(no subject)
Jan. 5th, 2005 07:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
New Year's Resolutions for Everyone. Very good.
One of the most telling of all the criticisms of Wal-Mart is to be found in a February 2004 report by the Democratic Staff of the House Education and Workforce Committee. In analyzing Wal-Mart's success in holding employee compensation at low levels, the report assesses the costs to US taxpayers of employees who are so badly paid that they qualify for government assistance even under the less than generous rules of the federal welfare system. For a two-hundred-employee Wal-Mart store, the government is spending $108,000 a year for children's health care; $125,000 a year in tax credits and deductions for low-income families; and $42,000 a year in housing assistance. The report estimates that a two-hundred-employee Wal-Mart store costs federal taxpayers $420,000 a year, or about $2,103 per Wal-Mart employee. That translates into a total annual welfare bill of $2.5 billion for Wal-Mart's 1.2 million US employees.
The rest is here.
When stuff is so cheap, all the time, someone else is paying for it. Also, it's just plain logic. In a lot of places, Wal-Mart is the only store, really. If Wal-Mart is making a profit, and the store doesn't draw a lot of people from other towns, then it is very literally removing money from the local economy. Yes, they might provide jobs, but if the only place in town to spend it is Wal-Mart anyway, any profit is leaving your town. Congratulations! You're making yourself poorer!
Also, in many places, Wal-Mart tailors their benefits packages (such as they are) to the local welfare benefits. For instance, if the threshold for state-provided health care is a certain amount of income per month, then at that store you'll only qualify for them to provide health care when you make above that. Any less, and you can get it from the damn state. Lovely!!
I need to get the Newman-O's away from me. I keep eating them. Soon they'll be gone, and me and
infernarl will be fat and happy.
One of the most telling of all the criticisms of Wal-Mart is to be found in a February 2004 report by the Democratic Staff of the House Education and Workforce Committee. In analyzing Wal-Mart's success in holding employee compensation at low levels, the report assesses the costs to US taxpayers of employees who are so badly paid that they qualify for government assistance even under the less than generous rules of the federal welfare system. For a two-hundred-employee Wal-Mart store, the government is spending $108,000 a year for children's health care; $125,000 a year in tax credits and deductions for low-income families; and $42,000 a year in housing assistance. The report estimates that a two-hundred-employee Wal-Mart store costs federal taxpayers $420,000 a year, or about $2,103 per Wal-Mart employee. That translates into a total annual welfare bill of $2.5 billion for Wal-Mart's 1.2 million US employees.
The rest is here.
When stuff is so cheap, all the time, someone else is paying for it. Also, it's just plain logic. In a lot of places, Wal-Mart is the only store, really. If Wal-Mart is making a profit, and the store doesn't draw a lot of people from other towns, then it is very literally removing money from the local economy. Yes, they might provide jobs, but if the only place in town to spend it is Wal-Mart anyway, any profit is leaving your town. Congratulations! You're making yourself poorer!
Also, in many places, Wal-Mart tailors their benefits packages (such as they are) to the local welfare benefits. For instance, if the threshold for state-provided health care is a certain amount of income per month, then at that store you'll only qualify for them to provide health care when you make above that. Any less, and you can get it from the damn state. Lovely!!
I need to get the Newman-O's away from me. I keep eating them. Soon they'll be gone, and me and
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
no subject
Date: 2005-01-06 09:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-06 08:02 pm (UTC)-cg from tg
no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 08:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 02:36 pm (UTC)