Your religion or your livelihood.....

[Texsox]

Well, it's not poverty unless you're assuming there's a family of 4 being provided for with that income.

 

Poverty level

1 person about $5.25

2 @ $7.05

3@ $9.10

 

These are national poverty rates. Obviously someone living in areas with lower consumer prices will live better.

 

Anyone want to work out a budget for someone earning $7.15 per hour?

[Balta1701]

Poverty level

1 person about $5.25

2 @ $7.05

3@ $9.10

 

These are national poverty rates. Obviously someone living in areas with lower consumer prices will live better.

 

Anyone want to work out a budget for someone earning $7.15 per hour?

Also worth noting is that Walmart employees typically don't work 40 hour weeks because management doesn't want them getting close to overtime.

 

35 hours a week for a full year at $7.15 is $13013 before taxes.

[Texsox]

Also worth noting is that Walmart employees typically don't work 40 hour weeks because management doesn't want them getting close to overtime.

 

35 hours a week for a full year at $7.15 is $13013 before taxes.

 

I do have a hard time accepting that every job in America should be one that can support a family. There are people who want to work part time. There are people who are looking for a second job, etc.

 

As far as Walmart shuffling people into government programs for the working poor, I think it is a shame that more employers are not helpful to their employees and help them to find these programs. If the program is good, people should be encouraged to use it, if the program is wrong, we should get rid of it.

[StrangeSox]

Also those poverty levels are national rates. Now consider that we're talking about urban Chicago. And also consider that the poverty rate is that low because of government assistance, i.e. we all get to pay for Walmart's employees through taxes because Walmart doesn't actually pay them enough or give them benefits.

[StrangeSox]

Well, it's not poverty unless you're assuming there's a family of 4 being provided for with that income. I paid for part of my first year of college on a $5.15/hr job (2000-2001). As someone else said, you're not going to do much better working at a fast food joint anyways. We're not talking about building an entire industry full of professional level jobs here. That's just not going to happen. This is the best alternative (especially adding in the fact that they're also providing these neighborhoods with an actual source of decent food)

 

And besides, as I've said from the beginning, in the areas I'm talking about, ANY job = wealthy. You're viewing this on a national scale, which isn't realistic. You're saying that Wal-mart isn't necessarily a good thing because they don't provide enough. You need to compare it to what's already in these poor areas, which is basically nothing. 40% unemployment man. That's a ridiculous amount.

 

Again, everything you're talking about, your forgetting that we're starting at a baseline of zero here. These people i'm talking about HAVE NOTHING and MAKE NOTHING. So who cares that Wal-mart ships jobs overseas or that their also on government assitance (as if that fact is going to change even when they get a job)? It's a net gain on all fronts, hence why I'm a big fan of it.

 

 

Do you honestly not see how every other sentence in that paragraph contradicts the previous one?

 

They're at a baseline of zero because of jobs going overseas. Jobs have gone overseas thanks in large part to Walmart. So, Walmart coming in after destroying any real job opportunities for domestic low-skilled workers and offering them retail jobs isn't some great net gain. And, yes, if there were actually jobs available that paid a decent wage (oh, say, all of the manufacturing/ factory jobs we've shipped away in order to drive down prices!), they wouldn't be on government assistance. It is far from a net gain on all fronts, and simply asserting that doesn't make it true.

 

edit: you're assuming that the high rate of unemployment isn't due, at least in part, to Walmart.

Edited June 23, 2010 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

I do have a hard time accepting that every job in America should be one that can support a family. There are people who want to work part time. There are people who are looking for a second job, etc.

 

We're not talking about people only needing to work part time here, but people having to work two, three jobs to get by.

 

As far as Walmart shuffling people into government programs for the working poor, I think it is a shame that more employers are not helpful to their employees and help them to find these programs. If the program is good, people should be encouraged to use it, if the program is wrong, we should get rid of it.

 

The program may be good but may also be exploited. It's good to provide assistance to those in need, but it's bad to allow a company to consistently underpay employees and shove them off to the government assistance line.

[Texsox]

Also those poverty levels are national rates. Now consider that we're talking about urban Chicago. And also consider that the poverty rate is that low because of government assistance, i.e. we all get to pay for Walmart's employees through taxes because Walmart doesn't actually pay them enough or give them benefits.

 

Which is better, Mom & Pop Grocery Co. employing someone at $7.15 an hour and not telling them about programs that can help them with housing, education, health, etc. or an employer that tells them about these programs? Of course, they could just buy this book . . .

