Wal-Mart burned by its OWN report/study...

[Inappropriate4AT]

Originally posted by: razor2025
Wow, even more ignorance in this thread. Ip4AT's ignorance is probably just beyond all hope.

Yes, Walmart provides jobs and cheap products to buy (arguably, not everything at Walmart is the cheapest among competition). However, they do so by ever reducing our capability to produce goods. As more companies shift production to China/3rd world, they will have to shut down the lines in the US. Soon, US will produce VERY little goods that can be exported. No export with massive import cause deficit. It's very real issue. Becoming a nation of massive debt can only lead to bad things. When we run out of credit from other nations, what will happen? The issue of debt and trade reliance has already affected diplomacy and public policy. There are TONS of important issues regarding the new business practices and effect of globalization, but there are simply too many people like Ip4AT that outright REFUSE to understand nor acknowledge those issues. Yes, Walmart and its business conduct seems very advantageous in the short-run. However, if you start to think about the long-term consequence, it'll bound to open up your eyes.

Also, I think the issue needs to be in a broader scope. Walmart IS a big problem, but the actual scope of the issue is MUCH larger than just Walmart. Ignorance is bliss until you're rudely awaken up from it.

LOL Jesus Christ man, you're bringing the deficit into this? The shift of production to 3rd world countries is the decision of manufacturers, NOT retailers. Last time I checked, we ARE a nation of debt, we HAVE BEEN a nation of debt. Yeah, Wal-Mart is making such a huge impact on the deficit, moreso than the billions of dollars being spent on Operation Iraqi Freedom right? Wal-Mart is not gonna destroy the world and suddenly open our eyes to how it was really the embodiment of Satan, please. The only ignorance in this thread is people actually thinking Wal-Mart is an endangerment to society, there are real issues you should be paying more attention to.

 

[Inappropriate4AT]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

lol, Wal-Mart is the #1 employer in the nation, if it weren't for retailers like them all our jobs WOULD be in China. Boycott em all you want, the rest of us like the convenience of being able to walk into a Wal-Mart which can be found on every block at any time of the day. How anyone can b!tch about Wal-Mart screwing the tax payer while our President anally rapes our economy is beyond me.

that's just IDIOTIC. retail jobs can NEVER be sent overseas. HTF do you think it would be possible to have those jobs sent overseas?[/quote]

And no sh!t, nobody said anything about retail jobs being sent overseas. I'm not even gonna bother explaining this one, read it over a few more times friend.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mzkhadir

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: mzkhadir

Who buys your Health Insurance ?

My wife's employer.

My employer buys mine too. If I bought mine, it would be in the hundreds a month.

Just a note:

Your employer never buys your health insurance. They merely add it in as a part of your salary. Your benefits package is just an extension of your salary. YOU are buying your health insurance with your productivity.

That's like saying roads are free. They aren't. Your taxes pay for them.

Not entirely - employers utilize their employee pool to garner significant discounts for their health insurance - if you were to pay that on your own, you would be paying nearly double. The problem with Wal-Mart is that they DON'T provide employee health insurance for most employees (despite their massive buying power with health insurance firms), and pay such low wages that their employees cannot afford individual healthcare on their own. Hence, most of them qualify for government assisted or provided healthcare - in effect shifting the healthcare burden to the taxpayer.

Many Wal-Mart employees are also productive - but they don't get any help...

FS

 

[Scarpozzi]

Originally posted by: z0mb13
hmm talk about shooting your own foot!!!

It's ok, Walmart's so big they'll be selling prosthetics soon.

 

[amdskip]

Wow, lots of stupid stuff in this thread. Bring on the walmart haters. How is walmart worse than Target? Walmart pays better than Target.

Walmart is not a monopoly at all.

 

[meltdown75]

hot DAMN do Wal-Mart threads suck.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Yes, Walmart provides jobs and cheap products to buy (arguably, not everything at Walmart is the cheapest among competition). However, they do so by ever reducing our capability to produce goods.

Technology reduces our capability to produce goods competitively, as does increasingly higher standards of living and more stringent environmental laws. Are you for imposing restrictions on those as well?

The Big Three automakers and unions spent millions and millions of dollars in public relations campaigns and advertising to push the 'Buy American, Support American Workers' in the 1980s. It was a flop. Retail shops tried to sell nothing but US made products. They went bust.

Consumers voted with their dollars that they would rather save money than put someone's antiquated job on artificial life support, insulating them from changing economic and technology realities, out of patriotism. The thing with patriotism is, it doesn't always cut both ways. And unions themselves proved that.

The UAW was not ashamed to ask, demand, or shame (and sometimes bully) Americans to take a hit to their bottom line for Country (and inferior quality), while the UAW intransigently refused even the most sensible and necessary compromises on job security, compensation, or modernization.

IOW, take a hit to your pocket so that we don't have to take a hit to ours. Americans responded accordingly.

It's funny that you slam the Buy American campaign so quickly, yet fail to know that Japan, Inc. did very much the same thing on it's way to establishing it's industrial might. Japanese families were told to believe that it was patriotic to buy 5 cameras, 3 VCRs, 2 TVs, etc., etc. so as to help the emerging Japanese corporations gain production scale to compete with the US. And these Japanese families DID JUST THAT. Where do you think the stereotypical multi-camera-ed Japanses tourist comes from? Where do you think the Japanese prediliction for cute, small, and ever-present electronics comes from?

