Wal-Mart is evil...

SassyChickyMomma

Diabloii.Net Member
Wal-Mart is evil...

I saw this on our "online local newspaper" and felt that it would be a decent thread here. i hate that walmart is so corrupt because we kinda have no sensible choice but to shop there. where we live we are limited to 3 small grocery stores that cannot compete price-wise or selection-wise and there no other "miscellaneous" items stores. so anyway, i sure hate that walmart is so evil, because they rock when it comes to convenience and variety and price. *(except the one in tarboro which sells defective outdated junk and sucks at refunds and replacements!)* :(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wal-Mart in the news again By Diogenes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28219-2005Apr5_2.html

From The Wal-Mart Fact Checker:

Low Prices — At What Cost?

Wal-Mart sales clerks made an average of $8.23 an hour—or $13,861 a year—in 2001. That's nearly $800 below the federal poverty line for a family of three. (Source: Business Week)

In Georgia, Wal-Mart employees are six times more likely to rely on state-provided health care for their children than are employees of any other large company. (Source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

Reliance on public assistance programs in California by Wal-Mart workers costs the state's taxpayers an estimated $86 million annually. (Source: UC Berkeley Study)

In the first decade after Wal-Mart arrived in Iowa, the state lost 555 grocery stores, 298 hardware stores, 293 building supply stores, 161 variety stores, 158 women's apparel stores, 153 shoe stores, 116 drugstores, and 111 men's and boys' apparel stores. (Source: Iowa State University Study)
 

Steve_Kow

Banned
Wal-Mart sales clerks made an average of $8.23 an hour—or $13,861 a year—in 2001. That's nearly $800 below the federal poverty line for a family of three. (Source: Business Week)
13,861 dollars per year divided by 8.23 dollars per hour = 1684 hours worked during the year.

1684 yearly hours divided by 52 weeks a year = 32 1/3 hours a week.

I think that it's unreasonable to expect a company to pay a part time unskilled employee enough to support not only himself, but his wife and child as well.

Don't you agree?
 

Ranger14

Diabloii.Net Member
I don't believe Walmart hires any full-time employees as they don't offer any benefits to their employees.
 

5Ws

Banned
SassyChickyMomma said:
In Georgia, Wal-Mart employees are six times more likely to rely on state-provided health care for their children than are employees of any other large company. (Source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
Any other large company? Which means that they are literally comparing Wal-mart employees with employees from Morgan-Stanley, Microsoft, etc.
It would be only strange if they are NOT the most likely...
 

toader

Banned
Steve_Kow said:
13,861 dollars per year divided by 8.23 dollars per hour = 1684 hours worked during the year.

1684 yearly hours divided by 52 weeks a year = 32 1/3 hours a week.

I think that it's unreasonable to expect a company to pay a part time unskilled employee enough to support not only himself, but his wife and child as well.

Don't you agree?
I was thinking the same thing as well Stevo. Except you forgot to take out taxes. 13,861*.75 = 10,396. Which boils down to: 24 1/3 hours a week.

As someone who has worked at a similar place in highschool and college (K-Mart), I can tell you that almost NOONE at those places (aside from managment) works a full 40 hour week. Most people worked from 25-30 and rotated in and out with others.

As far as it being below the fedral poverty line...this would be true if it was a 40 hour week. 8.23*40*52 = 17,118.
 
Steve_Kow said:
13,861 dollars per year divided by 8.23 dollars per hour = 1684 hours worked during the year.

1684 yearly hours divided by 52 weeks a year = 32 1/3 hours a week.

I think that it's unreasonable to expect a company to pay a part time unskilled employee enough to support not only himself, but his wife and child as well.

Don't you agree?
Almost 10 years ago I made $8.50 an hour to jockey a register at a McDonalds. Just for comparison there, chief.
 

toader

Banned
DrunkCajun said:
Almost 10 years ago I made $8.50 an hour to jockey a register at a McDonalds. Just for comparison there, chief.
For another comparison I made about 7.50 at K-Mart as a stocker/clerk 7-8 years ago.
 

Moosashi

Diabloii.Net Member
SassyChickyMomma said:
Reliance on public assistance programs in California by Wal-Mart workers costs the state's taxpayers an estimated $86 million annually. (Source: UC Berkeley Study)
There is no reason to believe that these people would not be on public assistance programs if they worked elsewhere, or that taxpayers would not pay all that money regardless, especially since it's California we're talking about.
In the first decade after Wal-Mart arrived in Iowa, the state lost 555 grocery stores, 298 hardware stores, 293 building supply stores, 161 variety stores, 158 women's apparel stores, 153 shoe stores, 116 drugstores, and 111 men's and boys' apparel stores. (Source: Iowa State University Study)
This is only a bad thing if you assume that these stores offered higher wages and/or better products.

I agree that Wal-Mart is bad, but for other reasons.
 

SaroDarksbane

Diabloii.Net Site Pal
And for a another comparison, I made 7.25 an hour delivering pizzas about a month ago (Until I graduated and snagged my 47k a year job =D)
 

AeroJonesy

Diabloii.Net Member
SassyChickyMomma said:
Wal-Mart sales clerks made an average of $8.23 an hour—or $13,861 a year—in 2001. That's nearly $800 below the federal poverty line for a family of three. (Source: Business Week)
THis one's been covered. Are we going to be in an uproar when we find out all unskilled jobs that aren't paying much aren't enough to support a family?