 

Walmart isn't doing anything different than colleges with financial aid offices. They practically force kids to sign up for government aid just so they can increase their enrollment.

[StrangeSox]

Hey, nice false dichotomy!

 

But now with Walmart in town, the owners of those Mom & Pop stores are going to be unemployed, soon. Maybe they can get a nice job at Walmart!

 

This, basically, is what I've been driving at:

an article[/url]]To local politicians, opening a “big box” store like Wal-Mart seems a clear benefit—new jobs, more sales taxes, happy shoppers buying bargains. But it mainly reallocates where existing income is spent.

 

And while Wal-Mart competition does lower prices, it also depresses wages and eliminates jobs. One 1999 study reported that 1.5 jobs had been lost for every job that Wal-Mart created. A recent projection by the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Center for Urban Economic Development concluded that the proposed West-Side Chicago store likely would yield a net decrease of about 65 jobs after that Wal-Mart opens, as other retailers in the same shopping area lose business. A study cited in Business Week as showing modest retail gains after Wal-Marts open actually reported net job losses counting effects on warehousing and surrounding counties.

 

Wages are low at notoriously anti-union Wal-Mart—averaging about $9 an hour for full-time workers, around $8 for the roughly 45 percent of “associates” working less than 45 weeks a year. But Wal-Mart also helps hold down wages throughout the retail industry, with a few exceptions like the partly-unionized Costco (where wages average $16 an hour) or more heavily unionized grocery stores. A 1999 study for the Orange County Business Council forecast that the entry of grocery supercenters such as Wal-Mart operates could cost southern California $2.8 billion in lost wages and benefits each year as grocers cut the jobs or wages and benefits of a quarter million largely unionized grocery workers.

 

But “Walmartization of America has a broader impact than just retail workers,” says Greg Denier, spokesman for the United Food and Commercial Workers, which represents grocery workers. “Wal-Mart probably has had more negative impact on manufacturing than on other jobs in the United States.” Wal-Mart also squeezes American consumer goods producers, forcing them to cut labor costs, move overseas or be replaced by foreign suppliers. Accounting for 10 percent of all U.S. imports from China in 2002, the corporation even pressures wages downward in poor countries, from El Salvador to Bangladesh. It also drives competitors to import more, pushing the True Value hardware store cooperative to boost imports from less than 1 percent of its products to 18 percent.

 

And a link to the study done by Loyola and UIC:

http://www.luc.edu/curl/pdfs/Projects/WalM...port2009122.doc

 

So it drives out other jobs and replaces them with lower-paying, lower-benefits dead end jobs. Why, exactly, is this a positive for everyone?

Edited June 23, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Do you honestly not see how every other sentence in that paragraph contradicts the previous one?

 

They're at a baseline of zero because of jobs going overseas. Jobs have gone overseas thanks in large part to Walmart. So, Walmart coming in after destroying any real job opportunities for domestic low-skilled workers and offering them retail jobs isn't some great net gain. And, yes, if there were actually jobs available that paid a decent wage (oh, say, all of the manufacturing/ factory jobs we've shipped away in order to drive down prices!), they wouldn't be on government assistance. It is far from a net gain on all fronts, and simply asserting that doesn't make it true.

 

edit: you're assuming that the high rate of unemployment isn't due, at least in part, to Walmart.

 

Dude, we're talking about the extreme ghetto here, not some pure middle class neighborhood. There are few mom and pop shops that would be concerned with Wal-mart's influence. They don't even have grocery stores. The people are not ones that would work in those types of jobs anyway (the ones supposedly being lost overseas), and even they were, I dunno why Wal-mart is the only cause of it. It's EVERY major chain in EVERY major industry of commercial goods. With this argument we should ban any new Best Buy, Target, CostCo, Sams, Kohls, etc from coming into any neighborhood.

 

And how can the rate of unemployment be due to Walmart when it doesn't exist there?

[EvilMonkey]

Target is non unionized either. The y also pay wages on the same scale as Wal Mart.

 

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13508

 

Of more than 1,400 Target stores employing more than 300,000 people nationwide, not one has a union.

 

“People ask what the difference between Wal-Mart and Target is,” said UFCW organizer Bernie Hesse. “Nothing, except that Wal-Mart is six times bigger. The wages start at $7.25 to $7.50 an hour [at Target]. They’ll say that’s a competitive wage, but they can’t say it’s a living wage. We know a lot of their managers are telling people, ‘If we find out you’re involved in organizing a union you’ll get fired.’”