This is all a result of an advertising and PR campaign run by the Japanese corporations starting in the 50s and 60s.

Right now, GO to India, and see the media attention and hero worship of emerging Indian companies and corporations competing with the US. It's about as nationalistic as what you claim the US did so badly.

Nationalism and corporate policy go hand in hand in most countries, because they understand that laissez fair economic policy DOES produce winners and losers - at a country level. And while free-market economists would have you believe that a rising tide carries all boats, that's only true if there are enough seats in the boats. With a world population of 6 Billion, limited natural resources and arable land, it isn't a good bet that there ARE enough seats on those boats...

Future Shock

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Yes, Walmart provides jobs and cheap products to buy (arguably, not everything at Walmart is the cheapest among competition). However, they do so by ever reducing our capability to produce goods.

Technology reduces our capability to produce goods competitively, as does increasingly higher standards of living and more stringent environmental laws. Are you for imposing restrictions on those as well?

The Big Three automakers and unions spent millions and millions of dollars in public relations campaigns and advertising to push the 'Buy American, Support American Workers' in the 1980s. It was a flop. Retail shops tried to sell nothing but US made products. They went bust.

Consumers voted with their dollars that they would rather save money than put someone's antiquated job on artificial life support, insulating them from changing economic and technology realities, out of patriotism. The thing with patriotism is, it doesn't always cut both ways. And unions themselves proved that.

The UAW was not ashamed to ask, demand, or shame (and sometimes bully) Americans to take a hit to their bottom line for Country (and inferior quality), while the UAW intransigently refused even the most sensible and necessary compromises on job security, compensation, or modernization.

IOW, take a hit to your pocket so that we don't have to take a hit to ours. Americans responded accordingly.

It's funny that you slam the Buy American campaign so quickly, yet fail to know that Japan, Inc. did very much the same thing on it's way to establishing it's industrial might. Japanese families were told to believe that it was patriotic to buy 5 cameras, 3 VCRs, 2 TVs, etc., etc. so as to help the emerging Japanese corporations gain production scale to compete with the US. And these Japanese families DID JUST THAT. Where do you think the stereotypical multi-camera-ed Japanses tourist comes from? Where do you think the Japanese prediliction for cute, small, and ever-present electronics comes from?

This is all a result of an advertising and PR campaign run by the Japanese corporations starting in the 50s and 60s.

Right now, GO to India, and see the media attention and hero worship of emerging Indian companies and corporations competing with the US. It's about as nationalistic as what you claim the US did so badly.

Nationalism and corporate policy go hand in hand in most countries, because they understand that laissez fair economic policy DOES produce winners and losers - at a country level. And while free-market economists would have you believe that a rising tide carries all boats, that's only true if there are enough seats in the boats. With a world population of 6 Billion, limited natural resources and arable land, it isn't a good bet that there ARE enough seats on those boats...

Future Shock

One question: What happened to Japan's economy?

Protectionism and nationalism in economics will NOT sustain a modern economy. Hell, protectionism and nationalism is the main reason the great depression was so bad.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Yes, Walmart provides jobs and cheap products to buy (arguably, not everything at Walmart is the cheapest among competition). However, they do so by ever reducing our capability to produce goods.

Technology reduces our capability to produce goods competitively, as does increasingly higher standards of living and more stringent environmental laws. Are you for imposing restrictions on those as well?

The Big Three automakers and unions spent millions and millions of dollars in public relations campaigns and advertising to push the 'Buy American, Support American Workers' in the 1980s. It was a flop. Retail shops tried to sell nothing but US made products. They went bust.

Consumers voted with their dollars that they would rather save money than put someone's antiquated job on artificial life support, insulating them from changing economic and technology realities, out of patriotism. The thing with patriotism is, it doesn't always cut both ways. And unions themselves proved that.

The UAW was not ashamed to ask, demand, or shame (and sometimes bully) Americans to take a hit to their bottom line for Country (and inferior quality), while the UAW intransigently refused even the most sensible and necessary compromises on job security, compensation, or modernization.

IOW, take a hit to your pocket so that we don't have to take a hit to ours. Americans responded accordingly.

It's funny that you slam the Buy American campaign so quickly, yet fail to know that Japan, Inc. did very much the same thing on it's way to establishing it's industrial might. Japanese families were told to believe that it was patriotic to buy 5 cameras, 3 VCRs, 2 TVs, etc., etc. so as to help the emerging Japanese corporations gain production scale to compete with the US. And these Japanese families DID JUST THAT. Where do you think the stereotypical multi-camera-ed Japanses tourist comes from? Where do you think the Japanese prediliction for cute, small, and ever-present electronics comes from?

This is all a result of an advertising and PR campaign run by the Japanese corporations starting in the 50s and 60s.

Right now, GO to India, and see the media attention and hero worship of emerging Indian companies and corporations competing with the US. It's about as nationalistic as what you claim the US did so badly.

Nationalism and corporate policy go hand in hand in most countries, because they understand that laissez fair economic policy DOES produce winners and losers - at a country level. And while free-market economists would have you believe that a rising tide carries all boats, that's only true if there are enough seats in the boats. With a world population of 6 Billion, limited natural resources and arable land, it isn't a good bet that there ARE enough seats on those boats...

Future Shock

One question: What happened to Japan's economy?

