Republican Legislator Blames Wal-Mart for Rising Health Care Costs

Well add Tennessee to Georgia (and its 10,000 kids in their needy children’s program). I would like to point out that this is not the first time a republican politician has taken them to
task in an article on this site. Whether they can be explained
away as isolated nuts it seems to me they’re becoming less
isolated. A solution of course that would take them off the hook on this (and a lot of other businesses also) is a National
health care plan. Maybe someone else has some other ideas
besides letting people suffer or die. It would be good to hear what they are. One way or the other a solution is needed.

Why is everything always Wal-Mart’s fault? Because they are a convenient bogeyman right now. What I think Wal-Mart should do is 1. Give MILLIONS of dollars in the next congressional elections to the opponents of politicians who are attacking Wal-Mart. 2. Shut down every one of their stores and fire 1.6 million people tomorrow. That would shut people up.  When you are one of the millions of people who work at, or depend on, Wal-Mart for your livelihood and you are out on your ass, maybe you will wake up and tell your elected representatives that life with a good job and $50 a month health insurance really wasn’t so bad.

I know it’s politcally fashionable to blame Wal-Mart for all the world’s problems but it simply doesn’t make sense. In this country, you are not entitled to any benefits. I would venture to say that many companies would pay minimum wage and NO benefits if they thought they could attract qualified employees that way. Your employer is required to not engage in discrimination, obey work, labor, health and environmental rules, obey the law of the land, pay a minimim of $5.15 an hour and pay overtime for anything over 40 hours. Now, here are all the things your employer is NOT required to cover:

Employers are NOT responsible for:

1. Your health insurance
2. Your babysitter
3. Your desire to have 5 children
4. Your retirement
5. Your mortgage payment
6. Your car payment
7. Your life insurance
8. Your off the job injury or disability
9. Your happiness
10. Your self-esteem
11. Anything else not listed above.

News Flash for Idiot politicians: Most of the 1.6 million Wal-Mart employees would not be able to find employment at $25 an hour plus a full array of luxury benefits. They are much better off at Wal-Mart than they would be anywhere else. If that wan’t true, they would be working elsewhere you morons!

Are companies like Toyota and Honda, non-union automakers with streamlined work rules, good pay, sensible employee health insurance and intelligent leadership worse than companies like GM and Ford, with poor products, luxury benefits and outrageous compensation? I am not exaggerating this: I know line workers at a certain domestic automaker who earn in excess of $100,000 a year plus awesome benefits. GM and Ford may offer better short-term benefits but when they go bankrupt and the employees and retirees lose their jobs, health insurance and pensions you will see differently. Honda and Toyota provide good work environments, good pay and benefits for their industry and competitive environments that help employees and the company to grow. Wal-Mart is the same type of company.

Remember: the best employer is not necessarily the employer that provides the most lavish benefits. It is the employer who does his best to guarantee that his employees will have jobs tomorrow. And that’s what Wal-Mart is doing. Where would these 1.6 million employees be without Wal-Mart? Either underemployed or unemployed. In either case, the taxpayers would pay more and inflation would run rampant. Economic facts, folks.

Politicians should learn basic economics before they shoot their stupid mouths off.

“There are two fields open to people who have failed in every other aspect of their lives: schoolteaching and politics”.

Nick, you are a very enlightened man for the 13th century.

Actually and unfortunately Nick is very much in tune with the 21st century. I point out here for fairness sake that there are republicans who seem to get (my opinion) that funding for a
variety of emergency services in their states is being depleted. If the pay levels that WM gives it employees puts
many of them in need of these services what really do you
expect them to say? That it’s okay? And I wouldn’t doubt at
all that WM might fund possible opponents against them in
their next election. Well? I also brought up the alternative
solution of National Health Care. One that might settle the
whole problem for Wal-Mart (among others) without their lifting a finger.  To me to say then that ‘everything is WM’s
fault is a bit of an overreaction. I know that there are legitimate concerns regarding such a system put in place. I
happen to think it would be better than what we have now.
I expect there to be some not altogether good side effects that would come from that. Although hopefully for my sake
it would include dental and make it at least a little cheaper.

Nick what do you think is going to happen if Wal-Mart is allowed to continue the course that it is on. First any good paying retail jobs will be eliminated (yes their are good paying retail jobs if you are part of a union) because they cannot compete with Wal-Marts disobedience of being a good corporate citizen. Secondly the number of uninsured Americans is going to skyrocket because of the loss of those retailing jobs. Some of the jobs maybe replaced because of WalMarts relentless expanding but that will not stop the increase of Americans without health insurance. If Wal-Mart has as much control over inflation as you claim that they do what do you think is going to happen if WalMart were to eliminate most other retailers. Since people are not going to have a choice in where they shop Wal-Mart will be able to charge any price they want for a product...a.k.a here comes the rampant inflation you like to talk about. And here is an economics lesson for you. Wal-Mart is DRIVING DOWN WAGES therefore there isn’t going to be inflation because people aren’t buying because they cannot afford to buy living on Wal-Marts wages. Inflation is a result of increasing wages. Wages increase because people demand to make more money the longer they are with an employer. When employers give raises they increase expenses. In order to pay for this increase in expenses they have to increase revenue...the only way to increase revenue is to increase prices on the products they sell. The increase of prices in products sold is what we call INFLATION. If WalMart is driving down wages we have what is called DEFLATION. Deflation decreases the value of the dollar which makes the dollar less competitive against foreign currency. A weak dollar isn’t good for anyone...except probably WalMart. And thirdly since Wal-Marts effects on employement are statistically zero if Wal-Mart continues eliminating other retailers unemployment in America will increase. So now you have an increase in unemployed people and uninsured people. Where are these people going to go for help, the government. Where do you think the government is going to get the money to help these people...by raising taxes. Who suffers when the government raises taxes the US citizens. So instead of going to Wal-Mart and saving 2 cents on a tube of toothpaste so that my taxes increase by $200.00 I will continue to shop at the retailers who are good corporate citizens and spend that 2 extra cents so that in the long run i can save $200.00. That is what it is all about Nick everyone thinks that Wal-Mart is so great right now because they claim to save people money, but no one is looking at the long term costs. But when you do you realize that the long term costs dangerously outweigh the short term “savings”

Actually chris, several studies have shown that employment increases after 3 and 5 yrs when a WM enters a town.  Second of all, There are studies that show WM shoppers save anywhere from 14-17% on items, a bit more than the 2 cents you allude to chris.  If you add it up, WM saved people over 20 billion dollars last year.  WM has also proven that the % of it’s employees on govt health plans decreases the longer they work there.  Those are facts, but I bet you’ll still say how bad they are and give some opinion or come back with a personal insult on me.

