Wal-Mart Gives Hourly Employees $2 Billion In Bonuses

[Cleets Part 2]

Take it from me... they are only nominally better in terms of their evilness... their motto seems to be "just slightly less vile than wal-mart"

Yes,
but the last time Target was "examined"
They had a much higher percentage of FULL-Time employees (almost 50% full time to part time ratio) and they had a high rated healthcare plan which was considered a good value by the employee base
Target also had a lower percentage of chinese made goods and had a higher pay rate per employee

All things done differently than Wal-Mart - all better for America

[Col Hogan]

I'm excited for the Target in CF to open up, so I never have to give WM my money again.

Take it from me... they are only nominally better in terms of their evilness... their motto seems to be "just slightly less vile than wal-mart"

So if WM is so evil...and Target "only nominally better"...where do you do your shopping???

[Gil Dobie]

I'm excited for the Target in CF to open up, so I never have to give WM my money again.

Take it from me... they are only nominally better in terms of their evilness... their motto seems to be "just slightly less vile than wal-mart"

You won't see a lot of IT employees over 45 at Target either.

They also bypassed the offshore job market by opening their own Target based IT company in India.

[Gil Dobie]

Take it from me... they are only nominally better in terms of their evilness... their motto seems to be "just slightly less vile than wal-mart"

So if WM is so evil...and Target "only nominally better"...where do you do your shopping???

KMart or Sears

[Col Hogan]

So if WM is so evil...and Target "only nominally better"...where do you do your shopping???

KMart or Sears

The only K-Mart near me is dumpier than any Wally World I've ever seen...and there's no Sears within 20 miles...

But not bad recommendations...

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Take it from me... they are only nominally better in terms of their evilness... their motto seems to be "just slightly less vile than wal-mart"

You won't see a lot of IT employees over 45 at Target either.

They also bypassed the offshore job market by opening their own Target based IT company in India.

Yep... after 30 years there they showed my mom the door. dad, now over 50 is being pushed to leave too... they seem ripe for an age discrimination suit if you ask me...

Col - what I can I buy at Kohls, I do groceries at Cub (which is part of SuperValu - sorta like Redner's out east)

I still go to Target from time-to-time... I'd just rather not.

[travelinman67]

Wal-mart routinely uses taxpayer money to finance its never-ending corporate growth.
A report commissioned by the House Committee on Education and Welfare estimates that a two hundred person Wal-Mart store costs federal taxpayers approximately $420,750 a year, or $2,103 per employee. These costs include:

-$36,000 a year for free and reduced cost school lunches,
-$42,000 for Section 8 housing assistance,
-$125,000 for low-income family tax credits and deductions,
-$100,000 for additional Title I expenses,
-$108,000 for state children’s health insurance expenses, and
-$9,750 for low income energy assistance

State and local governments ALWAYS lose when Wal-Mart comes to town..!!!
A study commissioned by the Los Angeles City Council in 2003 found that Wal-Mart is a net loss for the communities it moves into. Wal-Mart was estimated to cost an additional $9 million in state health care costs and a loss in pensions and retirement benefits so large that the increase in public assistance necessary to make up the shortfall could not even be covered by increased sales and property taxes.

You're joking...

And how much tax revenue (PIT, Corporate, Sales, Licensing, User Fees) is generated by a business that's 100% "on the books" (as Wal-Mart is) as opposed to all the displaced mom & pop businesses who employ family members, friends, neighbors, and children, then keep their pay "off the books" to dodge PR, PIT, Corporate and Business taxes? Or in states like Texas and Missouri, that allows employers to hire people and designate them as I.C.'s to dodge PR tax. Has congress done any studies to quantify the increased revenues received by having a legitimate employer such as Wal-Mart in those states?

Oh...yeah...the other side of the coin.

Don't forget, Hippie...I'm a business consultant who's worked with thousands of sub-$500m companies all over the country. Mom and Pop have more than a few skeletons in their closet.

[travelinman67]

Fact is, the "common man" has seen his real wages decline since 2001... fact is, unless your definition of "middle class" means someone making more than $250,000/year... then the common man isn't being effected by Obama's proposed changes to tax rates (unless they are going down slightly, in some cases). The common man makes under 50k/year. Defending economic policies designed to benefit the top 5% is the precise definition of elitism. It appears you have things backward, T.

