Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2014 22:18:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Apr 10, 2014 9:08:46 GMT -5
Within the last year or so I saw an article which calculated this a different way. It said that getting Walmart employees off food stamps would cost the customer an average of 40 cents per visit to the store.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 13:51:05 GMT -5
Within the last year or so I saw an article which calculated this a different way. It said that getting Walmart employees off food stamps would cost the customer an average of 40 cents per visit to the store. I'm not quite sure if you're implying something or just correcting an assertion. |
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Apr 10, 2014 14:34:13 GMT -5
I'm not quite sure if you're implying something or just correcting an assertion. This article says that Walmart could get their employees of off food stamps without costing themselves anything by raising prices 1.4%. As an example they show a $0.68 product that would cost $0.69 if the price went up by that amount. The article I recall (which may have been a report on NPR, rather than something I read -- can't remember with certainty) said that Walmart could get their employees of off food stamps without costing themselves anything by raising prices enough that the average trip to a Walmart cost $0.40 more than it does now. There is no real difference between these two reports, except that one looks at the cost of a single item while the other looks at the total cost of all the items bought in the average trip to Walmart. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 14:47:34 GMT -5
I guess I was being too ambiguous in my question. My real concern is that taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart. Your non-comment to that part of the article, makes me think that that doesn't bother you as much that shoppers would have to pay 40 cents more per visit to Walmart.
|
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Apr 10, 2014 16:20:55 GMT -5
I guess I was being too ambiguous in my question. My real concern is that taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart. Your non-comment to that part of the article, makes me think that that doesn't bother you as much that shoppers would have to pay 40 cents more per visit to Walmart. I was just saying that I had heard a similar claim in the recent past. To relate the two figures -- $28.57 x 1.014 = $28.97, an increase of 40 cents. In my view, full time employment should generate a living wage, and that includes health coverage, a retirement plan, decent working conditions, paid vacation, and so on. The government, i.e. "we the people," should not have to subsidize private industry by providing food stamps or welfare or health coverage to working people. They should be paid enough to care for themselves. A price increase at Walmart (or anywhere) that would get people "off the dole" would not be an issue if people were paid a living wage because their wages would be related to the cost of living. Walmart (along with all other companies) should be paying a living wage. If they raise prices a bit to finance it, fine. If they lower their profits a bit, fine. A combination of the two, fine. |
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Apr 11, 2014 14:54:49 GMT -5
I want them to lower their insane profits. They'd still be billionaires AND, I don't wish to comment further on my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2014 16:56:14 GMT -5
Well, "they" want people to get off their butts and work and not get on welfare or foodstamps. I think "they" are going after the wroing butts.
|
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Apr 11, 2014 16:58:08 GMT -5
I want them to lower their insane profits. They'd still be billionaires AND, I don't wish to comment further on my opinion. Walmart is a huge company and does a huge volume of business, so they could generate large profits on a very narrow margin. I don't know if that's the case or not, but if what they make on each sale is reasonable, then their profits are not insane, regardless of the annual amount. Now don't get me wrong. I hate them for the way they treat their employees. I don't shop there. I would force them (and all companies) to treat their employees properly, as I said above, if I had the means to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by apple on May 1, 2014 22:57:01 GMT -5
I want them to lower their insane profits. They'd still be billionaires AND, I don't wish to comment further on my opinion. Walmart is a huge company and does a huge volume of business, so they could generate large profits on a very narrow margin. I don't know if that's the case or not, but if what they make on each sale is reasonable, then their profits are not insane, regardless of the annual amount. Now don't get me wrong. I hate them for the way they treat their employees. I don't shop there. I would force them (and all companies) to treat their employees properly, as I said above, if I had the means to do so. I am with you on that one. I won't shop at Walmart as I feel in doing so would be saying it is okay to treat employees like that, and it isn't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 11:56:26 GMT -5
Walmart is a huge lumbering beast that subsides entirely on exploitating their employees and having no real competition in their market segment.
They tried to establish a foothold in Germany a couple years ago and were torn to pieces by the competition there, and never even made it to Austria, which is if anything even more competitive than Germany.
If the US were ever to enact real labor rights legislation, they'd be toast.
|
|