No Nick I am not going to personally insult you, this is not what this website is about, and I tend to stay out of blogs where the debates have turned into nothing more than immature posts. What I am going to do is provide you with the facts that I can document. University of Missouri researcher Emek Basker found that the overall effect on employment when Wal-Mart enters a community is “statistically zero.” If you add it up WM cost taxpayers over 2 billion dollars per year, and that is just direct costs. 41-46% of WMs employees are insured by WMs health plan, that is it. Those are documented facts..facts which I can find written in black and white. I would be happy to take your posts into consideration if you provided documentation.

There are very few issues where Republicans and Democrats agree.  But this is one of them.  Probably because this issue deals with health care and labor practices, which democrats like.  and taxpayers subsidies and foreign trade which traditional republicans abhor.

In the final analysis, Wal-Mart is bad for America.  I don’t state this lightly.  When Microsoft or GM were the top of American industry, workers and the middle class were doing great.

Now we have Wal-Mart, which increases its profits every year but regular people fall farther behind.

What do I mean by regular people?  Factory workers, retail employees, middle management and even many entrepeneurs.  Even many wealthy investors are hurt by Wal-Mart’s terrible way of doing business.

It’s time for us to stop protecting the Walton family, and worry about America’s family first.

46% covered by WM’s plan...Many are covered by their spouses or parent’s plan. true?  So if 7% were on pubic healthcare before working at WM, 5% after 1 yr, and less than 3% after 2 yrs of employment, doesn’t that count for something? 

-University of Missouri researcher Emek Basker found that the overall effect on employment when Wal-Mart enters a community is “statistically zero.”

what about 2 and 3 yrs out?  It has been shown to increase.

And a 2 billion cost?  I’d like to see some kind of proof of that, but there is none, it’s all based on flawed assumptions and suppositions from Sen. Miller’s “study”

What about the 20 billion in direct savings? Not to mention the savings from competitiors lowering their prices as well?

And I’m not Nick.

Well either way you both fling the same amount of crap, you each refuse to except PROOF of WMs wrong doings by declaring it as flawed or wrong as just plain made up, even though it is documented, where is your documentation. And what about competitors lowering their prices. This leads to a decrease in benefits to its employees such as money spent on the companies health plan, increasing the cost to its employees, which lowers the discretionary income of competitors employees...which leads to a decrease of revenue in revenue of companies in other area’s of the economy which decreases which forces those companies to cutback spending on wages and health care, usually after they try to increase revenue by raising the cost of the product or service it supplies. I am curious to find out the source that claims wal-mart directly saves 20 billion dollars directly. And I do apologize for the mix up in who i addressed my last post to q.

Beep beep.... beep beep.....News flash! Wal-Mart health care plans start at about 40 dollars per month.  That is cheaper then a cell phone or a cable bill.  The only reason people don’t have health care at walmart is because they don’t want to sacrifice something else.  And why should they?  In America no one is turned away from a hospital by law!  Everyone gets health care by law!  Insured or not… Citizen or not.....  So they choose to have cable TV and high speed internet instead of health care.  Or, maybe it is 6 cups of starbucks a month.  That is all it freakin’ costs!  People don’t want to pay it because they know if something serious happens they will get care for free!

What a bunch of hippies.

The reason that people at wal-mart don’t have health care is because as unfortunate as it sounds since you claim that it is only $40/month they can’t afford it on the wage they make at WM. The healthcare that these uninsured employees use is not FREE as you claim, the cost is passed on to the taxpayers. Its not that WM can’t afford to pay for comprehensive health coverage, it’s that they don’t want to.

Are you really that blind Chris?  Next time you go to wal-mart ask an checker/associate if they have cable tv or a cell phone.  I did last time I was there and everyone I asked had at least cable tv - most had both.  One older fellow didn’t have a cell phone, but he did have insurance. 

Chris you need to get in touch with the real world.  Nearly everyone who works at walmart can afford their health coverage.  They simply choose to spend their money on other things.

Aaron, if they could AFFORD the health insurance than they would not be on government funded health care. In order to be on government funded health care you have to make below a certain wage, the wage level varies in each state, but in any state the wage is not that high. State health insurance was designed for the working poor.  Since there are so many people on state funded health insurance wouldn’t you consider them the working poor. People who make enough money to not be considered working poor are not eligible to be on the states health care plan...the people who work at Wal-Mart are...REASON: THEY DON’T MAKE ENOUGH MONEY!!!

Well chris I knew it wouldn’t be long before you brooke out the insults.  Calling my opinion crap.  I guess it just means you don’t have enough evidence to back up your own. 

A UBS Warburg study found that Wal-Mart grocery prices are 17 to 20 percent lower than other supermarkets, which has the greatest benefit for a community’s low-income families. According to a study done by the Los Angeles Economic Development Council, Wal-Mart potentially saves individual families more than $500 a year. This is money that can be used to buy food, gas or any other priorities for that family.

Studies show that new businesses spring up near Wal-Marts and existing stores flourish as they take advantage of the increased customer flow to and from our stores. Drive by any Wal-Mart store and count the number of businesses operating nearby, many are independent local businesses or locally owned franchises. The most definitive look at this issue, by Dr. Emek Basker at the University of Missouri, showed average increases of 50 retail jobs in communities five years after the entry of Wal-Mart.

Nice Spin chris.  Like how you said “Statistically zero”.  I guess it just depends on the size of the town.50 jobs may not be much in NYC, but in most towns(pop 5K-100K) that wal-mart operates in, 50 jobs is a lot more than zero.