[StrangeSox]

And how can the rate of unemployment be due to Walmart when it doesn't exist there?

 

How many times do I have to explain it? Manufacturing was once a good career for lower-skilled workers to move into. A Walmart job could be considered a stepping stone between a literal McJob and something more. Walmart is a big part of manufacturing going overseas. Their purchasing power allows them to dictate price cuts to their suppliers, and the price cuts they dictate force the suppliers to look to cheap, exploitable overseas labor. Walmart's market share forces others to follow similar patterns or go out of business to Walmarts "always low prices".

 

And why not take a look at the report I posted showing that Walmart didn't add any jobs to Chicago when it came in? And that, nationally, they eliminate 1.4 jobs for every 1 they create. And that they cause others to go out of business, leaving them the only game in town.

 

Do you see why it's cyclical? It's low pay. Most employees are part-time. There's no advancement. They eliminate other opportunities. They become the only store available, so their employees only shop there.

 

By the way, where's your cutoff for "better than nothing" rationale? Are sweatshops ok because, hey, $.50 a day is better than the $0 they were making before? If not, where is the acceptable point and how do you determine it?

[Texsox]

Hey, nice false dichotomy!

 

But now with Walmart in town, the owners of those Mom & Pop stores are going to be unemployed, soon. Maybe they can get a nice job at Walmart!

 

This, basically, is what I've been driving at:

 

 

And a link to the study done by Loyola and UIC:

http://www.luc.edu/curl/pdfs/Projects/WalM...port2009122.doc

 

So it drives out other jobs and replaces them with lower-paying, lower-benefits dead end jobs. Why, exactly, is this a positive for everyone?

 

Lower prices compared to Mom and Pop. Every national retailer, Target, Jewel, Costco, Sams, Best Buy undercut the locals. So a few jobs are lost but all their customers are paying lower prices, improving their quality of life. This is the ugly side of our economy. Walmart and others found a better way to distribute goods and kicked local asses.

[Jenksismyhero]

How many times do I have to explain it? Manufacturing was once a good career for lower-skilled workers to move into. A Walmart job could be considered a stepping stone between a literal McJob and something more. Walmart is a big part of manufacturing going overseas. Their purchasing power allows them to dictate price cuts to their suppliers, and the price cuts they dictate force the suppliers to look to cheap, exploitable overseas labor. Walmart's market share forces others to follow similar patterns or go out of business to Walmarts "always low prices".

 

And why not take a look at the report I posted showing that Walmart didn't add any jobs to Chicago when it came in? And that, nationally, they eliminate 1.4 jobs for every 1 they create. And that they cause others to go out of business, leaving them the only game in town.

 

Do you see why it's cyclical? It's low pay. Most employees are part-time. There's no advancement. They eliminate other opportunities. They become the only store available, so their employees only shop there.

 

By the way, where's your cutoff for "better than nothing" rationale? Are sweatshops ok because, hey, $.50 a day is better than the $0 they were making before? If not, where is the acceptable point and how do you determine it?

 

It hasn't been that way for YEARS, and again, how is Walmart different than any other big box store in that way? SO they're bigger. Fine. It's not like the Targets and Best Buys of the world are mom and pop shops. Their goods aren't made 2 blocks away by locals either.

 

And that report was based on a completely different area of the city than what I've been talking about. I'm talking about a barren wasteland of commercial development. I'm sure I can find you a study that shows that when a Walmart goes into a new development area, it also brings in tons of other businesses that want to be in the same area (think strip malls with a Gamestop, a Starbucks, a cell phone store, etc). I get your concern that Wal-mart sucks business out of the local establishments. But again, (1) where's the outcry for any other big box store moving into Chicago and (2) I'm talking about neighborhoods that don't have those establishiments in place, so that's not a concern.

 

Clearly there's a difference between sweatshop pay and a retail job. When did this country get so damned high and mighty about $8.75 an hour?! Not everyone can make 100k a year. Not everyone chose a proper career path to be able to do that. Sometimes 8.75 starting is the best someone can do, and that's just life. It's not societies responsibility to make sure those people get paid 50k a year becasue that's what middle class is.

[StrangeSox]

If you're sure you can find studies supporting your case, go and find them. Arguing by assertion doesn't make a strong case.

 

Walmart is the target because they're the largest retail store in the world and therefore have the largest buying power and the largest affect on the industry. They're not alone, but they're #1.