Protectionism and nationalism in economics will NOT sustain a modern economy. Hell, protectionism and nationalism is the main reason the great depression was so bad.

What neocapitalist revisionist world are you living in?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mzkhadir

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: mzkhadir

Who buys your Health Insurance ?

My wife's employer.

My employer buys mine too. If I bought mine, it would be in the hundreds a month.

Just a note:

Your employer never buys your health insurance. They merely add it in as a part of your salary. Your benefits package is just an extension of your salary. YOU are buying your health insurance with your productivity.

That's like saying roads are free. They aren't. Your taxes pay for them.

Not entirely - employers utilize their employee pool to garner significant discounts for their health insurance - if you were to pay that on your own, you would be paying nearly double. The problem with Wal-Mart is that they DON'T provide employee health insurance for most employees (despite their massive buying power with health insurance firms), and pay such low wages that their employees cannot afford individual healthcare on their own. Hence, most of them qualify for government assisted or provided healthcare - in effect shifting the healthcare burden to the taxpayer.

Many Wal-Mart employees are also productive - but they don't get any help...

FS

Walmart offers low cost health insurance to all it's full time AND most part time employees. MOST employers do not offer health insurance to part time employees, or if they do, it's signifigantly less coverage than what is offered to the full time employees.

Fact: Wal-Mart offers affordable health care benefits to our associates. We work hard to offer good, affordable coverage to our people. Historically, Wal-Mart has paid about two-thirds of the cost of the Associates' Medical Plan. We insure more than 568,000 associates and more than 948,000 people in total, who pay as little as $17.50 for individual coverage and $70.50 for family coverage bi-weekly. Unlike many plans, after the first year, the Wal-Mart medical plan has no lifetime maximum for most expenses, protecting our associates against catastrophic loss and financial ruin.

Today, we offer eight health care options, plus HMOs in some areas. We have different deductibles to meet individual needs.

Associates also have access to world class healthcare at the Mayo Clinic, Stanford University Hospital, Johns Hopkins University Hospital and many other leading health care facilities without insurance approval.

In recent years, Wal-Mart has contributed 4 percent of an associate's eligible pay to the combined Profit Sharing & 401(k) plan. Our hourly associates, just like our management and executive associates, receive bonuses and other incentives for helping the company achieve its goals. In FYE 2005, we spent $4.2 billion on benefits for our associates.

Fact: Our health care plan insures full-time and part-time associates once eligible. Last year, this was more than 568,000 associates and more than 948,000 people in total. Unlike many plans, after the first year, the Wal-Mart medical plan has no lifetime maximum for most expenses, protecting our associates against catastrophic loss and financial ruin.

Associates enrolled in the Associates? Medical Plan also have access to world class health care at the Mayo Clinic, Stanford University Hospital, Johns Hopkins University Hospital and many other health care facilities, all without insurance approval.

Next time, research what you're talking about.

Oh, and Walmart employs 1.2 million, and nearly 1 million are insured through them.

Most Walmart employees aren't insured? You have a twisted definition of "most."

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Yes, Walmart provides jobs and cheap products to buy (arguably, not everything at Walmart is the cheapest among competition). However, they do so by ever reducing our capability to produce goods.

Technology reduces our capability to produce goods competitively, as does increasingly higher standards of living and more stringent environmental laws. Are you for imposing restrictions on those as well?

The Big Three automakers and unions spent millions and millions of dollars in public relations campaigns and advertising to push the 'Buy American, Support American Workers' in the 1980s. It was a flop. Retail shops tried to sell nothing but US made products. They went bust.

Consumers voted with their dollars that they would rather save money than put someone's antiquated job on artificial life support, insulating them from changing economic and technology realities, out of patriotism. The thing with patriotism is, it doesn't always cut both ways. And unions themselves proved that.

The UAW was not ashamed to ask, demand, or shame (and sometimes bully) Americans to take a hit to their bottom line for Country (and inferior quality), while the UAW intransigently refused even the most sensible and necessary compromises on job security, compensation, or modernization.

IOW, take a hit to your pocket so that we don't have to take a hit to ours. Americans responded accordingly.

It's funny that you slam the Buy American campaign so quickly, yet fail to know that Japan, Inc. did very much the same thing on it's way to establishing it's industrial might. Japanese families were told to believe that it was patriotic to buy 5 cameras, 3 VCRs, 2 TVs, etc., etc. so as to help the emerging Japanese corporations gain production scale to compete with the US. And these Japanese families DID JUST THAT. Where do you think the stereotypical multi-camera-ed Japanses tourist comes from? Where do you think the Japanese prediliction for cute, small, and ever-present electronics comes from?

This is all a result of an advertising and PR campaign run by the Japanese corporations starting in the 50s and 60s.

Right now, GO to India, and see the media attention and hero worship of emerging Indian companies and corporations competing with the US. It's about as nationalistic as what you claim the US did so badly.

Nationalism and corporate policy go hand in hand in most countries, because they understand that laissez fair economic policy DOES produce winners and losers - at a country level. And while free-market economists would have you believe that a rising tide carries all boats, that's only true if there are enough seats in the boats. With a world population of 6 Billion, limited natural resources and arable land, it isn't a good bet that there ARE enough seats on those boats...

Future Shock

One question: What happened to Japan's economy?

Protectionism and nationalism in economics will NOT sustain a modern economy. Hell, protectionism and nationalism is the main reason the great depression was so bad.