On diversity:
This year, Wal-Mart was named one of “The 30 Best Companies for Diversity” by Black Enterprise magazine.
This year, Wal-Mart was named to the DiversityInc Top 50 Companies For Diversity list.
In 2003 and 2004, Wal-Mart was listed as #1 on FORTUNE Magazine’s “Most Admired Company in America” listing.
In 2004, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. was honored with the prestigious “Corporate Patriotism Award” sponsored by the Employer for Guard and Reserve organization.
In 2004, Wal-Mart was listed as one of the top 50 corporations (#5 on the list) by DiversityBusiness.com for providing multicultural business opportunities to diverse suppliers based on a poll of more than 200,000 diversity business owners across the U.S.
Hispanic Magazine ranked Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. among the top 100 companies providing the most opportunities for Hispanics in 2004.
Vista Magazine announced in 2004 that Wal-Mart was named among its Top Family Friendly Companies for Hispanics.
Latin Trade Reader named Wal-Mart among Latin America’s 25 Most-Respected Employers in 2004.
In 2004, Wal-Mart was named by Asian Enterprise magazine as one of the top ten companies for Asian Americans.
In 2004, Black Collegian magazine listed Wal-Mart as one of the top diversity employers.
Wal-Mart received the 2002 Ron Brown Award, the highest Presidential Award recognizing outstanding achievement in employee relations and community initiatives.
In a poll sponsored by Career and Disabled Magazine in 2004, Wal-Mart was recognized as one of the top companies in the nation for providing a positive working environment for people with disabilities.
ASDA was named the best place to work in the United Kingdom by FORTUNE magazine in 2004.
Wal-Mart Canada was named the best retailer to work for in Canada by Report on Business Magazine in 2003 and 2004.

In December, The Segmentation Company conducted a survey of WM associates The study
showed that 7 percent of hourly store associates were on Medicaid three months before joining
Wal-Mart, but that number dropped to 5 percent once they join. After two years of employment,
it drops to 3 percent.

at $40 month for insurance, people can get it for 4.5 hours of wages on average.  Avg wage = 9.68/hr.  40/9.68 = 4.13.  If you work full time, you work 160hr/month.  4.13/160 =
2.5% of your monthly income. 
That’s less than most state taxes, less than cable service, less than a dinner out with a significant other, etc.  So don’t say CANT afford it to Aaron, it’s more a case of priorities.

State Govt workers where I live make less money and have a higher insurance premium where I live.

so chris, what is your proof?

I wouldn’t exactly define WalMarts insurance as health care. I would say it’s I would say it’s submit your claim, get denied, pay it out of pocket care.
I live in a town of 15,000 and I would call 50 jobs created over a 5 year period “Statistically zero”. Lets do a little nonscientific study. In Small Town America lets say the average graduating class is 200. Now, of that 200 I’d say that 100 will go on to College or trade school. Of the 100 that we have left lets say that 10 of them choose a career in the armed forces. That leaves us with 90 graduates. We know that not all 90 will choose to enter the local job market. Some will choose to leave town, and some will choose not to work(ie. wealthy, stay at home parent, burned out stoner, criminal, whatever). So, lets be generous and cut that number in half. Now we have 45 graduates looking to enter the local job market. Lets multiply that by 5 years, we’ve got 225 graduates looking to enter the local job market. Take the 50 jobs that WM has “created” and you now have 175 grads still in need of work. They could go to work at the local factory, but it was closed after WM started buying the product they made from a factory in China. They could go to work for a local merchant, but the local merchants have all been squeezed out of business, because they couldn’t compete with WMs low prices.
Now I may not be a college professor, or some kind of financial genus, but the 50 jobs WalMart creats looks like less than “Statistically zero” to me. So much for prosperity.
I’m sure Pro WalMarters will tear down my logic, thats their right and lets be honest about it, that’s probably what their being paid to do("our stores"), but the fact remains, I am an average middle class American citizen and I have grown tired of WalMart and refuse to shop there. Despite what sales figures that are thrown out in WMs defense more and more Americans are becoming disgusted with WM and are going to choose not to shop there.  WM would be wise to wake up to the growing descent and make some changes, otherwise they could end up like Montgomery Wards.
I know it’s not WMs responsability to create jobs, but don’t tell me that’s what they do when I can use simple logic and see othewise. Furthermore in 29 years on this earth I have never seen a local buisness near a WalMart, at least not long after it opened anyway. The business that follow WM to town are other chain specialty stores, big box retailers and chain restraints. Wow, all those new businesses and only 50 new jobs.
BTW, calling someones opinion crap is not insulting them. It simply means that you don’t agree with their opinion.

To some manufacturing jobs=unions=employees making too
much money and have benefits=have to be outsourced=better world. More or less America minus its
middle class.

America minus it’s middle class is not a good thing.

Exactly. And that’s what’s happening. The loss of the means
of production. Current wisdom of some--and some that come here is that a job by itself whatever it is and however it
pays is what’s important. Manufacturing lost overseas are lost
often because the worker is being paid too much. Throw up
the minimum wage to some here and I’d expect they’d want
to get rid of it. Business should have absolutely no restraints.
The government should get out of the way completely.  My
old fashioned view that for a country to truly be powerful it
needs to have a strong and viable manufacturing and industrial basis bounces off of them like a bb would off of
Captain Kirk’s forcefield. They don’t even bother to acknowledge it. If the word union is attached Lucifer will
appear. Another thing is the shopping experience. The right
to save a nickel is sacrosanct.

well danny, 50 out of 225 may be statstically zero to you, but to me, its over 20%
yes larry, I do think America can adapt.
If you raise the minimum wage, inflation sets in and then you’re in the same situation, it’s just a bigger number.  Say the minimum wage goes from 5.15 to 10.00.  Increasing labor costs makes goods more expensive.  So instead of costing $5 for a burger and fries, the same burger and fries would be $10.  Nobody would be better off.
And you know that I think unions aren’t that good.  Maybe in manufacturing or coalmining, occupations that could involve someone getting hurt.  But in Retail? I think Unions are parasitic.  I’ll challenge again, name one good thing the UFCW has done in the last 5 yrs.