Smoke and mirror liberal sleight of hand. Cut PIT taxes for the middle class while jacking up every other tax and fee and piling a ton of new draconian fees on business, in particular, energy producers.

In the end, the tax cut is mitigated and every person who pays their own bills ends up paying more in taxes via passed on costs to businesses and investors.

Yet, you, TTBF, of all people attempt to peddle this crap knowing the poorer classes of America will buy your snake oil, continue voting for your Democrat Conman Candidates, which in the end, keeps you employed.

Sounds pretty "straightforward" to me.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Wal-mart routinely uses taxpayer money to finance its never-ending corporate growth.
A report commissioned by the House Committee on Education and Welfare estimates that a two hundred person Wal-Mart store costs federal taxpayers approximately $420,750 a year, or $2,103 per employee. These costs include:

-$36,000 a year for free and reduced cost school lunches,
-$42,000 for Section 8 housing assistance,
-$125,000 for low-income family tax credits and deductions,
-$100,000 for additional Title I expenses,
-$108,000 for state children’s health insurance expenses, and
-$9,750 for low income energy assistance

State and local governments ALWAYS lose when Wal-Mart comes to town..!!!
A study commissioned by the Los Angeles City Council in 2003 found that Wal-Mart is a net loss for the communities it moves into. Wal-Mart was estimated to cost an additional $9 million in state health care costs and a loss in pensions and retirement benefits so large that the increase in public assistance necessary to make up the shortfall could not even be covered by increased sales and property taxes.

You're joking...

And how much tax revenue (PIT, Corporate, Sales, Licensing, User Fees) is generated by a business that's 100% "on the books" (as Wal-Mart is) as opposed to all the displaced mom & pop businesses who employ family members, friends, neighbors, and children, then keep their pay "off the books" to dodge PR, PIT, Corporate and Business taxes? Or in states like Texas and Missouri, that allows employers to hire people and designate them as I.C.'s to dodge PR tax. Has congress done any studies to quantify the increased revenues received by having a legitimate employer such as Wal-Mart in those states?

Oh...yeah...the other side of the coin.

Don't forget, Hippie...I'm a business consultant who's worked with thousands of sub-$500m companies all over the country. Mom and Pop have more than a few skeletons in their closet.

of course... mom and pop don't send all their revenues to Bentonville...

[Col Hogan]

You won't see a lot of IT employees over 45 at Target either.

They also bypassed the offshore job market by opening their own Target based IT company in India.

Yep... after 30 years there they showed my mom the door. dad, now over 50 is being pushed to leave too... they seem ripe for an age discrimination suit if you ask me...

Col - what I can I buy at Kohls, I do groceries at Cub (which is part of SuperValu - sorta like Redner's out east)

I still go to Target from time-to-time... I'd just rather not.

Gotta love Kohls...the wife works for them, so I get the discounts...

And when it comes to food...I would never go to a Wally World or Super Target...got too many good food places around here...the best being Wegman's...

[Cleets Part 2]

Well T-man you and I disagree completely on whats good and what's right...
Evil Mop & Pop stores... Yeah... they were really screwing over the Feds
and making America suffer...(the bastards)

Wal-Mart is the proper solution for our communities and Country... (You've lost your marbles T-man)
Wal-Mart has our best interests in mind... (Hmm... Wal-Mart Wall Street all taking good care of us)
Free Market Capitalism needs no checks and balances it works perfectly every time


Wal-mart - it's what America is becoming (thanks to People like T-man) Congratulations...


~

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Yep... after 30 years there they showed my mom the door. dad, now over 50 is being pushed to leave too... they seem ripe for an age discrimination suit if you ask me...

Col - what I can I buy at Kohls, I do groceries at Cub (which is part of SuperValu - sorta like Redner's out east)

I still go to Target from time-to-time... I'd just rather not.

Gotta love Kohls...the wife works for them, so I get the discounts...

And when it comes to food...I would never go to a Wally World or Super Target...got too many good food places around here...the best being Wegman's...