What neocapitalist revisionist world are you living in?

No revision needed. Google the Smoot Hawley act and learn what a devastating effect it, and acts like it passed in other countries had on the great depression and it's duration.

A quick summery:

Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act, 1930, passed by the U.S. Congress; it brought the U.S. tariff to the highest protective level yet in the history of the United States. President Hoover desired a limited upward revision of tariff rates with general increases on farm products and adjustment of a few industrial rates. A congressional joint committee, however, in compromising the differences between a high Senate tariff bill and a higher House tariff bill, arrived at new high rates by generally adopting the increased rates of the Senate on farm products and those of the House on manufactures. Despite wide protest, the tariff act, called the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act because of its joint sponsorship by Representative Willis C. Hawley and Senator Reed Smoot, both Republicans, was signed (June, 1930) by President Hoover. The act brought retaliatory tariff acts from foreign countries, U.S. foreign trade suffered a sharp decline, and the depression intensified.

 

[Kelemvor]

Of course the average wage goes down when Walmart comes in. Those studies onlt count people that actually have an income to start with.

Do simple math.

Let's say you have 10,000 people working making an average of $40k/yr.
Then let's say Walmart comes in, hires 500 people, and pays them $15,000/yr.

The Average has now dropped to $38.8k/yr.

So the Average has gone down, but there's more people working.

Is that a bad thing? I don't think so.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mzkhadir

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: mzkhadir

Who buys your Health Insurance ?

My wife's employer.

My employer buys mine too. If I bought mine, it would be in the hundreds a month.

Just a note:

Your employer never buys your health insurance. They merely add it in as a part of your salary. Your benefits package is just an extension of your salary. YOU are buying your health insurance with your productivity.

That's like saying roads are free. They aren't. Your taxes pay for them.

Not entirely - employers utilize their employee pool to garner significant discounts for their health insurance - if you were to pay that on your own, you would be paying nearly double. The problem with Wal-Mart is that they DON'T provide employee health insurance for most employees (despite their massive buying power with health insurance firms), and pay such low wages that their employees cannot afford individual healthcare on their own. Hence, most of them qualify for government assisted or provided healthcare - in effect shifting the healthcare burden to the taxpayer.

Many Wal-Mart employees are also productive - but they don't get any help...

FS

Walmart offers low cost health insurance to all it's full time AND most part time employees. MOST employers do not offer health insurance to part time employees, or if they do, it's signifigantly less coverage than what is offered to the full time employees.

Fact: Wal-Mart offers affordable health care benefits to our associates. We work hard to offer good, affordable coverage to our people. Historically, Wal-Mart has paid about two-thirds of the cost of the Associates' Medical Plan. We insure more than 568,000 associates and more than 948,000 people in total, who pay as little as $17.50 for individual coverage and $70.50 for family coverage bi-weekly. Unlike many plans, after the first year, the Wal-Mart medical plan has no lifetime maximum for most expenses, protecting our associates against catastrophic loss and financial ruin.

Today, we offer eight health care options, plus HMOs in some areas. We have different deductibles to meet individual needs.

Associates also have access to world class healthcare at the Mayo Clinic, Stanford University Hospital, Johns Hopkins University Hospital and many other leading health care facilities without insurance approval.

In recent years, Wal-Mart has contributed 4 percent of an associate's eligible pay to the combined Profit Sharing & 401(k) plan. Our hourly associates, just like our management and executive associates, receive bonuses and other incentives for helping the company achieve its goals. In FYE 2005, we spent $4.2 billion on benefits for our associates.

Fact: Our health care plan insures full-time and part-time associates once eligible. Last year, this was more than 568,000 associates and more than 948,000 people in total. Unlike many plans, after the first year, the Wal-Mart medical plan has no lifetime maximum for most expenses, protecting our associates against catastrophic loss and financial ruin.

Associates enrolled in the Associates? Medical Plan also have access to world class health care at the Mayo Clinic, Stanford University Hospital, Johns Hopkins University Hospital and many other health care facilities, all without insurance approval.

Next time, research what you're talking about.

Oh, and Walmart employs 1.2 million, and nearly 1 million are insured through them.

Most Walmart employees aren't insured? You have a twisted definition of "most."

Actually, the report you quoted is twisting the truth.

Of 1.2 million employees, only 568,000 are insured by WalMart, period. The remainder of that total (948,000 - 568,000 = 380,000) are spouses and children of employees.

568,000 of 1.2 million is less than half, and that is fact.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mzkhadir

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: mzkhadir

Who buys your Health Insurance ?

My wife's employer.

My employer buys mine too. If I bought mine, it would be in the hundreds a month.

Just a note:

Your employer never buys your health insurance. They merely add it in as a part of your salary. Your benefits package is just an extension of your salary. YOU are buying your health insurance with your productivity.

That's like saying roads are free. They aren't. Your taxes pay for them.

Not entirely - employers utilize their employee pool to garner significant discounts for their health insurance - if you were to pay that on your own, you would be paying nearly double. The problem with Wal-Mart is that they DON'T provide employee health insurance for most employees (despite their massive buying power with health insurance firms), and pay such low wages that their employees cannot afford individual healthcare on their own. Hence, most of them qualify for government assisted or provided healthcare - in effect shifting the healthcare burden to the taxpayer.

Many Wal-Mart employees are also productive - but they don't get any help...