I have had no personal experiences regarding UFCW. Do you and is it something horrible? I’m all ears.

Hello everyone,

First let me comment on Wal-Mart’s job effect. Wal-Mart had a regular Wal-Mart in Washington, PA for a number of years. When they opened a new super Wal-Mart across the highway here is a sampling of the new businesses that opened up near them (businesses that did not exist in Washington before super Wal-Mart opened).

Target, Dick’s, Office Max, Michaels, Dollar Tree, Lowe’s, Pier 1, a large, new Giant Eagle, Mattress Discounters, Cingular Wireless store, Petsmart, Petco, Fashion Bug, Sam’s Club, Dress Barn, Rita’s Italian Ice, Panera Bread, Quiznos, Dentists office, Hyndai dealership, Aldi’s, Krispy Kreme, Applebees, Texas Steakhouse, Cracker Barrel, CD Warehouse, Famous Footwear, Red Lobster, Best Western Hotel, TGI Friday’s, Blockbuster, Starbucks, China Buffett, Hallmark Card store, Jewelry store, 2 hair salons/stores, Ponderosa, Cucuzza Italia restaraunt, Arby’s, McDonalds, Wesbanco, National City bank, and PNC bank are all locations that did not exist before Super Wal-Mart opened. Now they are all up and running and doing awesome business thanks to the traffice Wal-Mart brings. These businesses opened near Wal-Mart AFTER Wal-Mart and are now doing very well NEAR Wal-Mart. I would venture to say that there were 800 or more jobs created as a result of these new store openings. Probably a lot more but I’m being conservative. If what you people say about Wal-Mart is true, these businesses should not have opened and should not be doing well now. But they are. Because Wal-Mart draws shoppers and everyone benefits. You can provide all the false political studies you want. The bottom line is this: look at Washington PA and tell me super Wal-Mart does not bring jobs and tax revenues. (No businesses were lost as a result of this new growth, by the way).

My name is Nick and I approve this message.

At least 90% of those will be low wage jobs. Good for business---not so good for employees.

Larry,

Yes I am against a minimum wage and I am against unions in their present form. A minimum wage is government control, nothing less. That may sound fine to you but what if tomorrow you woke up and the government said “Well, GM and Ford are in trouble so every new car sold in America must be sold for a minimun of $30,000 except GM and Ford, which will cost $25,000”. Would that be wrong? What is the difference between price supports and wage supports? In either case, productive citizens are subsidizing the inefficient and the greedy. Yes, you are greedy to expect $5.15 an hour if the service you provide to your employer does not produce enough to cover your employment expense. Yes, a company (and farmers) are greedy to expect me to pay more for something than I would in a free market. So I do believe that minimum wages, price supports, subsidies, incentives, tax breaks, zoning breaks and “prevailing” wages should be thrown out. Only the truly unproductive want a world in which ability and value mean nothing. Let me give you an example.

The largest and most successful steel company in America is a company called Nucor. Nucor has never closed a plant, laid off a worker, failed to turn a profit or failed to pay a quarterly dividend since their incarnation in the mid 1960’s. They are non-union. They do not have luxury pensions and benefits for retirees. They pay 10% of the company’s pre-tax profits into their pension fund and when employees retire, they are given their pension in a lump sum. No employee with 20 years or more service has ever cashed out for less then $150,000. Nucor is the most efficient steelmaker in the world because the employees work with the company as a team. Their goal is to produce the most steel at the lowest cost with the highest quality and the best safety record. They earn less then $10 an hour base pay yet their workers are grossing $60,000-$90,000 a year. This is all possible (and freely admitted to by employees) because there is no union interference. Someone should take a lesson from Nucor. More on unions in my next post.

Man I go away for a few days and they try to sneak some economic fun past me. 

Anybody know how capatilism works?  The market is SUPPOSED to ebb & flow, if it’s pure enough and free of regulation it should correct itself with a few exceptions such as monopolies and yadda yadda.  Why is America losing jobs to other countries and coming up with an increasing trade defecit every year?  The answer is falsely inflated wages. 

In a pure capatilistic environment, if wages in X produce goods that are cheaper than Y, the wages in Y should decrease to maintain balance.  However, in this country we have the mindset that wages should only increase over time.  Now there are laws and other outside forces that make it virtually impossible for the system to correct itself.  So US companies simply cannot compete on price.  Since the company cannot significantly lower wages, the company has to move its entire workforce to lower wage country or die.  US has survived the last 15 years only because they could provide goods and services other countries didn’t have the ability to produce.  Now most of those niches have been eliminated and other countries are competing.

I’ve been a proponent for raising tarrifs in the past, but I’ve been studying the subject a bit closer lately and it does look like it wouldn’t create the desired effects I was hoping for.  So to me it seems the only hope for eliminating the trade defecit is for wages to decrease across the board and allow production to return to the US.

I know it’s not a “gumdrops & candy canes for all” answer, but it’s a real answer unlike the idea that Wal-Mart can fix or destroy an economy on its own.  In all honesty, wages should have been gently correcting since the 70’s, when the first signs of trade defecits began to show.  At this point wages are so inflated that it’s eventually going to lead to a dramatic correction and it will be painful.  We are just beginning to pay today for bad economic policy from long ago that was brought about by people such as yourselves, who ignored the facts of economic law and demanded that wages always increase despite what was going on in the world around them.

On the question of $40 a month (actually around $18 a paycheck), I would have to believe that anybody can afford that.  If you think Wal-Mart should force all employees to purchase the health insurance, you may have a point, but I believe Wal-Mart has no legal right to force employees to purchase health insurance.  But $18 a paycheck (which is taken out BEFORE TAXES so the net effect on the paycheck is actually less than that) is entirely affordable for a full time employee, regardless of hourly rate.  If the government offers it for free, the employee would be wasting $18 a paycheck and made a wise financial decision by not choosing to buy health insurance.  The idea that an employee would voluntarily purchase health insurance “if they could afford it” while a free alternative exists is a pipe dream.

