Real means it's adjusted for inflation. That means earnings are rising faster than the cost of living.

Average means average. Look it up if you don't know what average means.

I look around me and see that things are good for people in my neighborhood. Now. I look around and see that things are not so good for a lot of other people to the point that they feel beaten down before they ever get a start.

Well, there you go. Your limited observations are much better than the "cooked" numbers from the U.S. Labor Department. You'd better get going, I wouldn't want you to miss your Jerry Springer!!

Stop wasting bandwith with your pictures.

Not everyone is as miserable as you seem to be. BTW, some people like working the nightshifts, is that bad in your eyes also. It really is simple, if you don't like Walmart-don't go there.

I don't go there. I used to. BTW, part of my distress is concern over what I see happening in my country and the future of young people, not just my own. I'm not miserable at all when I'm thinking and doing my own selfish things which I do to escape what I hear on the news and see happening in the world. I just can't help myself but notice.

My son does not talk to me very often, so he isn't getting his ideas from me. He makes a six figure income. By his reckoning, we are on our way to becoming a third-world country within a generation. He has yet to take one college course, but I guess he talks to enough people to know what is going on.

Some people like Walmart and I truly don't understand why you think only your opinion of how things should work is the only one that counts.

No, I learned long ago how little my opinion counts. That doesn't mean I don't have a right to express it, nor does it mean that I am right, nor does it mean that you and the people on the other side of the fence in this issue are right.

You seem pretty self-sure about how things ought to work in this world so you are accusing me of the very thing you yourself are doing. That is projection.

You seem pretty self-sure about how things ought to work in this world so you are accusing me of the very thing you yourself are doing. That is projection.

No, that is just you twisting things. I believe in free choice for people to shop and work where they wish, and you seem to believe in dictating where people should shop and work. You want to feel bad for others, then get off your rear and do something useful rather than complaining about Walmart. Go volunteer to help people, many agencies need volunteers.

How can you possibly blame WALMART for all the ills in the world?

I DON'T.

You must at least get an employee discount at Wal Mart or your parents help you, or you have something stashed away from somewhere. If you qualify for government assistance, even if you don't take it, you must be in one of the lower income brackets. Maybe you live in a part of the country where that is still possible.

In my part of the country where housing is still fairly cheap compared to most other places except the south, one person on Wal Mart wages, excepting managers, could not support four people unless their car was paid off and their house was paid off and they had zero debt and even then may not be able to make it.

US Price Indexes also on the rise:

Skip Navigation Links		Latest Numbers
	U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics
	Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

	www.bls.gov	Search \| A-Z Index
BLS Home \| Programs & Surveys \| Get Detailed Statistics \| Glossary \| What's New \| Find It! In DOL

	Change Output Options:	From:		To:
	include graphs NEW!

Data extracted on: May 31, 2005 (2:46:44 PM)

Consumer Price Index - Average Price Data

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Series Id: APU000072621 Area: U.S. city average Item: Electricity per 500 KWH
1995	48.874	48.523	48.746	48.131	48.888	50.448	50.552	50.395	49.735	49.472	49.209	48.571
1996	48.538	48.542	49.137	49.221	49.232	49.178	50.483	50.753	50.789	49.913	49.181	49.231
1997	49.245	49.434	49.516	49.271	49.399	50.838	50.790	50.543	50.695	49.278	48.836	48.131
1998	46.401	45.728	45.659	45.739	45.846	46.647	46.757	46.439	46.073	45.458	45.259	45.160
1999	45.061	45.171	45.233	45.179	45.233	45.994	46.298	46.235	46.267	45.736	45.378	45.375
2000	45.207	45.542	45.598	45.524	45.509	46.638	47.396	47.218	47.197	46.570	46.229	46.404
2001	47.472	47.419	47.720	47.725	48.105	49.836	50.090	49.702	49.419	48.693	48.143	48.324
2002	47.868	47.736	47.851	47.368	47.539	48.700	48.684	48.665	48.590	48.087	47.610	47.650
2003	47.663	47.832	48.275	48.810	49.168	49.883	50.226	50.497	50.563	49.738	48.988	49.004
2004	49.159	49.412	49.166	49.353	49.646	51.063	51.388	51.519	51.343	50.270	49.940	49.927
2005	50.847	50.853	51.146	51.263