FS

Walmart offers low cost health insurance to all it's full time AND most part time employees. MOST employers do not offer health insurance to part time employees, or if they do, it's signifigantly less coverage than what is offered to the full time employees.

Fact: Wal-Mart offers affordable health care benefits to our associates. We work hard to offer good, affordable coverage to our people. Historically, Wal-Mart has paid about two-thirds of the cost of the Associates' Medical Plan. We insure more than 568,000 associates and more than 948,000 people in total, who pay as little as $17.50 for individual coverage and $70.50 for family coverage bi-weekly. Unlike many plans, after the first year, the Wal-Mart medical plan has no lifetime maximum for most expenses, protecting our associates against catastrophic loss and financial ruin.

Today, we offer eight health care options, plus HMOs in some areas. We have different deductibles to meet individual needs.

Associates also have access to world class healthcare at the Mayo Clinic, Stanford University Hospital, Johns Hopkins University Hospital and many other leading health care facilities without insurance approval.

In recent years, Wal-Mart has contributed 4 percent of an associate's eligible pay to the combined Profit Sharing & 401(k) plan. Our hourly associates, just like our management and executive associates, receive bonuses and other incentives for helping the company achieve its goals. In FYE 2005, we spent $4.2 billion on benefits for our associates.

Fact: Our health care plan insures full-time and part-time associates once eligible. Last year, this was more than 568,000 associates and more than 948,000 people in total. Unlike many plans, after the first year, the Wal-Mart medical plan has no lifetime maximum for most expenses, protecting our associates against catastrophic loss and financial ruin.

Associates enrolled in the Associates? Medical Plan also have access to world class health care at the Mayo Clinic, Stanford University Hospital, Johns Hopkins University Hospital and many other health care facilities, all without insurance approval.

Next time, research what you're talking about.

Oh, and Walmart employs 1.2 million, and nearly 1 million are insured through them.

Most Walmart employees aren't insured? You have a twisted definition of "most."

Actually, the report you quoted is twisting the truth.

Of 1.2 million employees, only 568,000 are insured by WalMart, period. The remainder of that total (948,000 - 568,000 = 380,000) are spouses and children of employees.

568,000 of 1.2 million is less than half, and that is fact.

OK, but that doesn't change the fact that Walmart offers the insurance to ALL it's full and part time employees who have been there past the probationary period. That half their employees choose not to sign up and/or are not there long enough to qualify is not Walmart's fault.

The myth that Walmart does not offer affordable, low cost health insurance to ALL it's employees is busted.

THAT, my nit-picking friend, was the issue. And it's been cleared up.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mzkhadir

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: mzkhadir

Who buys your Health Insurance ?

My wife's employer.

My employer buys mine too. If I bought mine, it would be in the hundreds a month.

Just a note:

Your employer never buys your health insurance. They merely add it in as a part of your salary. Your benefits package is just an extension of your salary. YOU are buying your health insurance with your productivity.

That's like saying roads are free. They aren't. Your taxes pay for them.

Not entirely - employers utilize their employee pool to garner significant discounts for their health insurance - if you were to pay that on your own, you would be paying nearly double. The problem with Wal-Mart is that they DON'T provide employee health insurance for most employees (despite their massive buying power with health insurance firms), and pay such low wages that their employees cannot afford individual healthcare on their own. Hence, most of them qualify for government assisted or provided healthcare - in effect shifting the healthcare burden to the taxpayer.

Many Wal-Mart employees are also productive - but they don't get any help...

FS

Walmart offers low cost health insurance to all it's full time AND most part time employees. MOST employers do not offer health insurance to part time employees, or if they do, it's signifigantly less coverage than what is offered to the full time employees.

Fact: Wal-Mart offers affordable health care benefits to our associates. We work hard to offer good, affordable coverage to our people. Historically, Wal-Mart has paid about two-thirds of the cost of the Associates' Medical Plan. We insure more than 568,000 associates and more than 948,000 people in total, who pay as little as $17.50 for individual coverage and $70.50 for family coverage bi-weekly. Unlike many plans, after the first year, the Wal-Mart medical plan has no lifetime maximum for most expenses, protecting our associates against catastrophic loss and financial ruin.

Today, we offer eight health care options, plus HMOs in some areas. We have different deductibles to meet individual needs.

Associates also have access to world class healthcare at the Mayo Clinic, Stanford University Hospital, Johns Hopkins University Hospital and many other leading health care facilities without insurance approval.

In recent years, Wal-Mart has contributed 4 percent of an associate's eligible pay to the combined Profit Sharing & 401(k) plan. Our hourly associates, just like our management and executive associates, receive bonuses and other incentives for helping the company achieve its goals. In FYE 2005, we spent $4.2 billion on benefits for our associates.

Fact: Our health care plan insures full-time and part-time associates once eligible. Last year, this was more than 568,000 associates and more than 948,000 people in total. Unlike many plans, after the first year, the Wal-Mart medical plan has no lifetime maximum for most expenses, protecting our associates against catastrophic loss and financial ruin.

Associates enrolled in the Associates? Medical Plan also have access to world class health care at the Mayo Clinic, Stanford University Hospital, Johns Hopkins University Hospital and many other health care facilities, all without insurance approval.

Next time, research what you're talking about.

Oh, and Walmart employs 1.2 million, and nearly 1 million are insured through them.