Every one of you has very enlightened comments gentlemen.  I’m just wondering how many of those minimum wage workers are female and single parents.  I was doing a little calculating and found that a fulltime employee making $5.15 per hour would make approximately $713.58 per month after about 20% removed in taxes.  Say this single parent only has one child. 
1.  She would have to have an apartment or home that has at least 2 bedrooms which in my hometown would be approximately $380.00 to $450.00 per month for the home alone.

2.  Then her utilities would run approximately $300.00 to $350.00 per month.

3.  Current estimates on food per person are approximately $150.00 per month which in her case would be $300.00 per month.

4. Then we wouldn’t want to forget the cost of upkeep and maintaining her car.  At $2.16 per gallon in my town today.  I myself spend approximately $500.00 per month for mandatory liability car insurance, gasoline, and upkeep on an older model car.

5.  So even if she were to get $600.00 per month in child support and you used the lower figures for her total expenses you would be talking about $1480.00 dollars in expenses and a total income of 1313.58.  Only $167.42 short each month so I guess she could forego eating (which many women do).

Unfortunately the facts are that too many men forego the child support payments, in the state that I am from they can alleviate food stamps as soon as that woman has a minimum wage job and in this state she would not qualify for medicaid because she makes more than $220.00 per month.  So most single moms do not go to a doctor until they are deathly ill and then they have to go to an emergency room which will only treat them enough to get rid of them.  By the time the emergency room actually treats these women right it is because the woman’s health has deteoriated dramatically and only emergency surgery will save her.  The emergency surgery causing a rise in medical care and insurance that you the fortunate will be paying for her and since she will now be a high health risk her emergency room visits will increase thereby costing you even more.

Sorry guys but that is reality in America today and it is getting worse by the moment.  I’m all for business and making a profit but not at the expense of your employee and their families health.

Hey Chris… deflation actually strengthens the dollar.  In deflation a single dollar can buy more stuff.  It’s inflation that causes the dollar to be weaker… sort of like back in the old times when inflation was so bad that people were hauling in wheelbarrows full of bills to buy a loaf of bread.

Hrm… since when is 50 = “statistically zero”.  Why don’t they just say “only 50 jobs” so it seems less like they’re trying to get away with flat out lying?

Larry, on your “old fashioned view that for a country to truly be powerful it needs to have a strong and viable manufacturing and industrial basis “.... I agree with you 100%.  On unions however, I believe they are at least partially responsible for the fact that the US is losing jobs in that industry by inflating wages.  It’s no coincidence that there is a decline of “union jobs” in the US.  Unions have their place when it comes to making sure employees aren’t being forced to bare-hand a 400 degree metal bar, but now that all of that has been taken care of they have stepped past their boundries for a lack of anything better to do.  I don’t think you can blame only Wal-Mart for the exodus of manufacturing in the US.  Nor do I think you can correct the problem by attacking Wal-Mart.  Wal-Mart did try the “buy american” thing years ago… despite the prevailing sentimate no customers really wanted to do such a thing in reality, so they had to stop because Wal-Mart was losing customers to other retailers who didn’t join in on the “buy american” craze.  Which should be evidence enough to prove that this site’s claim that other retailers will voluntarily raise wages/buy less foreign products/etc should Wal-Mart do so first is total bunk.

But I do blame WM for this exodus (and others too). They’re
the ones that used to wrap themselves in the flag and now
let their suppliers know that they have Chinese ‘price’ to meet. The ‘buy american’ thing was never any more than a
come on. The dismissive a union having its place to protect employees from abusive employers has now been settled because manufacturing is gone and we needn’t worry about
it anymore. Gee why did I never think of that.

Where do you get the idea that when the dollar goes down in
value you’ll be able to buy more? Maybe for someone from
outside the country but were real wages to deflate here it
doesn’t necessarily mean prices of goods are going to deflate more than those wages. They might not deflate as
much.

And as you see there are people who would do away with the minimum wage.

Danny you are crazy.  Wal-Mart insurance is one of the best.  A Wal-Mart employee can get any non-elective procedure at the mayo clinic without even getting it approved.  Major insurance companies don’t do that!  I will bet most of the union folks don’t have that!

Now Chris, in the great state of MN if you are single and pregnant you can be on medicaid even if you are grossing a million dollars a year!  There is no income limit.  This just shows how out of touch you really are, Chris.  So how about people who aren’t pregnant?  If you are anyone else, you can get government subsidized heath insurance if you make under sixty thousand dollars a year!  That is quite a bit of money each year chris.  That is five thousand dollars a month.  Now I know in Utah the welfare rules are similar.  My guess is most states have something like this. 

Have you ever heard of WIC Chris?  WIC is a national program that gives basic foods to people making under 45 thousand a year for a family of two.  The amount you can make goes up progressively for each child. 

With programs like this no wonder people working at walmart are on state aid.  So here is my point chris - you don’t have to be dirt poor to get state aid.  In addition, this is probably another reason why some walmart employees choose to buy cable tv instead of heatlh insurance.

Now in response to JJ’s 5.15 an hour.....  The average walmart associate makes more then 9 dollars an hour.  They aren’t taxed at 20 % either.  In fact they will get extra money back during tax time for having a child - more then they paid!  If a man doesn’t pay child support, the government will garnish his wages.  If he isn’t working, then the state pays the amount and compiles the dept and holds it against the man.  Also, your little list up there is totally jacked.  500 a month for your car?  Are you crazy?  That is two hundred dollars more then I paid for my first car.  My liability insurance was only 118 dollars a year.  Gas is expensive but my civic got 40 miles to the gallon.

When I lived in a college town my 2 bedroom apartment was only 500 a month and it included all utilities.  Now that I am out here in Rochester I pay 600 a month for a town home and I only pay electricity and it only runs about 35 dollars a month.  So JJ, you are living in some sort of dream land.

Larry, I won’t argue that the U.S. economy is shifting.  I will say this though - we shouldn’t be tearing apart strong american companies like walmart.  We certainly don’t want more companies to head elsewhere.

yes larry I have.  MY ex-gf and her mom worked in a store and belonged to UFCW.  she now works at Sams club, makes almost $2/ hr more and isn’t sexually harassed ever, unlike at the grocer where it was a daily thing.  Nobody could be fired though so it just went on.