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Series Id: APU0000702111 Area: U.S. city average Item: Bread, white, pan, per lb. (453.6 gm)
1995	0.767	0.767	0.775	0.776	0.768	0.781	0.789	0.797	0.808	0.809	0.821	0.837
1996	0.860	0.858	0.852	0.865	0.869	0.886	0.889	0.915	0.886	0.873	0.880	0.875
1997	0.862	0.858	0.855	0.855	0.854	0.874	0.872	0.872	0.885	0.899	0.897	0.884
1998	0.855	0.860	0.853	0.863	0.866	0.859	0.867	0.869	0.860	0.849	0.855	0.866
1999	0.872	0.880	0.883	0.897	0.886	0.885	0.893	0.884	0.878	0.889	0.899	0.899
2000	0.907	0.924	0.924	0.927	0.915	0.915	0.935	0.923	0.918	0.934	0.953	0.987
2001	0.982	0.994	1.020	1.008	0.995	0.989	0.987	0.991	0.996	1.010	1.012	1.005
2002	1.001	1.008	1.012	1.005	1.012	1.011	1.015	1.012	1.016	1.015	1.054	1.026
2003	1.042	1.048	1.042	1.047	1.001	0.961	1.002	0.996	0.994	0.969	0.953	0.954
2004	0.946	0.943	0.947	0.974	0.960	0.979	0.985	0.996	0.985	0.972	0.976	0.970
2005	0.997	0.982	1.002	1.004

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Series Id: APU0000703111 Area: U.S. city average Item: Ground chuck, 100% beef, per lb. (453.6 gm)
1995	1.847	1.859	1.881	1.839	1.866	1.821	1.798	1.818	1.776	1.853	1.846	1.850
1996	1.799	1.796	1.764	1.808	1.736	1.734	1.803	1.823	1.797	1.844	1.867	1.848
1997	1.850	1.857	1.822	1.831	1.854	1.848	1.802	1.841	1.844	1.847	1.851	1.811
1998	1.818	1.798	1.842	1.841	1.796	1.796	1.768	1.823	1.806	1.809	1.809	1.818
1999	1.834	1.862	1.834	1.833	1.812	1.815	1.810	1.826	1.852	1.866	1.863	1.882
2000	1.903	1.894	1.911	1.925	1.921	1.955	1.954	1.953	1.946	1.959	1.952	1.976
2001	2.037	2.059	2.057	2.052	2.113	2.157	2.114	2.101	2.150	2.132	2.143	2.161
2002	2.152	2.214	2.196	2.097	2.145	2.098	2.138	2.175	2.065	2.116	2.086	2.121
2003	2.131	2.203	2.196	2.206	2.191	2.239	2.194	2.220	2.286	2.350	2.491	2.621
2004	2.585	2.558	2.473	2.486	2.522	2.485	2.462	2.537	2.512	2.484	2.461	2.465
2005	2.478	2.531	2.519	2.504

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Series Id: APU0000709111 Area: U.S. city average Item: Milk, fresh, whole, fortified, per 1/2 gal. (1.9 lit)
1995	1.410	1.426	1.428	1.382	1.434	1.420	1.419	1.425	1.437	1.425	1.455	1.484
1996	1.476	1.479	1.498	1.507	1.514	1.544	1.560	1.569	1.592	1.647	1.660	1.652
1997	1.632	1.597	1.591	1.601	1.587	1.567	1.535	1.530	1.555	1.590	1.619	1.614

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Series Id: APU0000713111 Area: U.S. city average Item: Orange juice, frozen concentrate, 12 oz. can, per 16 oz. (473.2 ml)
1995	1.583	1.609	1.629	1.632	1.632	1.620	1.639	1.642	1.607	1.583	1.550	1.573
1996	1.577	1.625	1.609	1.657	1.704	1.743	1.774	1.765	1.733	1.761	1.747	1.735
1997	1.737	1.768	1.747	1.727	1.736	1.752	1.770	1.755	1.695	1.711	1.666	1.670
1998	1.601	1.568	1.587	1.634	1.589	1.633	1.655	1.668	1.599	1.655	1.654	1.679
1999	1.753	1.780	1.741	1.779	1.764	1.758	1.813	1.825	1.825	1.784	1.841	1.822
2000	1.823	1.811	1.807	1.819	1.802	1.800	1.875	1.882	1.837	1.863	1.884	1.878
2001	1.863	1.909	1.808	1.872	1.886	1.926	1.937	1.875	1.870	1.904	1.912	1.925
2002	1.876	1.937	1.870	1.889	1.824	1.890	1.842	1.800	1.840	1.795	1.776	1.806
2003	1.848	1.875	1.809	1.783	1.727	1.822	1.831	1.882	1.896	1.975	1.905	1.834
2004	1.957	1.873	1.829	1.861	1.818	1.912	1.878	1.873	1.815	1.933	1.922	1.961
2005	1.872	1.835	1.846	1.918


Frequently Asked Questions \| Freedom of Information Act \| Customer Survey Privacy & Security Statement \| Linking to Our Site \| Accessibility

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Postal Square Building
2 Massachusetts Ave., NE
Washington, DC 20212-0001

Phone: (202) 691-5200
Fax-on-demand: (202) 691-6325
Data questions: blsdata_staff@bls.gov
Technical (web) questions: webmaster@bls.gov
Other comments: feedback@bls.gov