Most Walmart employees aren't insured? You have a twisted definition of "most."

Actually, the report you quoted is twisting the truth.

Of 1.2 million employees, only 568,000 are insured by WalMart, period. The remainder of that total (948,000 - 568,000 = 380,000) are spouses and children of employees.

568,000 of 1.2 million is less than half, and that is fact.

OK, but that doesn't change the fact that Walmart offers the insurance to ALL it's full and part time employees who have been there past the probationary period. That half their employees choose not to sign up and/or are not there long enough to qualify is not Walmart's fault.

The myth that Walmart does not offer affordable, low cost health insurance to ALL it's employees is busted.

THAT, my nit-picking friend, was the issue. And it's been cleared up.

Yes, it does offer insurance to ALL employees, but their low wages prevent many qualified employees from having the financial ability to afford it. In those cases the employees turn to state/federal programs for medical coverage which the taxpayers pay for. WalMart has the highest percentage of employees enrolled in tax-funded programs than any other large corporation, and by a huge margin.

Here is one such example (cached to avoid registration)

WHO USES PEACHCARE Employers with 300 or more children in PeachCare in September 2002:

Self-employed 12,789
Wal-Mart 10,261
Publix 734
Shaw Industries 669
Mohawk Industries 657
Cagle's Keystone Foods 463
McDonald's 454
Home Depot 421
Kroger 377
U.S. post office 354
Construction 328
Sears 325
Randstad Staffing 305
Grady Healthcare 300

Source: Department of Community Health. The figures are self-reported information from PeachCare applications.

 

[Ornery]

Oh God, here we are in nested quote hell again... :roll:


In those cases the employees turn to state/federal programs for medical coverage which the taxpayers pay for. WalMart has the highest percentage of employees enrolled in tax-funded programs than any other large corporation, and by a huge margin.

I'd pull the "tax-funded programs" before I'd try to mandate that businesess supply coverage!

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Oh God, here we are in nested quote hell again... :roll:


In those cases the employees turn to state/federal programs for medical coverage which the taxpayers pay for. WalMart has the highest percentage of employees enrolled in tax-funded programs than any other large corporation, and by a huge margin.

I'd pull the "tax-funded programs" before I'd try to mandate that businesess supply coverage!

Then you'll be happy to know that WalMart opposes similar legislation.

This past week, Wal-Mart contributed $500,000 to oppose the health care initiative, and yet denied the claim. In the LA Times over the weekend, Wal-Mart executives were quoted as saying "There's no proof that any of our associates are on public assistance... I defy anyone to prove it."

 

[Mail5398]

I used to be a free market whacko until one day I woke up and looked around at the real world. Free market is a buzz word for investors. I agree that perfect competition is the model we really need to work for. Perfect competition is many buyers and sellers with no one having influence over price. Wal-Mart does not exist in this state. They go to their suppliers and tell them we will give you this. If you do not like it, we will go to another company that uses sweatshop labor in China to manufacture it. What this has led to is U.S. firms closing down their American plants and investing in plants in other parts of the world where you can get away with paying wages that provide workers with wages that barely cover their purchase of food.

If fair wages existed in all countries around the world then U.S. workers might stand a chance at competing. Who wants to work 70 hours a week to live in a 240 square foot apartment with no electricity, own no motorized vehicle, and be able to buy rice and maybe a vegtable or two a week?

Most of the guys who are complaining about U.S. workers probably still live at home living off their mommy and daddy's money.

 

[Ornery]

Give up on trying to compete with third world labor, and concentrate on things they can't do. In the mean time, enjoy the low cost products. As a consumer, I REALLY appreciate that. As a worker, I'm staying VERY flexible, and I will NOT advocate price supports & tariffs.

 

[nissan720]

Great Job Walmart!!!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mzkhadir

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: mzkhadir

Who buys your Health Insurance ?

My wife's employer.

My employer buys mine too. If I bought mine, it would be in the hundreds a month.

Just a note:

Your employer never buys your health insurance. They merely add it in as a part of your salary. Your benefits package is just an extension of your salary. YOU are buying your health insurance with your productivity.

That's like saying roads are free. They aren't. Your taxes pay for them.

Not entirely - employers utilize their employee pool to garner significant discounts for their health insurance - if you were to pay that on your own, you would be paying nearly double. The problem with Wal-Mart is that they DON'T provide employee health insurance for most employees (despite their massive buying power with health insurance firms), and pay such low wages that their employees cannot afford individual healthcare on their own. Hence, most of them qualify for government assisted or provided healthcare - in effect shifting the healthcare burden to the taxpayer.

Many Wal-Mart employees are also productive - but they don't get any help...

FS

Walmart offers low cost health insurance to all it's full time AND most part time employees. MOST employers do not offer health insurance to part time employees, or if they do, it's signifigantly less coverage than what is offered to the full time employees.

Fact: Wal-Mart offers affordable health care benefits to our associates. We work hard to offer good, affordable coverage to our people. Historically, Wal-Mart has paid about two-thirds of the cost of the Associates' Medical Plan. We insure more than 568,000 associates and more than 948,000 people in total, who pay as little as $17.50 for individual coverage and $70.50 for family coverage bi-weekly. Unlike many plans, after the first year, the Wal-Mart medical plan has no lifetime maximum for most expenses, protecting our associates against catastrophic loss and financial ruin.

