Ursa Majoris Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Eat this Wal-Mart boy ... their own (own as in sponsored) study shows that as Wal-Mart's share of the market increases, so does the burden on Medicaid ... Wal-Mart = People on Medicaid "Wal-Mart commissioned the independent economic research company Global Insight to manage the conference, conduct a study and solicit research (Joyce, Washington Post, 11/5). In total, nine studies were presented at the conference (Grant, USA Today, 11/7). For the Medicaid study, economist Michael Hicks, a professor at the Air Force Institute of Technology, examined the impact of Wal-Mart on government aid programs. According to the study, Medicaid expenditures increase by 1.5% for every 1% that the market share of Wal-Mart increases in a state. The study also found government cash aid to families decreases by 3.3% for every 1% that the market share of Wal-Mart increases in a state. The studies also indicate that Wal-Mart decreases wages in the communities in which it operates, Bloomberg reports (Bloomberg, 11/4). Wal-Mart does not increase expenditures for welfare or food stamps, the study found (New York Times, 11/5). 1211098[/snapback] Confusing H8 with facts.....that's a 10 post penalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 it's like none of you bleating idiots even read wedgie's article. Many of the so-called progressive criticisms of Wal-Mart are off base, Furman argues. The company's $10 billion profit for last year amounts to $6,000 per employee, which is about average in retailing. Its health care coverage ratio - 48 percent of its employees have company insurance - actually is slightly above average for the retail industry. It's ludicrous, Furman says, to criticize Wal-Mart for getting "corporate welfare" because its employees qualify for Medicaid, food stamps and other benefits. Such "welfare" was made possible by Clinton-era policies, which expanded the earned income tax credit and allowed children to keep Medicaid coverage when a parent took a low-paying job. The beneficiaries are the working poor, not the corporations that hire them. wal-mart is doing more than their part to keep GDP high and inflation low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 I only care about poor people if we are talking about Wal Marts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 it's like none of you bleating idiots even read wedgie's article.wal-mart is doing more than their part to keep GDP high and inflation low. 1211140[/snapback] Thank you, I was just thinking the same thing. They are right in line with other retailers, but you guys crucify them. Why? I will agree that the quality for some things isn't there - We buy meat from a local butcher and produce from Publix or local farmers in the summer. That's an economic choice. Beaumont - I have no knowledge of Vlassic, but Levi's is dying because of a general consumer trend, to whit: people are more and more buying the cheapest available regardless of quality or the finest available regardless of price. No one is buying middle-of-the-road stuff anymore. I read this after hearing Clark Howard talk about it (I know, ) and I see it in my own spending habits. I used to be a consumer of Levi's, dockers, etc. I've switched to buying either "Faded Glory" or Brooks Bros, honestly. If I need good clothes I buy good clothes. If I don't, why pay $30 for Levi's when the $12-$15 Wal-mart brand will last nearly as long (I don't wear jeans that often)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Beaumont - I have no knowledge of Vlassic, but Levi's is dying because of a general consumer trend, to whit: people are more and more buying the cheapest available regardless of quality or the finest available regardless of price. No one is buying middle-of-the-road stuff anymore. I read this after hearing Clark Howard talk about it (I know, ) and I see it in my own spending habits. I used to be a consumer of Levi's, dockers, etc. I've switched to buying either "Faded Glory" or Brooks Bros, honestly. If I need good clothes I buy good clothes. If I don't, why pay $30 for Levi's when the $12-$15 Wal-mart brand will last nearly as long (I don't wear jeans that often)? 1212617[/snapback] Ok, I am not sure you meant to tell me this ... probably someone else. I have no problem with the quality of Wal-Mart's goods, just their jobs ... Wal-Mart's impact on wages and Medicaid aps do not reflect those of other retailers ... As Wal-Mart's share of the pie increases, wages go down and Medicaid aps go up ... As to whether this impact on low-wage earners as a whole is offset by the availability of cheap goods, maybe. But low prices on volume sales and providing affordable medical care as an employment benefit are not mutually exclusive ... I am particularly interested in the assertion that Wal-Mart has a $6k profit/employee and that is "about average" in retail ... A more legitimate inquiry would be what is Wal-Mart's profit margin compared to the other retailers that offer medical benefits superior to Wal-Mart's ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Here is the Pickle Story re: Wal-Mart. A very good read ... Wal-Mart and Pickles ... right on your point WV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Wal-Mart wields its power for just one purpose: to bring the lowest possible prices to its customers. Oh my NO! THis CANNOT BE TOLERATED!~!