The Wal-Mart hatred bandwagon is a load of crap...

[Zer_]

^ More like asking people to basically steal from the charity programs it supposedly supported.

Lame. Yeah I'd go to upper management and push them to act on crap like this. Make sure to emphasize that poor conduct like that is detrimental to any corporation in the long term.

 

[AceDiamond]

Ok so I guess that the 3 people I know from 3 different US States who work or worked at Wal-Mart and all agree it's the worst place they could possibly work (hence why they're all either in school or going back to it to get out of that situation) are wrong?

 

[Zer_]

Ok so I guess that the 3 people I know from 3 different US States who work or worked at Wal-Mart and all agree it's the worst place they could possibly work (hence why they're all either in school or going back to it to get out of that situation) are wrong?

The majority of the jobs that don't require any form of education are terrible jobs. It's not just Wal-Mart. In my past work experience I've worked at a grocery store, and it wasn't a good job. I also work at a Blockbuster's and that wasn't a great job either. I worked at both locations for just over a year, and in both cases I came out hating the job. When looking back at those jobs I just realize that it's just the way minimum wage jobs are.

Naturally the best solution is to get an education at school so you can go into a appealing career.

 

[PatientGrasshopper]

People always blame WalMart for creating satshops in China and places like that however it is just creating jobs for those people that they wouldn't have anyway. If we want to blame them for something let's blame them for taking work away from the American people and sending them overseas.

To me , Walmart are being targeted just like Macdonald's were in 'Supersize me', they're the biggest, so they're the main target, and my problem is there's so much hate ready to be loaded onto them, I'm not sure how much to believe.

Sure they're in it for the money, they're a business, and I'm sure they could treat their customers and staff better, but you can only go so far in that direction before your competitor starts taking over, then you're without staff and customers.

What needs to be done is better laws governing treatment of staff, including a higher minimum wage!

If EVERYONE has to pay a reasonable amount, everyone has to put prices up (by not very much), and therefore no-one gets an advantage.

Anyone see Penn & Teller's 'Bullshit!' on Walmart? They actually took the unpopular stance of defending them, while acknowledging they do bad things.

I disagree with the minimum wage notion. Raising the minimum wag will just make things worse,it will force them to send more jobs overseas or hire illegal immigrants.

 

[Zer_]

People always blame WalMart for creating satshops in China and places like that however it is just creating jobs for those people that they wouldn't have anyway. If we want to blame them for something let's blame them for taking work away from the American people and sending them overseas.

*snip*

I disagree with the minimum wage notion. Raising the minimum wage will just make things worse,it will force them to send more jobs overseas or hire illegal immigrants.

It will also force them to raise their prices, thus resulting in a global price increase in Wal-Mart retailers and any competing retailers. In the end Wal-Mart will still be making the same amount of money. Wal-Mart employees will be payed more, but they'll just have to spend more due to the increased prices.

 

[Good morning blues]

The whole point of a corporation is to make money, what else is new? If Wal-Mart had to pay union fees, they would up the prices of their products. Prices are changed based on the projected profit and expenses the company will make. Wal-Mart has the right to make a profit and keep their profits in their bank accounts. They are allowed to for the exact same reason we as people are allowed to save up some cash.

Also, providing a competitive salary is just as important as providing competitive pricing. If the employees at Wal-Mart are so poorly treated, so underpayed and miserable then why don't they go work at another retail outlet? There are tons of jobs for people with only a high school education, they may pay as well as other jobs, but they're there.

If Wal-Mart was evil, racist and corrupt like you all say it is, then it wouldn't be able to function as a business. Whenever something bad happens in a Wal-Mart store people go get all angry like little teenagers, it sickens me. It's like "Hey look, there's a Wal-Mart manager who mistreated one of his/her employees, Wal-Mart is such an evil company."