I... miss... wegmans...

when i was in philly i drove 20 minutes out of my way to go there... AWESOME

[travelinman67]

of course... mom and pop don't send all their revenues to Bentonville...

Correct...they just pocketed the cash sales (and sales tax collected) while telling their employees they were "just a small business" that couldn't afford to pay "BIG wages".

You and Cleets are clueless about this...I've done books for hundreds of smaller businesses...and that's just a truism about small business.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

of course... mom and pop don't send all their revenues to Bentonville...

Correct...they just pocketed the cash sales (and sales tax collected) while telling their employees they were "just a small business" that couldn't afford to pay "BIG wages".

You and Cleets are clueless about this...I've done books for hundreds of smaller businesses...and that's just a truism about small business.

All of which cycled back in to the local economy. I'm not condoning it... but it's the situation I would rather have... as opposed to Wal-Mart's systematic abuse of social services, their employees, and their vendors.

[UNI88]

No need to with wealth redistribution.

Outline for us the unsavory points of wealth distribution, T, please. Serious, just want to know what you're thinking. In your own words, too.

I won't get into the argument about how Walmart is but I do have an opinion on wealth redistribution ...
Excessive wealth redistribution is a deterent to hard work, achievement and job creation. The higher the tax rate is on higher incomes the less incentive there is to reach those incomes. If people don't bust their butts, take risks (with their time and money) than they aren't going to create companies that create jobs and wealth for other people as well as themselves. I've used this argument before and I will use it again - what would the U.S. economy, standard of living, retirement accounts, etc. be like if Bill Gates and Paul Allen had never created Microsoft; if Larry Ellison had never created Oracle and so on. These people invested a crapload of time and risked their own future to succeed; how fair is it to tax the crap out of them because they made it?

Excessive taxation is a disincentive to advancement as well as achievement. Americans are some of the most innovative people on the planet. Tax the crap out them and you take away the incentive to make the technological, medical, etc. advances that are improving lives around the world.

The higher that taxes get and the better that social service programs get for taking care of those who don't earn a lot of money, the greater the number of people that will say the heck with it and turn to those social services rather than earning their own keep. It's a giant ponzi scheme that will collapse if you raise the taxes too high.

The question is what is excessive taxation? What is a fair and/or reasonable? I don't think we're going to agree on the answer but that is the crux of the matter.

when did thinking become elitist? when did that happen? when did it become "elitist" to insist that people be paid a living wage? when did it become "elitist" to be anything other than larry the fvcking cable guy?

as to Mall-Wart's intentions... puh-leeze. Same as their bullshit "community service" ads. "lookoverhere everyone!!! lookee all the good we's doin'! Pay no attention to the fact that we pay our employees so poorly they have to use your welfare system to get benefits!"

Fact is, the "common man" has seen his real wages decline since 2001... fact is, unless your definition of "middle class" means someone making more than $250,000/year... then the common man isn't being effected by Obama's proposed changes to tax rates (unless they are going down slightly, in some cases). The common man makes under 50k/year. Defending economic policies designed to benefit the top 5% is the precise definition of elitism. It appears you have things backward, T.

Question: Should every worker be paid a "living wage"? Or are there jobs that should be considered stepping stones or temporary jobs that don't earn as much?

It is economically unfeasible to both pay every worker a "living wage" and have things priced inexpensively. Paying workers at Walmart and other stores more will drive up the costs of the products there and at other stores and restaurants and your money won't go as far. The floor for a "living wage" will have to rise as a result and a cycle will begin.

The reality is that the economy is global and the U.S. cannot turn back the clock to the way things were in the 50's; it can't isolate itself and protect the jobs, wages and lifestyles of its citizens. To think that it can is delusional and self-destructive. People think that China and other countries are alreading kicking our azzes economically; well forcing higher wages, unions, etc. on companies will only make things worse as we will become less competitive globally.

Rather than trying to turn back the clock and hold onto archaic jobs we need to focus on preparing people for the jobs that will allow them to earn a "living wage" in the future.

[Cleets Part 2]

of course... mom and pop don't send all their revenues to Bentonville...

Correct...they just pocketed the cash sales (and sales tax collected) while telling their employees they were "just a small business" that couldn't afford to pay "BIG wages".