Today, we offer eight health care options, plus HMOs in some areas. We have different deductibles to meet individual needs.

Associates also have access to world class healthcare at the Mayo Clinic, Stanford University Hospital, Johns Hopkins University Hospital and many other leading health care facilities without insurance approval.

In recent years, Wal-Mart has contributed 4 percent of an associate's eligible pay to the combined Profit Sharing & 401(k) plan. Our hourly associates, just like our management and executive associates, receive bonuses and other incentives for helping the company achieve its goals. In FYE 2005, we spent $4.2 billion on benefits for our associates.

Fact: Our health care plan insures full-time and part-time associates once eligible. Last year, this was more than 568,000 associates and more than 948,000 people in total. Unlike many plans, after the first year, the Wal-Mart medical plan has no lifetime maximum for most expenses, protecting our associates against catastrophic loss and financial ruin.

Associates enrolled in the Associates? Medical Plan also have access to world class health care at the Mayo Clinic, Stanford University Hospital, Johns Hopkins University Hospital and many other health care facilities, all without insurance approval.

Next time, research what you're talking about.

Oh, and Walmart employs 1.2 million, and nearly 1 million are insured through them.

Most Walmart employees aren't insured? You have a twisted definition of "most."

Actually, the report you quoted is twisting the truth.

Of 1.2 million employees, only 568,000 are insured by WalMart, period. The remainder of that total (948,000 - 568,000 = 380,000) are spouses and children of employees.

568,000 of 1.2 million is less than half, and that is fact.

OK, but that doesn't change the fact that Walmart offers the insurance to ALL it's full and part time employees who have been there past the probationary period. That half their employees choose not to sign up and/or are not there long enough to qualify is not Walmart's fault.

The myth that Walmart does not offer affordable, low cost health insurance to ALL it's employees is busted.

THAT, my nit-picking friend, was the issue. And it's been cleared up.

Yes, it does offer insurance to ALL employees, but their low wages prevent many qualified employees from having the financial ability to afford it. In those cases the employees turn to state/federal programs for medical coverage which the taxpayers pay for. WalMart has the highest percentage of employees enrolled in tax-funded programs than any other large corporation, and by a huge margin.

Here is one such example (cached to avoid registration)

WHO USES PEACHCARE Employers with 300 or more children in PeachCare in September 2002:

Self-employed 12,789
Wal-Mart 10,261
Publix 734
Shaw Industries 669
Mohawk Industries 657
Cagle's Keystone Foods 463
McDonald's 454
Home Depot 421
Kroger 377
U.S. post office 354
Construction 328
Sears 325
Randstad Staffing 305
Grady Healthcare 300

Source: Department of Community Health. The figures are self-reported information from PeachCare applications.

This just tells me Walmart is more likely to employ single mothers. It also tells me that people have twisted priorities today. Walmart's healthcare plan IS affordable. Their pay is in line with other unskilled retail jobs, as well. They are also, by far, the largest employer in that list, so it stands to reason they'd have the highest numbers.

Tell me, if you could get free health care, or pay $70 a month for it, which would you choose? The fact that people today in this age of entitlement are choosing free over low cost is not surprising. What is surprising is that you think it means something.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Mail5398
I used to be a free market whacko until one day I woke up and looked around at the real world. Free market is a buzz word for investors. I agree that perfect competition is the model we really need to work for. Perfect competition is many buyers and sellers with no one having influence over price. Wal-Mart does not exist in this state. They go to their suppliers and tell them we will give you this. If you do not like it, we will go to another company that uses sweatshop labor in China to manufacture it. What this has led to is U.S. firms closing down their American plants and investing in plants in other parts of the world where you can get away with paying wages that provide workers with wages that barely cover their purchase of food.

If fair wages existed in all countries around the world then U.S. workers might stand a chance at competing. Who wants to work 70 hours a week to live in a 240 square foot apartment with no electricity, own no motorized vehicle, and be able to buy rice and maybe a vegtable or two a week?

Most of the guys who are complaining about U.S. workers probably still live at home living off their mommy and daddy's money.

"Perfect competition" is cutting the legs off all the football players so the legless player can compete. It destroys incentive and will stifle innovation. Why try harder if you're not allowed to succeed?

There is no such thing as a "fair wage." What an absurd concept. Fair for who? One man's "fair" is another man's oppression. You can have freedom, or fairness. You cannot have both.

Finally, you actually have that last line in your post completely backwards, most of the people in this thread who are promoting free trade and lamenting the US worker pricing themselves out of jobs are older. The one's bleating the anti-capitalist, anti-walmart mantra are younger. I'm 38. I've been a fast food worker, a gas station attendant, a retail worker, a soldier, a construction worker, a factory worker and am now a business owner.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Yes, Walmart provides jobs and cheap products to buy (arguably, not everything at Walmart is the cheapest among competition). However, they do so by ever reducing our capability to produce goods.

Technology reduces our capability to produce goods competitively, as does increasingly higher standards of living and more stringent environmental laws. Are you for imposing restrictions on those as well?

The Big Three automakers and unions spent millions and millions of dollars in public relations campaigns and advertising to push the 'Buy American, Support American Workers' in the 1980s. It was a flop. Retail shops tried to sell nothing but US made products. They went bust.

Consumers voted with their dollars that they would rather save money than put someone's antiquated job on artificial life support, insulating them from changing economic and technology realities, out of patriotism. The thing with patriotism is, it doesn't always cut both ways. And unions themselves proved that.