A lot of the negative aspects Wal-Mart brings is not just Wal-Mart's doing. My mother works for a payroll company, she's got a decent office job, right? Nope. She's underpayed, and has a fixed yearly salary, which means she doesn't get payed overtime when she does over 70 hours a week, and that happens often. You don't see the masses complaining and protesting Medi-Solution for that? They don't protest it because it doesn't have the Wal-Mart logo in its brand.

Stop looking at it like it's a problem with Wal-Mart, but a problem with our society.

You're arguing against a bunch of stuff that I never said. Yes, the bigger problem is the overall system, which encourages corporations to operate on the principle of MAXIMUM PROFIT AT ANY COST. This principle is poisonous and detrimental to our society. Wal-Mart just happens to be one of the most visible corporations that has taken this principle to the furthest extreme they've been able to get away with (do I need to link to the company scrip thing?). I know exactly why I hate and boycott Wal-Mart - it's because Wal-Mart is the perfect example of what is wrong with our society.

Yeah, they do have a legal right to put all of that money in their bank accounts. They also have a moral obligation to pay their employees an amount that corresponds to the profit that they help generate.

I doubt this was ever considered when corporations were introduced into our legal systems.

It wasn't, and that's why massive corporations have been able to fuck the world over so thoroughly. The United States' brand of capitalism is based on an economic model that was built assuming a large number of highly competitive small businesses, and it's being exploited by an oligarchy of massive supercorporations. Take patents for an example. Patent law was designed to protect inventors and society by allowing inventors to profit from their ideas while releasing the designs to the world for others to learn from and improve upon. Instead, it's used by massive corporations to litigate inventors into complete ruin, allowing them to buy their patents and add them to their collection for chump change.

Naturally the best solution is to get an education at school so you can go into a appealing career.

You're a full-time Wal-Mart employee. You have no skills. You make $13 000 a year. How, exactly, are you going to educate yourself?

 

[Zer_]

You're a full-time Wal-Mart employee. You have no skills. You make $13 000 a year. How, exactly, are you going to educate yourself?

Move to Canada?

The high cost of education in the United States isn't Wal-Mart's problem. But you've openly admitted to hating Wal-Mart in particular because it's the biggest fish in the sea, thus easier to throw your harpoon at.

MAN THE HARPOONS!

EDIT: As for the crip incident, if the regional managers were breaking the law by knowingly paying their employees in coupons or cash credit only allowed to be used in their own local stores, then yes the victims are entitled to being fully compensated for the amount of national currency they were deprived of. If the employees signed a contract agreeing that they would be payed in part in store credit or coupons then the local Wal-Marts are free from any moral scrutiny. If they did sign the contract, and the contract was in direct conflict with the local laws, then the employees still have a case, but should have reported the crime earlier instead of waiting it out.

 

[Good morning blues]

You're a full-time Wal-Mart employee. You have no skills. You make $13 000 a year. How, exactly, are you going to educate yourself?

Move to Canada?

The high cost of education in the United States isn't Wal-Mart's problem. But you've openly admitted to hating Wal-Mart in particular because it's the biggest fish in the sea, thus easier to throw your harpoon at.

MAN THE HARPOONS!

The cost of education in the United States isn't Wal-Mart's problem, but wages that keep their employees below the poverty line most certainly are.

I don't see what's wrong with directing my disdain at Wal-Mart because it's the biggest, most obvious, and worst representation of a system that I hate. It's not like I don't have plenty of disdain to go towards other, similar companies, as well.

I've got to say, I don't know what you're arguing anymore. Do you agree that Wal-Mart is a stain on society? It seems that you do, but you also think that every other similar company is a stain on society as well. Is that not enough reason to criticize and boycott Wal-Mart? It's not like we can't all boycott other corporations and get politically active in an attempt to overturn the system that allowed Wal-Mart to prosper, too.

 

[santaandy]

4. Unions are for skilled labor and hazardous jobs. Putting green beans on a shelf is not a skilled labor. Get ahold of some of the workers from the Wal-Mart in Canada that unionized. Their own union negotiators negotiated them into lower wages and less benefits. Then the workers had to pool their own money to pay to have the union legally disbanded.