You and Cleets are clueless about this...I've done books for hundreds of smaller businesses...and that's just a truism about small business.

Ha ha ha...

T-Man's sage observation: Small Business Killed America while Wal-Mart is actually saving America...



You can't make this sh!t up it's so hysterical...

[TwinTownBisonFan]

UNI- if you're willing to work 40 hours a week, you ought to be able to afford a place to live, food, clothes and a decent standard of living. right now... that's not possible.

I flat disagree with the notion that we just have "accept" endemic poverty of large numbers of people because we want cheap crap.

Janitors and cashiers, anyone willing to put in a weeks work ought to be paid a living wage... period.

[UNI88]

UNI- if you're willing to work 40 hours a week, you ought to be able to afford a place to live, food, clothes and a decent standard of living. right now... that's not possible.

I flat disagree with the notion that we just have "accept" endemic poverty of large numbers of people because we want cheap crap.

Janitors and cashiers, anyone willing to put in a weeks work ought to be paid a living wage... period.

TTBF, I don't completely disagree with you (I'm not a completely heartless b**tard) but I don't think it is quite that simple. Let me ask a couple of questions:

- What is a living wage? Money to pay for a roof over your head, clothes on your back, nutritional food on the table, and basic health care? For how many people? Who decides what is essential vs. discretionary? Does a living wage differ for a single provider taking care of a family of four vs. a 21 year old who can live in his/her parent's basement?

- How do you account for the potential variables such as location in determining a living wage? It would need to vary based on the cost of living in different locales. I live in the Chicago Metro area, someone could live in Ottawa, IL for a lot less than Chicago and spend 2+ hours commuting each way. They might make enough working in Chicago to have a "life" in Ottawa but the 4+ hours of commuting would have a serious impact on the quality of their life. Is that OK?

- What if the price of giving everyone who puts in a weeks worth of work (i.e. 37.5 hours or more) a "living wage" is the loss of U.S. economic leadership and a drop in the pace of innovation and advancement? What if our current system would encourage the individuals who would develop a cure for cancer or the technology to solve world hunger or our dependence on oil but changing the system would delay those solutions by years or decades?

I'm willing to admit that our system has many flaws but I also strongly believe that it has tremendous advantages. Rather than mandating that everyone make a certain amount I would much prefer to let the market determine wages based on supply and demand while the government focuses on building the infrastructure (education, job re-training, child care assistance, etc.) to give people the opportunity to better themselves and get jobs that are more valuable and thus pay more. IMO, people should have opportunities to improve their lives. It is up to them to step up, take the opportunity by the horns and do something with it. That is the kind of attitude that made this country great and what we need more of, not less.

[Cap'n Cat]

TTBF,
No one is talking about "excessive" wealth redistribution a la' Soviet Union, circa 1932.

[travelinman67]

Correct...they just pocketed the cash sales (and sales tax collected) while telling their employees they were "just a small business" that couldn't afford to pay "BIG wages".

You and Cleets are clueless about this...I've done books for hundreds of smaller businesses...and that's just a truism about small business.

Ha ha ha...

T-Man's sage observation: Small Business Killed America while Wal-Mart is actually saving America...

I never said that, Hop Head. You fallaciously alleged Wal-Marts CONSUME taxpayer dollars, without contrasting the alternative. I called you on it.

This isn't Propogandaville despite what dback posts.

Post facts or piss off.

[Wedgebuster]

Gee, where I live, it's the Walmart employees and school teachers that make the most money and have the most benefits.

So what would 2 B in bonuses work out to per employee, thirty bucks?

[UNI88]

TTBF,
No one is talking about "excessive" wealth redistribution a la' Soviet Union, circa 1932.

Cap'n, I believe TTBF would like to see a western European social democratic model and is not in favor of "excessive" wealth redistribution. The question is: what is excessive?

[dbackjon]

Ha ha ha...

T-Man's sage observation: Small Business Killed America while Wal-Mart is actually saving America...

I never said that, Hop Head. You fallaciously alleged Wal-Marts CONSUME taxpayer dollars, without contrasting the alternative. I called you on it.

This isn't Propogandaville despite what dback posts.

Post facts or piss off.

You aer too funny, T-man. Coming from the KING of Propaganda, I am speechless.