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Ok, I am not sure you meant to tell me this ... probably someone else. I have no problem with the quality of Wal-Mart's goods, just their jobs ... Wal-Mart's impact on wages and Medicaid aps do not reflect those of other retailers ... As Wal-Mart's share of the pie increases, wages go down and Medicaid aps go up ... As to whether this impact on low-wage earners as a whole is offset by the availability of cheap goods, maybe. But low prices on volume sales and providing affordable medical care as an employment benefit are not mutually exclusive ... I am particularly interested in the assertion that Wal-Mart has a $6k profit/employee and that is "about average" in retail ... A more legitimate inquiry would be what is Wal-Mart's profit margin compared to the other retailers that offer medical benefits superior to Wal-Mart's ... 1212635[/snapback] You're right, the quality statement was in agreement with Ursa. As to the insurance - you kind of have that already. If the profit/employee is average, and the number of employees with insurance is above average, then... Look, why are blaming Wal-mart for people making bad decisions - like having families when the only job they can get is running a cash register or stocking shelves? These people are themselves responsible for their predicaments. Period. In 99.9% of cases, those that are poor are poor because they keep doing things that make people poor. Those that are wealthy are wealthy because they keep doing things that make people wealthy. It's one thing to have a bleeding heart for the disabled, mentally ill, etc, but face it: most people are poor because of their own stupid decisions. Be glad Wal-mart provides cheap clothes, food and other necessities, rather than killing them because they don't pay someone $100K/year for putting the Barbie dolls on a shelf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Look, why are blaming Wal-mart for people making bad decisions - like having families when the only job they can get is running a cash register or stocking shelves? These people are themselves responsible for their predicaments. Period. In 99.9% of cases, those that are poor are poor because they keep doing things that make people poor. Those that are wealthy are wealthy because they keep doing things that make people wealthy. It's one thing to have a bleeding heart for the disabled, mentally ill, etc, but face it: most people are poor because of their own stupid decisions. Be glad Wal-mart provides cheap clothes, food and other necessities, rather than killing them because they don't pay someone $100K/year for putting the Barbie dolls on a shelf. 1212687[/snapback] I am not blaming Wal-Mart for poor people. The world needs ditch diggers too (credit to Judge Smalls). But Wal-Mart is taking over the retail market, and it appears that the employment benefits and wages it offers are not as advantageous as the retailers it is replacing. Therefore, it is fair game to question whether that is a good thing that we want to happen ... just MHO. Same thing with the pickle & jeans story. Wal-Mart is flooding the US with cheap goods from out of the country. This is forcing many US manufacturers to go overseas to stay competitive. Is this good? Its certainly a debate we whould be having ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Oh my NO! THis CANNOT BE TOLERATED!~!!! 1212679[/snapback] Don't be so simplistic ... what do you think of the effects of Wal-Mart's policy on US manufacturers? I assume your take is screw them if they can't compete with the Chinese ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 This is forcing many US manufacturers to go overseas to stay competitive. Is this good? That is a tired old arguement... taxes and lawyers move Business overseas... If we provide a job in india, that guy in india is gonna want to buy american goods, we win overall. free trade is not the enemy. I just can't beleive you are argueing walmart is bad cause they help poor people, what a basstard you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 That is a tired old arguement... taxes and lawyers move Business overseas... 1212713[/snapback] No, I am sure that 35 cent/hour labor does not have anything to do with it ... You, sir, are a silly man ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted December 13, 2005 Author Share Posted December 13, 2005 No, I am sure that 35 cent/hour labor does not have anything to do with it ... You, sir, are a silly man ... 1212715[/snapback] So, in the name of helping poor people, you are arguing that we should take jobs away from people who make 35 cents an hour just so we can give them to people who make 20-60 times more than that? ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 So, in the name of helping poor people, you are arguing that we should take jobs away from people who make 35 cents an hour just so we can give them to people who make 20-60 times more than that? ok 1212724[/snapback] No, I am arguing that Wal-Mart should provide affordable health care to its employees. The effect that global competition has on US manufacturing jobs is something I cannot solve in my own little mind ... perhaps our standard of living for the middle class really had priced the US out of mfg and forced us to become service only ... the real issue is whether the US govt wants to get protectionist to protect its own mfg jobs ... But laughing off the loss of US mfg jobs to overseas facilities is not so easy for those who rely upon the jobs ... Do you suggest that it is good that the US mfg industry folds so we can improve the quality of life for Indonesean factory