[StrangeSox]

Clearly there's a difference between sweatshop pay and a retail job. When did this country get so damned high and mighty about $8.75 an hour?! Not everyone can make 100k a year. Not everyone chose a proper career path to be able to do that. Sometimes 8.75 starting is the best someone can do, and that's just life. It's not societies responsibility to make sure those people get paid 50k a year becasue that's what middle class is.

 

 

I'm asking you to define that difference. Where is the cutoff?

 

And no one is demanding that everyone makes $50k, just that we work towards improving things for the working poor instead of status quo or worse.

[StrangeSox]

Lower prices compared to Mom and Pop. Every national retailer, Target, Jewel, Costco, Sams, Best Buy undercut the locals. So a few jobs are lost but all their customers are paying lower prices, improving their quality of life. This is the ugly side of our economy. Walmart and others found a better way to distribute goods and kicked local asses.

 

Yes, and that's by paying people in developing countries very little money and generally not giving a s*** about them or their environment.

 

Also, Jewel is a regional store.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm asking you to define that difference. Where is the cutoff?

 

And no one is demanding that everyone makes $50k, just that we work towards improving things for the working poor instead of status quo or worse.

 

Why does it matter? We're not talking hypotheticals here. $8.75 is what they've agreed to pay. I don't think that approaches poverty levels in anyway.

[StrangeSox]

I'm asking for your definition of poverty, and you keep being evasive.

 

What level of wages and benefits (or lack thereof) is truly considered a positive over unemployment? We both seem to agree sweatshop-like conditions are not as that is flagrant exploitation of the poor (hey guess what Walmart relies on for a lot of overseas cheap labor!). Also consider the impact Walmart has on their future employment/ career opportunities outside of low-paying retail jobs.

Edited June 24, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm asking for your definition of poverty, and you keep being evasive.

 

What level of wages and benefits (or lack thereof) is truly considered a positive over unemployment? We both seem to agree sweatshop-like conditions are not as that is flagrant exploitation of the poor (hey guess what Walmart relies on for a lot of overseas cheap labor!). Also consider the impact Walmart has on their future employment/ career opportunities outside of low-paying retail jobs.

 

I'll go with at or under the current minimum wage for a single person, given all of the government assistance those people can also get.

 

And I think you're assuming these people are professional career oriented people. They're not. But maybe, hopefully, their kids can be.

[StrangeSox]

I'll go with at or under the current minimum wage for a single person, given all of the government assistance those people can also get.

 

Well, then we're right back to my original point: Walmart shoves the true cost of employment on to the taxpayers, so their "low prices" really aren't as low when you figure out the tax support for their millions employees they underpay. Oh, and of course, the Waltons continue to rake in billions thanks to this. If we eliminate the government assistance, then we're right in the thick of poverty or Walmart has to actually pay reasonable wages instead of relying on the tax payers to do so.

 

Still, you haven't really answered the question clearly. Would $4 be ok, because hey, it's better than $0? $2? $6? Where's the cutoff?

 

And I think you're assuming these people are professional career oriented people. They're not. But maybe, hopefully, their kids can be.

 

I'm assuming any hope of a career making a decent wage the working poor may have had, such as in the once-large manufacturing sector, is gone, thanks in large part to Walmart (and companies like them) sending everything overseas. And, because of the crushing cycle of poverty and lack of opportunities, their kids probably won't be able to escape.

Edited June 24, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Well, then we're right back to my original point: Walmart shoves the true cost of employment on to the taxpayers, so their "low prices" really aren't as low when you figure out the tax support for their millions employees they underpay. Oh, and of course, the Waltons continue to rake in billions thanks to this. If we eliminate the government assistance, then we're right in the thick of poverty or Walmart has to actually pay reasonable wages instead of relying on the tax payers to do so.

 

Still, you haven't really answered the question clearly. Would $4 be ok, because hey, it's better than $0? $2? $6? Where's the cutoff?

 

 

 

I'm assuming any hope of a career making a decent wage the working poor may have had, such as in the once-large manufacturing sector, is gone, thanks in large part to Walmart (and companies like them) sending everything overseas. And, because of the crushing cycle of poverty and lack of opportunities, their kids probably won't be able to escape.

 

IT DOESN'T MATTER. I deal in the world of reality, and in that world, we're talking about $8.75 an hour, which is plenty. End of debate.