Larry.  Quit playing dumb when it’s convenient for you.  If the customer isn’t buying, Wal-Mart isn’t going to buy it either.  Yeah the “buy american” campaign eventually became a sham but they initially made a real effort to buy american products and they lost a lot of money because nobody would buy it.

Deflation isn’t that the dollar goes down in value.  Deflation/inflation is based on the price of goods.  If the price of goods deflates(goes lower), then the dollar is essentially worth more.  At this point, the system is too screwed up to correct it nicely with wage reductions, but it’s going to happen nonetheless and it’s going to be a fantastic tragedy.  I’m guessing around 2020 we’ll see another dust-bowl like depression.  With the global warming going on around us it may actually be a dust bowl too but that’s a different issue.

My point was that wage reductions should have been happening since the 70’s, and yes back then wage reductions would have lowered the price of goods.  More importantly, it would have kept manufacturing here in the states.  Now that we’re basically giving China free trade without quotas, and up until about two days ago the yuan was set at a fixed rate below the US dollar, there’s no way to lower the dollar to even approach that of Chinese labor.  Hopefully the new system China has put in place will ease some of that but the new system really isn’t much better because they still are based against several currencies (probably including the US, they won’t tell) and they still have a limit on the fluctuations.  The value of the yuan increased only 1/4 of a cent the first day on the new system. 

Prices will come down if wages go down because if nobody is buying, businesses will have to in order to sell their goods.  Check out GM for instance, they laid off a whole bunch of people this year(because they couldn’t lower wages) and now is discounting their car prices… because nobody can afford to buy their cars.  If GM’s workers weren’t getting overpaid with fat union cash, GM wouldn’t have to charge as much for their cars and they wouldn’t have had to lay off a bunch of people just to lower the price of their cars.  You think Wal-Mart is causing the car industry to suffer too?  Give me a break.  Wake up from the American dream for a minute and check out how things work in the real world.  Even homeless people are better off in this country than lots of people elsewhere in the world.  We pay a premium here for things people in other countries would consider a waste of money.  One tiny example, in India they buy the denim and a kit of stuff to put together their own jeans.  We buy them put together right off the shelf for a premium.  In other words, even poor people in the US are wasting a lot of money on bells & whistles.  Whether you like it or not, this is a global economy, that fact is not going to change… so we’re going to have to compete on price with those countries in just about every industry, even if Wal-Mart closes every last one of their doors tomorrow that problem is still there and this site hasn’t accomplished a single solitary thing.

Cory, Q & Aaron,

Are you guys roommates or do you share the same Commodore 64 at the local rec center?

And still nobody can name one thing of value the UFCW has done in the last 5 yrs.

Is that the best reply you’ve got Sean?  Does that response fall into the category of “concession”?  You know I’m right, you can go ahead and say it, it won’t hurt.  Come to the dark side…

First of all Nick, let me tell you how exciting it must be to have all of those newly created low paying jobs in your area. But secondly even though you think that Wal-Mart is God and brought all of those companies along and you are completely anti-government involvement in any aspect of life how do you really think that those jobs got there. YOUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Yes that is right they actually are good for something. See this is what your local politicians did. They shopped your city out to these different companies. They created a business district. They went to all of those companies..or after companies heard of the cities plan they came to your local government and negotiated. If your city politicians were doing their job which they obviously were those jobs would have been created regardless of Wal-Marts presence. The only thing Wal-Mart did was move across the street, big whoop. If Wal-Mart was so effective in bringing in all that business why couldn’t they do it from the previous location. What did happen to the site of the previous Wal-Mart? Does it sit there unused? And let me tell you about the reality of Wal-Marts effects in towns. Since Wal-Mart unfortunately entered our city, we have lost a department store and 2 full size grocery stores ( 1 of which was replaced by a Sav-A-Lot...big friggen whoop). On the subject of $40.00 health care from WM. What is the deductible, what is the co-pay...what exactly does it cover, dental, eye exams, specialists. How many times per year are you allowed to visit the doctor? One thing that the UFCW has done good is recently negotiated a new contract with our company of over 9,000 employees who still have no paycheck deductions for health care and no deductibles. BTW, the comments you referred to me regarding WIC and all of that tax-payer funded stuff should have been directed toward JJ. Deflation would be a good thing if it was able to buy more goods as you claim it could. And it would if the items you were buying were made in America. But since the items we buy come from China it costs more money to buy the items from china when the dollar is worth less. The dollar is worth less when we have a problem with deflation. So what happens is now it costs more money to buy from china and the dollar in america is buying less products that were imported because the price of the items has gone up because it costed more to import it. It is a truly vicious circle.

Chris, China’s currency has been linked at a set percentage below the US currency for a long time until about two days ago… no matter what the US currency did in terms of value, China’s currency did the same thing.  So you’re kind of wrong.

And I’d like to mention, I’m not sure why you’re talking about raising the cost of imported goods like it’s a bad thing.  That was entirely my point and it seemed to fly right over your head, but thanks for re-inforcing my point even though you didn’t realize it.  We -want- the cost of imported goods to rise so that US manufacturing can compete. 

If anybody’s bored this week I suggest you read “Hard America Soft America” by Michael Barone.  It’s fairly interesting reading and the subject matter is entirely fitting for this website.

You are right, we want the cost of imports to increase, but an increase in the cost of imports when the dollar is weak is not going to change the relationship between chinese and american goods because if the dollar is weak it is going to be able to buy even less American goods. When the dollar doesn’t buy as much that isn’t good for anyone, no matter where the items come from.

Chris,

I will answer your questions because you are misguided and naive and I want to help you. You mention the hundreds of low paying jobs in my area. These jobs did not exist before Wal-Mart opened up. Wal-Mart did not put any existing businesses out because there were none in that area. Now, more than 800 people have jobs that did not exist before. Would you rather they not work? Isn’t a low-paying job better than no job at all? By the way, Starbucks payd $8.50 an hour plus full benefits to start.