The UAW was not ashamed to ask, demand, or shame (and sometimes bully) Americans to take a hit to their bottom line for Country (and inferior quality), while the UAW intransigently refused even the most sensible and necessary compromises on job security, compensation, or modernization.

IOW, take a hit to your pocket so that we don't have to take a hit to ours. Americans responded accordingly.

It's funny that you slam the Buy American campaign so quickly, yet fail to know that Japan, Inc. did very much the same thing on it's way to establishing it's industrial might. Japanese families were told to believe that it was patriotic to buy 5 cameras, 3 VCRs, 2 TVs, etc., etc. so as to help the emerging Japanese corporations gain production scale to compete with the US. And these Japanese families DID JUST THAT. Where do you think the stereotypical multi-camera-ed Japanses tourist comes from? Where do you think the Japanese prediliction for cute, small, and ever-present electronics comes from?

This is all a result of an advertising and PR campaign run by the Japanese corporations starting in the 50s and 60s.

Right now, GO to India, and see the media attention and hero worship of emerging Indian companies and corporations competing with the US. It's about as nationalistic as what you claim the US did so badly.

Nationalism and corporate policy go hand in hand in most countries, because they understand that laissez fair economic policy DOES produce winners and losers - at a country level. And while free-market economists would have you believe that a rising tide carries all boats, that's only true if there are enough seats in the boats. With a world population of 6 Billion, limited natural resources and arable land, it isn't a good bet that there ARE enough seats on those boats...

Future Shock

One question: What happened to Japan's economy?

Protectionism and nationalism in economics will NOT sustain a modern economy. Hell, protectionism and nationalism is the main reason the great depression was so bad.

uhhhh, they went from a 3rd world country to the number 2 economic power if not number 1 in a matter of 50 yrs. so what was your point?

did they hit some bumps? yes, are they still a serious power to be reckoned with? yes. and it was due to their nationalistic policies that they are where they are. japanese didn't always make better products and when they didn't they still bought home grown products vs foreign ones.

 

[MrChad]

I don't believe that Wal-Mart is a monopoly, but their situation is a lot similar to Microsoft's a few years ago. Wal-Mart regularly flexes their market dominance to exert influence over their suppliers. Want to sell a CD in our stores? It had better be free of explicit content, or we won't sell it. As the number one retailer in the country, suppliers have little choice but to comply or lose a major chunk of their distribution chain. Microsoft did the same thing to OEMs a few years ago, and eventually got busted by the Deptartment of Justice for "anti-competitive" practices.

Again, I'm not agreeing with the DOJ decision, but I wonder if Wal-Mart may face similar legislation down the road ...

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Mail5398
I used to be a free market whacko until one day I woke up and looked around at the real world. Free market is a buzz word for investors. I agree that perfect competition is the model we really need to work for. Perfect competition is many buyers and sellers with no one having influence over price. Wal-Mart does not exist in this state. They go to their suppliers and tell them we will give you this. If you do not like it, we will go to another company that uses sweatshop labor in China to manufacture it. What this has led to is U.S. firms closing down their American plants and investing in plants in other parts of the world where you can get away with paying wages that provide workers with wages that barely cover their purchase of food.

If fair wages existed in all countries around the world then U.S. workers might stand a chance at competing. Who wants to work 70 hours a week to live in a 240 square foot apartment with no electricity, own no motorized vehicle, and be able to buy rice and maybe a vegtable or two a week?

Most of the guys who are complaining about U.S. workers probably still live at home living off their mommy and daddy's money.

"Perfect competition" is cutting the legs off all the football players so the legless player can compete. It destroys incentive and will stifle innovation. Why try harder if you're not allowed to succeed?

There is no such thing as a "fair wage." What an absurd concept. Fair for who? One man's "fair" is another man's oppression. You can have freedom, or fairness. You cannot have both.

Finally, you actually have that last line in your post completely backwards, most of the people in this thread who are promoting free trade and lamenting the US worker pricing themselves out of jobs are older. The one's bleating the anti-capitalist, anti-walmart mantra are younger. I'm 38. I've been a fast food worker, a gas station attendant, a retail worker, a soldier, a construction worker, a factory worker and am now a business owner.

perfect competition does no such thing. perfect competition is a model that claims if all factors then there will be many buyers and many sellers.

even in america's "free" economy, the companies that are the largest stay there because of artificial barriers to entry. they large corporations do everything in their power to prevent free flow of information (this is where it's dicey because how do you determine which information is public domain and which is protected).

all businesses that make high profits do su becuase they have an edge in information, ease of access to a resource or some other such barrier to free flow.

perfect competition assumes that all buyers and all sellers have the same access to information and that inventory and workers are easily as accessible by all sellers and that goods are equally accessible by all buyers.

let's look at 2 gas stations. they could have the same product, the same prices and yet because of location one could do exceedingly well and one could go out of business. perfect competition assumes this doesn't happen.

the goal of the conservative govt is supposed to be, create a situation as close to perfect competition model as possible, hence we have laws against monopolies etc. we want to eliminate artificial barriers to trade. when the japanese govt exercises protectionism it is creating an artificial barrier to trade. you have to think these artificial barriers give the japanese companies an advantage.

perfect competition does not cut the legs off football players, it just assumes they all have equal amounts of talent.