Not true. Unions are to protect people from corporate abuse. Take a look at the early 1900's to mid-century. Look at the labor riots and what they were over. Unions helped to end child slavery by corporations, and to provide good wages, reasonable hours, safety, and health benefits to all. As for the Canadian union, well, your union reps have to be better than functionally retarded, but there was a case of teenagers here in the USA who unionized against McD's and won.

To summarize: unions protect the will of the people. The will of the people must be upheld.

 

[Zer_]

You're a full-time Wal-Mart employee. You have no skills. You make $13 000 a year. How, exactly, are you going to educate yourself?

Move to Canada?

The high cost of education in the United States isn't Wal-Mart's problem. But you've openly admitted to hating Wal-Mart in particular because it's the biggest fish in the sea, thus easier to throw your harpoon at.

MAN THE HARPOONS!

The cost of education in the United States isn't Wal-Mart's problem, but wages that keep their employees below the poverty line most certainly are.

I don't see what's wrong with directing my disdain at Wal-Mart because it's the biggest, most obvious, and worst representation of a system that I hate. It's not like I don't have plenty of disdain to go towards other, similar companies, as well.

I've got to say, I don't know what you're arguing anymore. Do you agree that Wal-Mart is a stain on society? It seems that you do, but you also think that every other similar company is a stain on society as well. Is that not enough reason to criticize and boycott Wal-Mart? It's not like we can't all boycott other corporations and get politically active in an attempt to overturn the system that allowed Wal-Mart to prosper, too.

Wal-Mart can't be held responsible for their low salaries. If they were to raise their salaries, then they'd have to raise their prices. Then they wouldn't be competitive to their opposition. Wal-Mart would take a severe hit and the unemployment rate would go up substantially. Stop playing the salary card when specifically addressing Wal-Mart. You can use Wal-Mart as an example to state your disliking of current salary laws.

If you ask most anti-Wal-Mart types weather they like their current capitalist system, I believe they would probably reply with a "yes". And by saying "yes" to that question they literally relinquish all rights to complain about any of Wal-Mart's actions that are within the legal limits.

If you don't agree to discrimination then it's your obligation to make that known in your arguments against the current legal boundaries presented to the larger corporations. All these books and documentaries against Wal-Mart aren't even getting close to the real problem. They would rather see the Wal-Mart stores shut down and all the employees that rely on whatever meager salary they make end up unemployed.

If you want to start proposing new restrictions on low-end paying jobs then you need to consider the repercussions of such laws. Increasing the minimum wage will just increase the prices across the board. Placing legal limits on the amount of personal wealth someone can acquire is a more sensible, but less feasible solution.

Although I haven't put much thought into this, I believe that as long as currency exists, these problems will always be present. I see no way to protect large businesses, smaller businesses and consumers in a way that is viable. When you have a capitalist society, you open the door for greed and powerful super-corporations. When you have a communist society, you close all the free trade doors, and it always ends up collapsing upon itself. Choosing to follow a socialist or any other "in-between" set of rules bring their own set of problems and solutions to the equation.

The reason I made this thread is because the fact that the vastest majority of the Wal-Mart haters make for part of an uninformed and ignorant mass of people who really have no idea what they are really fighting for. They see someone's documentary stating everything someone else hates about Wal-Mart, and they follow those beliefs and twisted facts without giving it a second thought. They follow articles and documentaries that are essentially forms of propaganda and they eat it up like good little sheep.

You see, Good morning, you're actually not wrong. I think we both agree with each other. I don't have a problem with someone giving their informed opinion on this and using Wal-Mart as an example for the problem. I do have a problem with someone who sees Wal-Mart in itself as the problem. While I don't always agree with the way things are done, I have chosen to accept them make the best of it. I commend you for at least looking at the bigger picture and acknowledging the root of the issue.