workers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted December 13, 2005 Author Share Posted December 13, 2005 But laughing off the loss of US mfg jobs to overseas facilities is not so easy for those who rely upon the jobs ...1212741[/snapback] Who is laughing it off? Would you have been in favor of banning tractors since they put agricultural workers out of work? Would you have joined the Luddites and burned down mechanized textile factories since they put some hand weavers out of work? Yes, it sucks ass for someone to lose their job, but that does not mean that it is a good policy to prevent such job losses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 So, in the name of helping poor people, you are arguing that we should take jobs away from people who make 35 cents an hour just so we can give them to people who make 20-60 times more than that? ok 1212724[/snapback] Why not? Are you asking me what's more important that some jerkoff in Indonesia makes $0.35 an hour or that some jerkoff in Slayersville, KY makes $7.00 an hour? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Who is laughing it off? 1212755[/snapback] H8. I believe. And as to should we try to prevent it, that is the issue. IMHO, yes. But I understand that advocates of free trade would simply say adapt or die off ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 But I understand that advocates of free trade would simply say adapt or die off ... You missed some classes in highschool childman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 But Wal-Mart is taking over the retail market, and it appears that the employment benefits and wages it offers are not as advantageous as the retailers it is replacing. 1212699[/snapback] if wedgie's article is correct, your assumption here is wrong. as has been pointed out to you several times. are you ignoring that because you have some empirical basis for doing so? or just because it's inconvenient? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 (edited) if wedgie's article is correct, your assumption here is wrong. as has been pointed out to you several times. are you ignoring that because you have some empirical basis for doing so? or just because it's inconvenient? 1212832[/snapback] Why are you ignoring the studies actually commissioned by Wal-mart and quoted and linked by me above that prove it is correct? "are you ignoring that because you have some empirical basis for doing so? or just because it's inconvenient?" Note that Weigie's article focuses in large part on the impact that low goods have to help the poor ... not on the actual trends as Wal-Mart increases market share ... Edited December 13, 2005 by Beaumont Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 (edited) Consider this debate between Jason Furman, who performed the analysis cited by Weigie, and others. Even Furman concedes that Wal-Mart expansion leads to wage surpression. Note especially the bolded parts: The Great Wal-Mart Debate Three experts talk wages, health care and the everyday low prices of our nation’s largest employer. By Maggie Brock, University of South Carolina Monday, November 21, 2005 As part of a national week of action organized by Wal-Mart Watch, the Center for American Progress hosted a panel debating Wal-Mart’s impact on America’s workers last week. Robert Gordon, the Senior Vice President for Economic Policy at CAP, moderated a discussion between Arindrajit Dube, Jason Furman, and Leo J. Hindery, Jr. Dube, a research economist at the UC Berkeley Institute of Industrial Relations, based his discussion heavily on his most recent study, “Wal-Mart and Job Quality – What Do We Know, and Should We Care?” Furman, former Director of Economic Policy for the Kerry-Edwards campaign and a visiting scholar at NYU’s Wagner School of Public Policy, authored the provocatively titled “Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story.” Hindery drew on more than 25 years of experience as a CEO of several companies including AT&T Broadband, which garnered him the distinction of being named one of Business Week’sTop 25 Executives of the Year. The engaging debate covered a variety of topics, including Wal-Mart’s effect on wages, health care, and local economies. Here are your cliff notes. Kind of a Big Deal Robert Gordon: Wal-Mart is America’s largest employer. 1.3 million employees in the U.S. [Wal-Mart employs 300,000 people abroad], more people than the US Army. $250 billion in sales that accounted for over 2% of America’s GDP. If Wal-Mart were an economy unto itself, it would be China’s 8th largest trading partner, ahead of Russia, Australia, and Canada. Just yesterday, Wal-Mart announced its profits for the most recent quarter were $2.4 billion, an increase of 3.8%. Leo J. Hindery Jr.: We have never seen anything like Wal-Mart. We’ve never seen a company grow so large and so impactful so quickly, $288 billion in revenue, $11 billion in profits. Its impacts, both good and bad, are just momentous. The thing that I find more interesting, is the fact that since 1992, [which] was the year founder Sam Walton passed, Wal-Mart has achieved its growth and success by focusing solely on the interests of its shareholders and its management with little to no regard for its employees, for communities, or for the overall American economy. Arindrajit Dube: If you look at Wal-Mart’s growth over the ‘90s, the number of stores doubled. The Wal-Mart reach has become national. If you look at number of counties with at least one Wal-Mart, in 1988, the majority of counties did not have a