The local government did not shop the area to anyone. Wal-Mart took a look at one of two vacant sites across the highway and decided to move there. The site is at the juncture of two highways at the other end of the county seat and it had great possibilities (since realized). Local government did nothing. The developer bought the land from a private owner. The developer built buildings and sought out tenants. Government interferes and sits back to collect the fortune in taxes they are receiving.

The previous Wal-Mart anchors a dirty little plaza. It is not a Big Lots. You want to talk about a dirty store that pays crap wages? Go to Big Lots.

If your town hates Wal-Mart so much, Wal-Mart should have no effect on your town. I’ve said this before and I’m sure I’ll say it again: if everyone in your town loves your current store choices, why do they go to Wal-Mart when it opens? If your small town hates Wal-Mart, who is shopping there? The answer is that small towns are held hostage by mom and pop and family grocery stores that have been gouging the citizens for 70 years. If they can’t compete, they deserve to go bankrupt.

I’m curious to see how long you and the union can ride the gravy train. At some point, like Kroger is discovering now, high prices and high overhead put you in a pickle. Kroger gave lavish pay and benefits for years and last year they lost over $100 million. Soon, your company will be in the same boat.

Health care-it is not the responsibility of your employer. If you don’t like the health plan your employer offers, go elsewhere. You do not have the right to health insurance.

Chris-do you get it now?

Nick, first I do not shop at Big Lots. That store doesn’t have anything of quality or desire. But your comment doesn’t really answer the question of what happened to the former building where wal-mart was located. If there is no Big Lots and no Wal-Mart what is there? The government did help by zoning the property for commercial use and offering generous tax breaks to companies who located in that area and created jobs. The issue is not are they better off with no job or low pay, the issue is would they be better off with low pay or better pay. The answer is better pay and there is no reason why they can’t be paid better. You cannot take my opinion of Wal-Mart and pass it as the opinion of everyone in my community. Small towns usually prefer small companies. But see Nick what happens is that people from nearby small towns with no choices for shopping come to the small city and since Wal-Mart conveniently placed itself at the entrance of the city people don’t generally drive all the way across the town where the cities actual business district is. I would venture to guess that if Wal-Mart in its current location did not get customers from other small towns and villages it would not be able to survive in our small city. As far as health care goes, I am extremely happy with the plan so I would not want to go else where. The problem is that most places don’t offer good healthcare so going else where would not do most people any good. Nick, health care is essential to living a long happy life. There is a famous line that says people have the “inalienable right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” So even though government is slow in making employers provide adequate health care doesn’t mean people shouldn’t have a right to adequate health care. How can you have life without healthcare, therefore denying people adequate healthcare is like denying them the right to life and happiness as people who are sick because they were not able to receive adequate health care are not happy either.

Once again I’ll bring up the $11-12 an hour wage rate. It’s
not outlandish and would be good faith effort on their part
to show they ‘mean well’. This amount which is not even great would improve situations for many WM employees significantly. It would allow many more to enter a health care plan. It might also significantly improve the situations
of the communities they live and work in. They expect tax
breaks when they move in but more often than not they burden these communities with employees whose wages are low enough to qualify them for public assistance. They can do better than that.

“is like denying them the right to life and happiness as people who are sick because they were not able to receive adequate health care are not happy either. “

Now your reading into it chris.  It guarantees the PURSUIT of happiness, not happiness.  There is a difference. 

I see still no one can give an example of the UFCW providing anything valuable in the last 5 yrs for all the due$ they’ve collected.

Q, you need to quit with the “one example” stuff… you know the people on this site have been sitting around for two months researching and trying to twist something around to sound good and then you know they’ll declare immediate victory when they find it no matter how big of a lie it is.  I’d rather them show a net benefit rather than a single good thing. Any theif can help an old lady cross the street before they steal her purse.

Larry,

The average Wal-Mart wage is about $9.00 an hour. Wal-Mart has 1.6 million employees who work, on average, roughly 24 hours per week. Give them $11 an hour and you add $48 per week per employee, $2,496 per year per employee, bringing Wal-Mart’s INITIAL wage increase cost to just over $3.99 billion. Now figure in the increased costs of employer contributions to Ponzi Security and WelfareCare (about 7.5 % give or take) plus the increased costs of unemployment and workers comp coverage (Wal-Mart is self-insured for comp) and you bring the total to about $4.5 billion, minimum. Now Wal-Mart may have profited over $10 billion last year but their profit as a percentage of revenues was less than 4%. Now, you want to cut their profit by 45% upfront for what? Will that little extra money make their employees smarter or more productive? No. This is a cash grab, plain and simple. It brings little value to the employee and no value to Wal-Mart or its customers. Wal-Mart cannot pass on increased costs like so many other businesses can. If they did, Target and K-Mart would take their business. By the way, what DO Target and K-Mart pay their employees and what kind of benefits do they offer? Larry, you mentioned that you and your wife make over $100K a year. Let’s assume you net around $68 or so. Now tomorrow the government says you should get by on 45% less. Is that fair? Could you do it without some discomfort? Most people couldn’t nor should they have to. Neither should a corporation, considered a person for legal purposes.

Chris,

It is the pursuit of happiness, not happiness, that is guaranteed. The Constitution says “No citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process”. Happiness is not a right nor is it guaranteed.

As to the development springing up around super Wal-Mart-you are clueless. The land was already zoned commercial. There were no tax incentives other than the generic incentives the county gives to ALL new businesses. There are no tax abatements on the property or the businesses. And the old Wal-Mart across the highway is now a Big Lots. Perhaps you misunderstood that. Did I answer your questions?

