WALMART COST TAXPAYERS, GOV. REPORT

SpinnerBait_Nut · Feb 18, 2005

Re: WALMART COST TAXPAYERS, GOV. REPORT

I am in business to make money just as any other business is. I have friends that work at Wal-Mart and none of them have any thing bad to say about their employer. They range from people that collect the carts to people that welcome you, to management. It's just something I hear. They like working there like most do or they would work elsewhere. If it is such a bad place to work, why don't people go get on welfare and foodstamps? People are just mad cause here is another busines that is making money and they don't like it. Maybe it's different in our little market compared to big cities. Don't know.

Skinnywater · Feb 18, 2005

Re: WALMART COST TAXPAYERS, GOV. REPORT

Subsidys cost the taxpayer a whole lot more. Subsidys for the Pharmisudical companys, the oil companys, the agriculture subsidys. Billions and billions every year in corporate welfare.

wajajaja · Feb 18, 2005

Re: WALMART COST TAXPAYERS, GOV. REPORT

if walmart would pay thier employees one percent more of that profit,or raise prices one percent and put it into living wage and benefit,than whole comunitys could prosper, 150 employees might buy lunch out once or twice,buy something extra for the kids, or buy something in your store,or have your brother fix thier car instead of trying to do it them selves. it just seems that walmart has achieved the PERFECT RETAIL MODEL OF EFFICIENCY AND THE COST OF THE EXPERIMENT IS TOO HIGH

jtexas · Feb 18, 2005

Re: WALMART COST TAXPAYERS, GOV. REPORT

Originally posted by wajajaja: Jtexas, around here a union worker has to pass a series of skilled performance test, knowlege test, and have a set of education requirement; the manager just has to past an interview and is office proficient. And makes less.. Our managers are generally the new hires. Unfortunately it keeps the union rep busy keeping them in line. because they try all the walmart type college crap out first.

Vast majority of the 100,000-plus employees where I work belong to one of five unions. Most are technically skilled performing difficult jobs in sometimes dangerous environments. Average salary for the largest union work group is well over $100,000/yr; most of them have college degrees, many have advanced degrees. I don't disrespect union workers; sometimes you get union leadership with seemingly self-serving agendas. Negotiations, grievances, lawsuits, it just all seems like a big money-wasting game sometimes. If Walmart is breaking the law or dishonoring contracts, I say make 'em stop. Otherwise, they're competing in the marketplace under the same rules as everybody else. Free enterprise, market economy, call it what you will, it's the American way. Don't blame Walmart for winning at the game.

PW2 · Feb 19, 2005

Re: WALMART COST TAXPAYERS, GOV. REPORT

This is the kind of drivel that give all progressive thinkers a bad name. Labor is a commodity that is traded just like any other commodity, and reflects the impact of supply and demand. When there is an abundant supply of unskilled workers for the available jobs, wages and benefits are going to be low. There are minimum standards set by the government, but beyond that WallMart is free to do whatever they like. They will raise their wages when they can't find qualified workers. The moral of this story, of course, is that if you want a reasonable paying job, aquire some training and skill that is in demand. The days of unskilled jobs paying a middle class wage are virtually over, I am afraid, and trying to bring them back is ludicrous. If you want to change the dynamic, convince enough people to get education and training so that you decrease the supply of unskilled labor.

kenimpzoom · Feb 19, 2005

Re: WALMART COST TAXPAYERS, GOV. REPORT

Oh my goodness, I agree with PW2.

If WalMart is doing something illegal, make them stop, otherwise leave them alone. How many other business also encourage their workers to get on the government medical program? I am sure there are many. And think about this, WalMart makes more money, therefore it pays more taxes. Shouldnt they be entitled to take advantage of taxpayer finaced programs? Ken

Twidget · Feb 19, 2005

Re: WALMART COST TAXPAYERS, GOV. REPORT

I have a question, somewhat tongue in cheek. What is this 'living wage' I always hear about? When I first left the military, I made $5.50 an hour, lived in a small rented house and had a 2 year car and one credit card. I was up to all of $8 an hour when I married my wife. She worked for less than I, but we were happy. My wife has an Uncle that is a multi millionaire. He and his wife had more friends than they knew what to do with, although most were hangers on. They owned the largest house in town. They also had the most worthless son ever to grace west Texas. They didnt know who were really their friends, they avoided family because they thought everyone just wanted their money. It was really a sad existence. My crazy little opinion of life is that the more you have, the more you think you need. People that live on welfare here would be middle class in some of the countries I have visited. Sad but true.