Wal-Mart; in 2000, the majority did. Everyday Low Prices Hindery: The piece that makes this all such an important debate is indisputably price. We know that Wal-Mart customers pay at least $10 billion less for the goods they purchase than they would sans Wal-Mart…. But at what cost, I must ask, at what cost have these purchasing power benefits come? Jason Furman: Big picture: people blow past the price issue: “yea, yea, of course, Wal-Mart has lower prices.” The price differences are staggering. Wal-Mart prices are, on average, 8 to 40% lower that what people would pay elsewhere. The total annual savings in one recent study for consumers was $263 billion, that’s $2,300 for every household in America. There are few public policies I’ve advocated that would make as big of a difference as that. Compare that to estimates of wage suppression by Wal-Mart, which was $5 billion a year due to wage suppression. It’s an enormous differential. Hindery: The concept that they save us $263 billion – just think of it in your head. Their revenues were $288. They do not save us roughly 100%. That would imply that the revenues of this store should have been 2x. It’s not possible. It’s much closer to tens of billions of dollars, but it is not $263 billion. It is not just cheap goods. These aren’t American goods. This company consciously seeks out cheap goods manufactured offshore under deplorable circumstances. We are losing honest American jobs to fuel this machine. The substitution is an off-shore/on-shore substitution. The fact that [Wal-Mart CEO] Lee Scott made $23 million last year – this premise that you should give all your profits to your management so that they can pass it down to the economy – that one just about did me in. Furman: Wal-Mart lowers nominal wages by 0.8%. Wal-Mart lowers prices by 1.5-3% in the short run, and 6-12% in the long run. If you take these two sets of evidence together, it would say that the low prices that Wal-Mart brings aren’t just enough to make the workers not working at Wal-Mart better off, they’re enough to make up for the wage effect that Wal-Mart has. Health Care Hindery: We now know more than just anecdotally about the painful comparison of Wal-Mart to Costco, and we do know about the company’s miserly health care plan. Thanks to a leaked memo, we actually know of its attempts to make the plan more miserly and more discriminatory.… There are great comparisons for Wal-Mart. At Costco, 82% of its employees receive a fulsome medical plan versus 48% at Wal-Mart that receive by every measure a miserly plan. We know that the effective coverage of the Wal-Mart plan is about 59%; at Costco, it’s 92%. Furman: I called my paper “Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story.” Part of it is the progressive benefits that Wal-Mart has delivered. Wal-Mart, through no part of its own, largely or mostly because of the kind of people it employs that have lower skills in an economy with an increasingly high reward to skills and a low reward to lack of skills, doesn’t pay as much as most of us think it should pay. In the 1990s, we expanded the EITC, we raised the minimum wage, it used to be that when you went to work, you lost your Medicaid – we changed that, so you can keep your Medicaid when you work – these are progressive success stories. When people deride these as corporate welfare, it just baffles me. I’d like to try to convince you to drop the “corporate welfare,” and rather than attack the Wal-Mart employees for benefiting from these programs, celebrate it, and push to expand it. Dube: In terms of job-based health coverage, you see about 53% coverage rate for large retailers, and it’s about 48% for Wal-Mart. One of the things that characterizes Wal-Mart’s plan is that they’re a lot less comprehensive than other retailers. If you look at Wal-Mart’s own tax filings, it actually pays 59% of healthcare costs for its workers and dependents. The number for retail overall is 77% for individual and 68% for families. Wal-Mart is providing less money on health care than other retailers. If you adjust for all that, the health costs per hour of work gap is about 37%. The evidence is pretty clear that there’s a large gap in health care. In the leaked Wal-Mart memo, they surveyed their own workers, and they say that about 24% of workers are either uninsured or on Medicaid. In contrast, large retailers, 22.5%, not a big difference. When you look at dependents, the story is quite different. Wal-Mart has 46% of child dependents either uninsured or on Medicaid versus other large retailers at about 29%. Unfortunately, we don’t have the same numbers for adult dependents, because Susan Chambers’ memo did not include that figure. The Wage Question Hindery: We know about the extreme subsidization, in effect, of the company’s workers by state welfare plans. $86 million last year was spent in the state of California alone to give full-time Wal-Mart employees welfare benefits. Dube: We need to account for the fact that Wal-Mart might be located in different areas than other retailers, so this weights each state by the state’s average wage by Wal-Mart’s share of employment in that state. I find about a 16% gap in average wages between Wal-Mart and large retailers. If you just look at retail overall, it’s 12%. If that’s in the same order of magnitude, it’s not gigantic, but it’s sizeable. If you compare in a cross-sectional sense Wal-Mart’s wages and benefits with other retailers, they’re lower overall. Hindery: Costco pays its average employee $16 an hour, Wal-Mart sits there at $9.68. Wal-Mart gets out of bed by design in the morning, and they go to bed at night by design. It is a practice of the company that they have embraced. Corporate Responsibilities Hindery: The business roundtable, which is a much esteemed aggregation of the big public company chief executives, in 1992 adopted formally a [definition] of corporate responsibility that extended to more than just shareholders. It identified a specific responsibility to employees, to society as a whole, and to the American economy. Last year, 2004, post-Enron, post-WorldCom, post this explosive growth of Wal-Mart, not, in some senses, all coincidence, the same roundtable formally disavowed corporate responsibility to multiple constituencies and instead codified a shareholders-only perspective. If corporate and CEO responsibility is indeed only to shareholders, then Wal-Mart, the world’s largest employer, should in fact only pay its employees the paltry $9.68 on average that it does. It should, in fact, have a medical plan for employees that is so miserly, that tens of thousands of its employees’ children are uninsured and only covered by Medicare, and it should, sadly, abandon Sam Walton’s very notable, very publicized, “buy-American” purchasing program to such a degree that Wal-Mart is standing alone as China’s 8th largest trading partner. Twenty-five years ago there was a clear mandate for businesses to consider and to make tradeoffs for all possible constituencies. Fifteen years ago, Wal-Mart abandoned those tradeoffs and began to focus solely on shareholders and on management interests. Furman: Wal-Mart claims to care about the welfare of its employees. Any corporation is going to put 98% of its effort into maximizing its profits and share prices. If Wal-Mart cares about its employees, rather than lobbying against progressive issues, it would lobby for them, and it would work to expand these types of programs. If it were corporate welfare, it would help Wal-Mart’s profits, and they would have an interest in lobbying for increased EITC and food stamps, but I don’t think it’ll help their shareholders at all, but it’ll help their workers a lot, and that’s something they claim to care about. Solution? Dube: One may be tempted to say if you account for $5 billion in wage loss and a greater amount in price savings, if Wal-Mart were a public policy, and we were choosing a public policy, we would say yes. But that’s not the relevant question. The relevant question is not “yes or no Wal-Mart,” the relevant question is “can Wal-Mart pay better wages and benefits?” If you take the large retail standard – that 16% compensation gap – if they were to provide just that, that would cost them less than 2% of sales. If they raised the price of an item that cost $1 by $0.02, that would cover the added costs. If their price gap is 25%, a 2% price increase does not change their competitive advantage. If 90% of the price gain or lower prices are due to legitimate reasons and 10% are due to lower wages and benefits, it’s pretty easy to fix that. A Republican board in Nassau County passed legislation that would require a provision of $3/hour for health care for big box retailers, and similar legislation was passed with a veto override in New York City. If you raise the minimum wage, the price of a burger might go up. I might look for a cheaper burger, but I might support a higher minimum wage – understanding that as community members, we think about the issue differently than we do as consumers. Edited December 13, 2005 by Beaumont Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauders11 Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 I don't get it? If you don't like Wal-Mart's employee benefits, wages, etc. then don't work there- If you don't like their products, prices or practices, then don't shop there. It's pretty simple really-no reason to debate even. This is America you have the choice- use it I have really no opinion on the matter- if I need something and there is a Wal-Mart selling it for 30% cheaper than another store I'm sure as shiat gonna save myself the money- I gotta look out for me and my family first ya know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonKnight Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Who the hell shops at Wal-Mart? I have been in one meybe 3 times in my entire life and I am by no means rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codwagon Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Hindery: Costco pays its average employee $16 an hour, Wal-Mart sits there at $9.68. Wal-Mart gets out of bed by design in the morning, and they go to bed at night by design. It is a practice of the company that they have embraced. 1212857[/snapback] Kind of funny that you chose to highlight the fact that the average Wal-Mart employee makes the same wage as what you pay your admin. asst. Don't tell her/him about Costco wages or you might have to pull an employee over from Wally World for that whopping $0.32 raise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codwagon Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Who the hell shops at Wal-Mart? I have been in one meybe 3 times in my entire life and I am by no means rich. 1212915[/snapback] The average Wal-Mart customer earns $35,000 a year, compared with $50,000 at Target and $74,000 at Costco. Moreover, Wal-Mart's "every day low prices" make the biggest difference to the poor, since they spend a higher proportion of income on food and other basics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.