Just to put the issue of healthcare into perspective

. In the retailing sector in 2002, $4,800 was paid out by companies for health insurance, and the national average was $5,600 per employee (Miller 8). Wal-Marts average expense per employee for health coverage was only $3,500 over 27 percent less than other retailers, and 38 percent less than the national average.
Wal-Mart contends that it cannot increase expenses for healthcare because of slim profit margins in a competitive industry. Wal-Mart made over $10 billion in profits in 2004, which amounts to $6,000 per associate and is in a league of its own when it comes to competition . In order to bring Wal-Marts spending per employee to the industry average of $4,800 it would be an expense to Wal-mart of only $1.69 billion, leaving the company with pure profits still of over $8 billion. That is without any increase in prices, which would mean that it could still supply everyday low prices to its customers and take care of its employees as well. Wal-Marts argument to this is that by raising benefits it would sacrifice a hefty chunk of profits, which would hurt shareholders (Scott).

the company could choose to increase prices by a halfpenny per dollar, which means a $2.00 pair of socks would cost $2.01 (Real). This minimal increase would allow Wal-Mart to earn $1,800 more per year on each employee each year, which it could use to cover the increased cost of healthcare, and have 500 dollars left over as it only uses $1,300 to bring its health care contribution for each employee to the national industry average.

chris,
why is the answer to just throw money at a problem?  I think your post has the underlying assumption that the
“$1,300 to bring its health care contribution for each employee to the national industry average.” would provide better health care.  How do you know that Wal-Mart doesn’t have a better deal and that the 1300 difference is simply because of better negotiations with insurers?

Q, what are you talking about a better deal...a better deal for whom-WalMart or its employees? I can assure you it isn’t for the employees.

Chris

Why do you assume Wal-Mart can just raise prices to cover what you deem to be necessary costs? They already operate on a razor thin margin. The reason they are able to make a profit at that margin is EFFICIENCY. Nobody can call themselves efficient if they are attempting to keep up with the Jones’. You say that Wal-Mart could just spend another $2+ billion per year on employee health care, no problem. Have you ever considered that they have a lower cost because they have so many people insured? Even if 40% of Wal-Mart’s employees were covered, that would be 400,000 + people insured-more than enough people to get a lower cost from an insurer. Higher cost doesn’t necessarily mean higher value. Wal-Mart did profit $10 billion last year through incredible efficiency. Much of that comes from low prices. Because they sell at such a low price to so many people, they are able to move their merchandise so quickly that up to 70% of their purchases are out the door and sold before they get an invoice. Wal-Mart works on volume, not markup, and they need to be able to turn their merchandise this quickly to maintain their less than 4% margin. Why don’t you study economics before you shoot your mouth off? Why don’t we assume that you made $10,000 last year, after taxes. Now I come to you and say “Chris, you are not paying enough for your McDonald’s Cheese Burger. That poor girl working behind the counter doesn’t have health insurance. I want you to give her $2,000 to get health insurance. It’s only 20% of your income. After all, you made $10,000 last year!” You see how ridiculous that is? Wal-Mart worked very hard for that $10 billion. Who are you to tell them how to spend it? Do they tell you how to spend your $10,000?

Oh, Chris. Just because someone is not paying an “average” doesn’t mean that they are sub-standard. If Wal-Mart paid more for health insurance, that would drive up the industry “average”. Would they have to keep paying more and more to keep at the average?

Something you Communists never understand is that a free market does not mean that wages and benefits and costs can all just go up X% each year with no problem. Wal-Mart, to me, is great because they have challenged this status quo foisted on us by a union mentality. The status quo is that wages and benefits must always rise. If they don’t, we are not making progress. As the world’s largest company in terms of sales, Wal-Mart has drawn a line in the sand and forced inflation back across that line. They have held the line at wages and benefits as well. All of this benefits everyone because if we can keep prices and wages down with MARKET mechanisms, we might actually be able to compete in a global economy.

Nick, what exactly do they have a lower cost of...the healthcare that its employees can’t afford. What if Wal-Mart insured all of its 1.4 million employees, using your logic imagine how cheap it would be for employees then. Forget that imagine how much cheaper it would be for taxpayers who wouldn’t have to foot the bill for WMs employees on medicaid. Nick, companies do come to the public and say that we are not paying enough for its products and services when companies increase its prices. I would rather have companies increase its prices because I can choose to buy or not to buy. What i can’t choose is whether or not i pay taxes. When taxes increase to cover the exploding costs of medicaid as employees of Wal-Mart who are uninsured depend on medicaid for healthcare. Wal-Mart paying the industry average for healthcare expenses isn’t going to have a large effect on increasing the industry average, it would work out something like this.

Company X spends 4,800
Company Y spends 5,600
Company Z spends 5,200
AVE= 5,200

now average in Wal-mart spends 3,500

this brings the average DOWN to 4,775
Since Wal-Mart pays so little the average actually drops below what Company X spends.

now say Wal-mart increases what it pays to 4,775 a cost of 1,275 this brings the average to 5,093.75 which is still below the average computed for just X,Y, AND Z. But What this really does is put the average payout for the four companies right in the middle. With 2 companies paying more than the average and 2 companies paying less than the average. What Wal-Mart is actually doing currently is DRAGGING DOWN the average payout for health care.
WAGES AND BENEFITS MUST RISE IN ORDER TO KEEP UP WITH INFLATION. Deflation is not a good sign of a strong economy. Stagnant wages and inflation are not a sign of a good economy. A sign of a good economy is one where inflation and wage increases are as a percentage about the same. In order for wages to decrease people would have to start getting paid less for doing the same job. Why would anyone WANT to make less money. If people make less money they do not have as much disposable income which again is a negative for the economy. If suddenly my employer decides that I am making too much money for the job that I do and he decides to decrease my pay for the same work does that mean my mortgage company is going to say “oh well since your not making as much money now we will lower your mortgage payment” I don’t think so. The cost of gas is up over 30% this year. If I didn’t get a raise in pay the burden of higher gas prices would be an even larger burden and if my employer decreased my pay it again makes the increase in gas prices an even larger burden. There is an economics lesson for you Nick.

General rule is that a healthy economy has inflation going up a very small percentage every year.  They call it “disinflation”.  Wages don’t really factor in, because wages are actually part of the driving force behind inflation.  But inflation is a very broad measure of a lot of different costs to consumers, a good percentage of the index is stuff Wal-Mart doesn’t deal in.  With gas and energy prices skyrocketing (which in the past is always a leading indicator that inflation is out of control and a market downturn is coming) Wal-Mart is one of the major contributing factors that keeps inflation in check.  Even one of the articles Sean posted in another thread said that Wal-mart has nearly single handedly kept inflation from getting out of control for the past 10 years or so.