 

As to your second point, again, please sign my petition to sue Henry Ford for ruining my great grandfathers livery stable. That SOB's evil, greedy business model ruined an entire industry. Just like in every other time of history, when businesses close or someone comes out with a better product, those that get left behind have to adapt. As Tex says, big box stores are just better at what they do. There's still room for the mom and pop store. Become more specialized, that's the key. But this is a process that started decades ago. It's not like it just happened.

 

And how you can argue "lack of opportunities" when you yourself are denying them one?

 

I think the disconnect here is that you're coming from the perspective of a middle class neighborhood (like in your study) whereas i'm coming from the 40% unemployed, highest crime rate, highest obesity rate, lack of any meaningful jobs, and a food desert neighborhood. Let's assume that Wal-mart will crush EVERY business in that area. It's STILL better for those neighborhoods' health and economy because there's nothing there to begin with.

 

 

[Iwritecode]

Like i said, between coupons, rebates, grocery stores, Walgreens, CVS, Target, Aldi, and occasionally a few other stores, I haven't had any need to stop at Walmart, I'm constantly beating their prices. If I want something higher quality, I'll go to the farmer's market or the organic store nearby.

 

Then again, I have lots of options nearby. The whole reason why I'm inching towards your side is that in truly blighted areas, there aren't that many options.

 

I would argue that you might be paying a little more on some items but you are saving on time and gas and sometimes convinience if you have to run out at 3AM and no other place is open.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Yes, and that's by paying people in developing countries very little money and generally not giving a s*** about them or their environment.

 

Also, Jewel is a regional store.

 

Jewel is a regional brand operated by a national company (Albertson's). It's Albertson's on the east coast, Jewel in the midwest, ACME on the east coast.

And workers at Jewel are also organized. UFCW I believe.

[StrangeSox]

IT DOESN'T MATTER. I deal in the world of reality, and in that world, we're talking about $8.75 an hour, which is plenty. End of debate.

 

It does matter, because that's the heart of the damned argument. It's a philosophical difference between what's acceptable or not. I reject your "it's better than nothing" argument and I'm asking you to define where on the continuum between sweatshops and low-paying dead end jobs you find that argument to fail. Extremely low wages are "real world' and hey, guess what, Walmart relies on them to sell their products so cheap.

 

As to your second point, again, please sign my petition to sue Henry Ford for ruining my great grandfathers livery stable. That SOB's evil, greedy business model ruined an entire industry. Just like in every other time of history, when businesses close or someone comes out with a better product, those that get left behind have to adapt. As Tex says, big box stores are just better at what they do. There's still room for the mom and pop store. Become more specialized, that's the key. But this is a process that started decades ago. It's not like it just happened.

 

That is not comparable. Henry Ford's methods replaced jobs with new and different ones. What jobs are Walmart adding to our economy? They're removing manufacturing and best-case scenario are 1 for 1 on retail.

 

 

And how you can argue "lack of opportunities" when you yourself are denying them one?

 

I don't consider $8.75/ hr to be a real opportunity at a career with decent pay. You're redefining terms.

 

I think the disconnect here is that you're coming from the perspective of a middle class neighborhood (like in your study) whereas i'm coming from the 40% unemployed, highest crime rate, highest obesity rate, lack of any meaningful jobs, and a food desert neighborhood. Let's assume that Wal-mart will crush EVERY business in that area. It's STILL better for those neighborhoods' health and economy because there's nothing there to begin with.

 

Do we have evidence of Walmart creating an entire economy on its own? That's what you're arguing for here. Walmart's going to come into an area with no jobs and no business, employ people for minimum wage and then those people will turn right back around and spend all of their money at Walmart. Great 'company store' model for Walmart, but will it really improve the quality of life?

 

And you're still not addressing the tax issue. Why should the taxpayer support Walmart's low wages so they can keep bringing in large profits?

 

[StrangeSox]

I would argue that you might be paying a little more on some items but you are saving on time and gas and sometimes convinience if you have to run out at 3AM and no other place is open.

 

In more metropolitan areas, sure, but study after study shows a new Walmart significantly increases the odds of small businesses going under for a 20 or 30 mile radius in rural areas. So now your local grocer is closed and you've got to drive 20 miles to the store one way. It's in the literature review section of the study I posted up thread, and you can follow the cite to the original studies.

 

edit: and you also have to drive that much further to work because Walmart's one of the only stores for miles and miles now.

Edited June 24, 2010 by StrangeSox