The source of the general Wal-Mart hatred is basically one asshole (Robert Greenwald) telling another asshole (Wal-Mart) how much he hates them. I choose to ignore the assholes and form my own opinion based not solely on propaganda, but through questioning of someone's beliefs and looking into the issues deeper.

Through the course of this thread I actually learned a few things about the problems with the capitalist society we live in. Targeting Wal-Mart specifically for problems with our society is discrimination. Do yourselves a favor and learn to question the ideas, opinions and beliefs put in front of you. Educate yourselves a little more so you can be more then just a sheep following a shepherd. Take the time to look at both sides of an argument before you pass judgment. If you take the time to question the idea that any member of a specific race (Black, Hispanic, Asian or Caucasian) is more susceptible to crime, then you owe it to corporations the same willingness to question those ideas.

As a closing statement I'm going to simply quote the Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price website with a few little changes.

Capitalism: The High Cost of Greed is the documentary film sensation that's changing the largest companies on earth. The film features the deeply personal stories and everyday lives of families and communities struggling to survive in a capitalist world. It's an emotional journey that will challenge the way you think, feel... and shop.

Released simultaneously in theaters and DVD in November 2005, the film has been seen by millions worldwide. Families, churches, schools, and small business owners have screened the film over 10,000 times and the world is taking notice. See the film, share it, and become part of the movement forcing companies to act responsibly.

The bold text is changed by me, the italic is grammatically corrected. Take note of the last sentence, yep... The word "companies" is there. I found that rather cute when the whole film is basically just Wal-Mart hatred propaganda.

I'd like to ask the moderators to close this thread. I've said what I had to say and I have made my points.

EDIT: Re-organized my paragraphs to make a little more sense.

 

[Dramatic Flare]

The most comprehensive study of Wal-Mart's impact showed that the stores reduced earnings per person by 5 percent. This 2005 study by an economist from the National Bureau of Economic Research used Wal-Mart's own store data and government data for all counties where Wal-Mart has operated for 30 years, It found that the average Wal-Mart store reduces earnings per person by 5 percent in the county in which it operates.

Does it now? I guess they forgot to mention that they didn't include unemployed people in the study, did they? If a Wal-Mart gets built in an area with a high unemployment rate, the average salary (which doesn't include the unemployed) goes down slightly, yes but Wal-Mart doesn't directly reduce the salary of other companies, it just means Wal-Mart provided low paying jobs to those who were previously unemployed.

The fact is most of you have no idea why you hate Wal-Mart. You just take someone else's reasons and claim it to be legitimate reason for your hatred. You see class action lawsuits against Wal-Mart because it's how the law works. When someone in a company fucks up, the company as a whole is responsible. Personally I think it's bullshit that a group of CEOs who never met Jack Manager are the ones who have to pay for his mistake.

Are you trying to call bullshit on me with that? Your mathematics and ideas are skewed at best.
Go Back and read the bolded text, and then come tell me that every single isolated walmart was placed in area with high unemployment, and that your opinion is worth several researchers at the United State's National Bureau for Economic Research. Unless you're a doctorate yourself, you can't call bullshit on doctors.

And that was just one extreme example against Walmart.
In 2005, there were a total of 57 cases against Walmart. It's not every single Walmart, but I doubt that any other corporation has ever faced that number of lawsuits at a given time.

Argue with me when you've got your researched facts straight. And don't bullshit an ex-bullshitter.

 

[Vortigar]

1. This would be every company that does or ever has existed.

2. Um, seeking constantly to reduce costs (and thus prices) is intensely moral behavior. It means that millions of people save money and have a higher standard of living because of it. There's no such thing as an "exploitative" contract because Wal-Mart can't force anyone to accept the contract--they have chosen to accept it because it's the best offer they've gotten.

3. How the heck do you think the U.S. GOT wealthy in the first place? By throwing money into black holes? No, by investment and production. Anyone in the entire world could do the same (and many have), but the rest of the world isn't going to become wealthy by sucking people who are wealthy dry. That's like saying that if you take all the money from the "wealthy" people and distribute it among people who aren't wealthy, we'd all be rich. We wouldn't. We'd all have, maybe, two or three thousand dollars that wouldn't be worth anything.