In Georgia, Wal-Mart employees are six times more likely to rely on state-provided health care for their children than are employees of any other large company. (Source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
Well there's probably a reason they are working at Wal-Mart and not "any other large company". If there were no Wal-Mart, they'd have even less money and they'd rely more on the state.

Reliance on public assistance programs in California by Wal-Mart workers costs the state's taxpayers an estimated $86 million annually. (Source: UC Berkeley Study)
Again, it's Wal-Mart's fault that their employees need state assistance?

In the first decade after Wal-Mart arrived in Iowa, the state lost 555 grocery stores, 298 hardware stores, 293 building supply stores, 161 variety stores, 158 women's apparel stores, 153 shoe stores, 116 drugstores, and 111 men's and boys' apparel stores. (Source: Iowa State University Study)
And Wal-Mart is the sole cause of this decrease in other stores? And is the decrease in other stores necessarily a bad thing? Frankly, it's frustrating, more time consuming, more miles on the car, and more gas consumed to drive to each one of those stores separately.
 

Steel_Avatar

Diabloii.Net Member
The point was not that Walmart should hire full-time employees, but that one should not expect these employees to make such an amount, given the number of hours worked. As has been said long before, no one owes them a job.

In the first decade after Wal-Mart arrived in Iowa, the state lost 555 grocery stores, 298 hardware stores, 293 building supply stores, 161 variety stores, 158 women's apparel stores, 153 shoe stores, 116 drugstores, and 111 men's and boys' apparel stores.
What decade did this occur in? An economy is hardly static, excepting Walmart's actions, so I find the implication here difficult to accept, when so many details are missing. I'm not for or against Walmart per se, so much as I am against dishonest studies and 'facts'.
 

Steve_Kow

Banned
I wonder how many blacksmith shoppes went out of business due to the advent of the automobile. :cool:

edit: Also in further reference to:
Sassy said:
Wal-Mart sales clerks made an average of $8.23 an hour—or $13,861 a year—in 2001. That's nearly $800 below the federal poverty line for a family of three. (Source: Business Week)
I find it rather sneaky they cite only the wages of "Sales clerks"--the lowest paid position Wal-Mart offers. I'm not an expert in Wal-Mart hierarchy, but I imagine that every store has department managers who probably make more than 14K a year, store managers, HR personnel, who all do better than "sales clerks". Wal-mart also employs ( I imagine) scores of accountants and office personnel all of whom do "OK".
 

Steel_Avatar

Diabloii.Net Member
DrunkCajun said:
Almost 10 years ago I made $8.50 an hour to jockey a register at a McDonalds. Just for comparison there, chief.
So McDonald's pays better than Walmart. Point being? Don't forget that they're in two completely different industries, too!
 

Ranger14

Diabloii.Net Member
Here's my beef with Walmart. I believe that companies should take some sort of responsibility for the well-being of their employees. Yes, I think ethically they should.

With 1.4 million employees worldwide, Wal-Mart's workforce is now larger than that of GM, Ford, GE, and IBM combined. At $258 billion in 2003, Wal-Mart's annual revenues are 2 percent of US GDP, and eight times the size of Microsoft's. In fact, when ranked by its revenues, Wal-Mart is the world's largest corporation.
Source (and also an interesting read):
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17647

Let's say that Walmart is really generous and pays out 400 a month for each of the 1.4 million employees for their complete health care. Not just covering 50% or 75%. Going liberal here for demonstration purposes. For a group plan that size, those figures are pretty liberal considering the average of single to family coverage. That would mean Walmart would pay out 6.72 billion a year for health insurance for their employees. That is less than 3% of their annual revenues. That leaves them how many extra billion? Now, we all know most companies don't pay out the full health insurance amount, but I want to illustrate the worse case scenario for Walmart.

If Waltons were to choose to give a little back to their employees they would not only demonstrate some sort of corporate responsibility to their employees, but they also would still be billionaires. It sickens me when large companies keep the money to themselves and don't take care of the people who helped make them their billions. They wouldn't be in the position they are if they didn't have all those employees working for them for diddily squat!
 

Steel_Avatar

Diabloii.Net Member
In business, revenue is the amount of money that a company actually receives from its activities, mostly from sales of products and/or services to customers. To investors, revenue is less important than profit, or income, which is the amount of money the business has earned after deducting all the business's expenses.
Source

So before you go on about that 258 billion, I'd like to know how much Walmart has to spend in terms of their costs, such as payroll and maintenance.
 

Steve_Kow

Banned
Steel_Avatar said:
Source

So before you go on about that 258 billion, I'd like to know how much Walmart has to spend in terms of their costs, such as payroll and maintenance.
I imagine their single largest source of overhead is the cost of the goods they sell.
 

5Ws

Banned
I mean, it's not like Wal-mart is paying Harvard Ph.Ds $8.50 an hour, jebus, stop complaining already, we all benifit from it.
 
Top