Check the website you’re on. This is freerepublic.com. Perhaps you put your post here by mistake.
You seem to be a bit confused about the free market and how much “help” from government controls only makes things worse. And even more confused about how minimum wage jobs are a stepping stone for moving up in the world, not a place to stagnate and raise a family. Most of the participants of this forum have a more firm grasp of the topic. Watch and learn.
It's not Walmart's job to ensure all of their employees have every life need cared for. And if Walmart or McDonalds refers their employees to a state agency for additional help, it's not the fault of the corporation.
You're a greedy, evil person, steelhead. You covet what you refuse to earn on your own.
Their workers are free to leave and find better paying jobs if they want. What are you suggesting? That WalMart should be forced to give them raises?
Just what is the average “skill-set” of your average Wal-Mart employee?
I’d venture it’s not much and if it’s not much, then the pay shouldn’t be much either.
I don’t like the idea of shopping in Albertson’s here because they, like just about every other grocery chain have unionized employees...the checkout clerks can make as much as $20 or more an hour to do what?
Scan bananas and not know how to make change out from $20.25 for a $13.25 purchase?
The problem here is that there is a move afoot to redefine what an entry level job is and what the pay should be. I worked for $2.85 an hour when I first started working...and I was damned glad to get it.
But as with all things...all one has to do is look at the vocabulary being used today...”deserve”, “entitled”, “worth”, etc....that does a lot to condition the current generation who believe that they are “deserving” and “entitled” to start with middle to high tier wages...
Wal-Mart is paying their people what W-M believes they’re worth...again, skill-set.
Notice that they are not attacking Target, which pays their cashiers minimum wage to start, and treats their employees worse than Walmart.
Every job has a worth to be decided by the market. Some people are only worth minimum wage or lower. Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs meant to gain experience and then move up to a higher level.
***while the Waltons are sitting on untold billions and billions of dollars***
The Waltons keep all their money stashed under their beds in Bentonville! Each day they add to the pile and jump in it as we would a pile of leaves in the fall! They grab the money, throw it over their heads and say...”MINE! MINE! ALL MINE!” They put Scrooge McDuck to shame!
Yet the pile never grows as the money at the bottom is so old it is rotting into dust so they just keep piling new money on top!
Not bad for a small Mom and Pop store (WALTON’S 5 & 10)that took a chance and bought some bankrupt BEN FRANKLIN stores, and made it!
If you don’t like the wages, work some where else!
At some point, it’s just a matter of dollars in and dollars out.
It shouldn’t be hard to look at how many dollars Wal-Mart generates and how many total it pays out and how much is then left over.
We’re told it took in 470 billion and had 17 billion profit with 2.2 million employees and who knows how many stockholders.
If we gave EVERY DOLLAR ALL of the profit of the company to the employees they would get 7700 dollars a year extra, 149 dollars a week extra, about 5 dollars an hour extra based on a 30 hour week. That would turn an 8 dollar an hour employee into a 13 dollar an hour employee.
What would the stock holders get per share with 3 billion shares out there?
So, they raise their prices, and who pays it? Maybe nobody. They could price themselves out of competition. But, assuming they don’t, we pay. Our costs go up.
And, to be honest with you, $13 an hour is a 19,500 a year job, and that means they’ll still be on food stamps.
All we’ve really done is raise our costs and still pay the food stamps. It just strikes me that retail and service jobs are not the way to get people out of poverty.
You should have seen Benton County and NW Arkansas before Walton bought the Ben Franklin stores.
The county was firmly in the stranglehold of THE CHICKEN MEN who paid agricultural wages far below minimum wage.
You worked for them or you didn’t work. People were kept so poor they could not move to find better work.
Then Walmart started up and sucked all the labor away from THE CHICKEN MEN.
The Chicken men refused to increase wages to compete for labor with Walmart, so they went to Mexico and imported the first Mexicans into our area.
Now the children of those Mexicans work for Walmart and the Chicken Men are now importing Africans.
Meanwhile, the local economy is booming because of Walmart and no one lives in tar paper shacks or old log cabins any more.
We got a fine art Museum (Crystal Bridges) and a fine theater (Walton Arts Center) in which we see current Broadway shows, all because of those “E-e-evil” Waltons.
I do not, nor have I ever worked for Walmart.
IBTZ!
it is a old study and it plays with the facts in how it interprets that statistics that it uses
it points to a “high number” of Walmart employees in a state’s systems of subsidized support, compared to other employers in the state, but it ignores what that number represents in terms of the total number of Walmart employees in the state and how the number of Walmart’s employees in the state compare to other employers number of employees
but that even “high number” does not actually identify Walmart employees in the state (Wisconsin) system; it merely extrapolates how many Walmart employees “could” be getting state subsidiesa, based on a set of Walmart wages (not household income of a Walmart employee just a Walmart wage) and the income eligibility criteria for various benefits, without confirming how or if the study’s guestimate matches reality - which other studies have shown it does not
if that were not enough, you’d have to combine a good many retail industry employers together to equal a number of employees equal to Walmart, and after doing that look at how all their employees stack up in terms of state subsidized assistance - a task the study does not even attempt, because that would be comparin.g apples with apples and not apples with oranges
no matter what anyone thinks of Walmart, merely because of it’s size it is a target, and a media patsy for various political agendas from the Leftists.
The “study” is as flawed as any study the Dims ever do.
It does NOT identify “Walmart employees” in the state (Wisonsin” in the state’s system of subsidized assistance.
It takes a set of “Walmart wages” (*** not Walmart employees ‘household income - the real basis of state assistance) and it takes an average number of Walmart employees in a Walmart store and then it mere extrapolates a number of Walmart employees that COULD BE on state susbidized assistance (*** and it ignores - ‘cause it does not know - ‘household income’ which is what that assistance is based on).
It’s a totally flawed study (it’s been used more than once by the Dims) and they love to trot it out because they know there is as much populism based ignorance among grass roots Conservatives as there is in their own flock.
What is so different about that? Our lower rank Military if married do not make enough money to provide good housing and food for their families. It’s been that way for decades. While wages went up at tad, it was not enough to keep pace with the cost of living!
Yet we have a 6 figured salaried congress, with a golden pension, and Platinum health care for life and it covers their kids until they are 26. I don’t see dingy harry writing that extra check to the IRS.
What I do see is he and RINOS like TN’s sen. lamar alexader vote to cut, gut Military pensions, and health care, that is already very rationed. They won’t give up one dime. Meanwhile they keep greasing DOD contractors palms with billions of $$ for items the Military says it does not want or need.
They knew they were going to close the Commissaries, yet they went ahead and installed $7,000 speed bumps in 5mph parking lots, and installed electronic price stickers. Mre palm greasing.
Democrats and the left are 100% supportive of the idea that taxpayers should subsidize low-wage voters.
That was a bunch of class-envy crap.
The liberal Democrats are fully supportive of tax-payers being robbed to subsidize the “poor”. Now they want to pretend to oppose it?
Huge joke right here.