4. Actually, the "capitalistic" model is the *only* one in which sometimes the rich become poor and the poor become rich. Which other model are you comparing it to? The Soviet model where EVERYONE becomes appallingly poor except for a ruling clique which still has a lower standard of living than the impoverished in America? The numerous socialist models which eventually bankrupt the country and force free-market reforms? The caste or aristocratic model whereby you're born to a particular status and can never change?

5. It amazes me when people insist on complaining about things without either understanding how they actually work *or* offering some alternative. It's like whining that the sky is blue because you'd prefer it to be red.

I think you missed the tone of my post entirely.

But okay, in order:
1. Which is why I said they do it very obviously. A lot of companies invest in 3rd world companies or try to come off looking as having goodwill, putting 'fair-sales' products on shelves and such. Wal Mart and those like it don't, thus come off looking worse by comparison.

2. I said later on in my post that the company has a function in society, both here and there. It's companies in the third world that allow these benificial (for us) contracts to be made, the economic imbalance in the world makes it possible. However from a moral point of view this seems exploitative and thus could get someone riles up.

3. See 1 and 2. Plus, now that we are wealthy you'd say we'd do something for the rest. It costs a company here very little to achieve quite a bit over there. You don't have to expect to change the world overnight, but simply continuing to propagate the imbalance of wealth is rather selfish, wouldn't you say?

4. I didn't say we need an alternative. Yes, you can get richer, it happens. But most of the time the way economy works right now rich people (and countries) get richer and the poor people get poorer. The practices of low-budget stores put a magnify glass on this, making people feel rather uncomfortable.

5. It amazes me that people can't see both sides of this whole thing (they seem rather obvious to me). Look, I put forward the points why people would think of them as bad and added my own closing word. I mentioned I don't condemn them, right? You can't condemn them as they serve a definite use both here (low cost consumer goods) and there (business, work, economic stability).

 

[asinann]

People hate them because when a town tells them they can't build a store there, Wal-Mart sues to build it anyway. Wal-Mart is the only major retailer in the WORLD that has laws written that specifically ban them from building stores in places. They drive wages down (Safeway checkers make 15-17 dollars an hour and get health insurance and work 40 hours a week) won't allow employees to work more than 32 hours a week.

Fast food has always been minimum wage, but even McDonalds is offering health insurance now while Wal-Mart refuses to even consider it, you ask them to and they fire you.

They hire what could at best be called the bottom of the barrel (the reason they don't understand what they are doing is because they are mildly to barely functionally retarded) and encourage the worst of society to gather in one large building.

I'll add more as I can think of it, but my major problem is that they force their way into places where they are not wanted.

 

[asinann]

I saw their starting wage at the store in Longview, Washington :6.75 an hour

Washington state minimum wage: 8.07 an hour

Enough said.

 

[Eiseman]

Sources please.

 

[Zer_]

The most comprehensive study of Wal-Mart's impact showed that the stores reduced earnings per person by 5 percent. This 2005 study by an economist from the National Bureau of Economic Research used Wal-Mart's own store data and government data for all counties where Wal-Mart has operated for 30 years, It found that the average Wal-Mart store reduces earnings per person by 5 percent in the county in which it operates.

Does it now? I guess they forgot to mention that they didn't include unemployed people in the study, did they? If a Wal-Mart gets built in an area with a high unemployment rate, the average salary (which doesn't include the unemployed) goes down slightly, yes but Wal-Mart doesn't directly reduce the salary of other companies, it just means Wal-Mart provided low paying jobs to those who were previously unemployed.

The fact is most of you have no idea why you hate Wal-Mart. You just take someone else's reasons and claim it to be legitimate reason for your hatred. You see class action lawsuits against Wal-Mart because it's how the law works. When someone in a company fucks up, the company as a whole is responsible. Personally I think it's bullshit that a group of CEOs who never met Jack Manager are the ones who have to pay for his mistake.