SpinnerBait_Nut · Feb 19, 2005

Re: WALMART COST TAXPAYERS, GOV. REPORT

Yes Twidget, it's the more you have, the more you want syndrom.

Skinnywater · Feb 19, 2005

Re: WALMART COST TAXPAYERS, GOV. REPORT

Very well put PW2. Except for the "progressive " part. "Abstract" is more accurate.

Boomyal · Feb 19, 2005

Re: WALMART COST TAXPAYERS, GOV. REPORT

Originally posted by Twidget: I have a question, somewhat tongue in cheek. What is this 'living wage' I always hear about?

It's simple Twidget. It's whatever the oh-so-wise Democrats want it to be. It's just another example of the Liberal anti-capitalist, anti-freemarket mentality. Even the current mimimum wage hurts everyone in the long run. It is unfathomable how many youth jobs are lost because of the current minimum wage.

Boomyal · Feb 19, 2005

Re: WALMART COST TAXPAYERS, GOV. REPORT

Originally posted by Skinnywater: Very well put PW2. Except for the "progressive " part. "Abstract" is more accurate.

No Skinnywater, PW knew exactly what he meant. He was simply saying that this 'drivel' gives the Liberals an even worse name. Liberalism, even though a very accurate term, has become tainted because those who hold to that philosophy know that fewer and fewer people aggree with it. They think if they change the title it will make their ideas more palatable. In otherwords they, the Liberal/Progressives continue to try to pull the wool over peoples eyes to achieve their goals.

PW2 · Feb 20, 2005

Re: WALMART COST TAXPAYERS, GOV. REPORT

Say what??? I did in fact use the "progressive" word, as opposed to "liberal" simply because of the negative connotation to that word on this site. If it was designed to pull wool over anyone's eyes, then it was a pretty poor, transparent attempt, and anyone duped by this attempt is easily fooled. Judging by the number of Rush listeners around, that is indeed a serious issue. There is a role for government in our lives. That role is not in our bedrooms, or our private personal lives, nor is it dictating to our businesses how they need to behave (other than a normal set of rules designed to set a level playing field for all) It is in analyzing the changing nature of our society, and providing the opportunity for its citizens to adapt to those changes successfully. That is a full plate for the government to take on.

Skinnywater · Feb 20, 2005

Re: WALMART COST TAXPAYERS, GOV. REPORT

Posted in part by PW2;

Judging by the number of Rush listeners around, that is indeed a serious issue. There is a role for government in our lives. That role is not in our bedrooms, or our private personal lives, nor is it dictating to our businesses how they need to behave (other than a normal set of rules designed to set a level playing field for all)

Yep, again I agree with you. It's important to recognise the level, degree and how broad the dupedness is. I don't think that liberals are as "progressive" any more than I think Republicans are "conservative". Your concerned with the "Rush" type Republicans here because you disagree with them. I'm concered with them because they think they're conseravatives. These theads/debates by the topic starter about Walmart are neither progessive, liberal or conservative in nature. They are self-serving (pro-union)in nature, abstract to most.

CalicoKid · Feb 20, 2005

Re: WALMART COST TAXPAYERS, GOV. REPORT

Wal Mart does NOT pay taxes. They are heavily subsidized in fact.

WALMART COST TAXPAYERS, GOV. REPORT

Honorary Moderator Emeritus

Commander

Chief Petty Officer

Fleet Admiral

Commander

Rear Admiral

Commander

Honorary Moderator Emeritus

Commander

Supreme Mariner

Supreme Mariner

Commander

Commander

Lieutenant Commander