Are you trying to call bullshit on me with that? Your mathematics and ideas are skewed at best.
Go Back and read the bolded text, and then come tell me that every single isolated walmart was placed in area with high unemployment, and that your opinion is worth several researchers at the United State's National Bureau for Economic Research. Unless you're a doctorate yourself, you can't call bullshit on doctors.

And that was just one extreme example against Walmart.
In 2005, there were a total of 57 cases against Walmart. It's not every single Walmart, but I doubt that any other corporation has ever faced that number of lawsuits at a given time.

Argue with me when you've got your researched facts straight. And don't bullshit an ex-bullshitter.

Alright let's get started.

To fully understand my argument you must know how the Federal Government conducts their census. Once you understand the methodology you can then begin to understand any potential flaws within that methodology.

This was quoted from "ninjablu"

National Bureau of Economic Research used Wal-Mart's own store data and government data for all counties where Wal-Mart has operated for 30 years, It found that the average Wal-Mart store reduces earnings per person by 5 percent in the county in which it operates.

This simply isn't true because both case studies that deal with the economic affects that Wal-Mart has on any given county was conducted based on data gathered between 1989 and 1999. More on that later.

Some things to consider before proceeding. Both of these are excerpts form the US Census Bureau:

For each municipality and province, the average of all standardized disposable household incomes of all residents is calculated and subsequently, the percentage difference with the nationwide average is calculated. People living in homes and institutions, the so-called institutional population, and student households are not taken into account.

Average income of individuals refers to the weighted mean total income of individuals 15 years of age and over who reported income for 2000. Average income is calculated from non-rounded data by dividing the aggregate income of a specified group of individuals (e.g. males 45 to 54 years of age) by the number of individuals with income in that group.

An excerpt from "Firm Entry and Wages: Impact of Wal-Mart Growth on Earnings Throughout the Retail Sector" by Arindrajit Dube, University of California, T. William Lester, University of California, Barry Eidlin University of California:

We use two different data sources to evaluate the impact of Wal-Mart store openings on earnings. The first is the county-level Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) dataset compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

We are not able to distinguish between a reduction in average annual earnings that is
due to lower hours of work from one that is due to lower hourly wages in the QCEW. (We
deal with this issue by using the CPS, which does have data on hours.)... The second data source is the March Supplement to the Current Population Survey. Unlike the QCEW, the March CPS allows us to investigate both hourly wages (as opposed to annual earnings) as well as health benefits of retail workers, and additionally has demographic information about retail workers.

Okay right, so by using two different sources for their data (one is used to fill the blanks on people with hourly wages) they are increasing the chance of inaccurate results. These sources also use the same methodology as the Federal Government when conducting their census. But the fact is, each census has a margin for error. When applying two different data sources the margin for error increases.

Excerpt from "How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty (Official Measure)" which is done by the Federal Government.

People whose poverty status cannot be determined:

# institutional group quarters (such as prisons or nursing homes)

# college dormitories

# military barracks

# living situations without conventional housing (and who are not in shelters)

The census results given by the American Government is susceptible to those who do not declare their income, those who live in college dormitories, military barracks, and of course the homeless. Now, the case study used the poverty census done in 1989 as the starting point for their study.

So within those 10 years which the case study decided to use as a basis for their study, they could not factor in those who weren't declaring their income in 1989; and start declaring their income sometime between 1989 and 1999. They also couldn't factor in those that live in college dormitories without declared income either; and started declaring their income sometime between 1989 and 1999. Another factor they couldn't possibly consider is the number of foster children (this includes any child who is under 15 and living in a household that is not of the same family) who were under 15 in 1989, and ended up earning declared income between 1989 and 1999.

So if you take these facts (of which I determined by both reading the case study itself, and reading the methodology used by their primary source (the US Government) in their poverty line census). The case study could not possibly consider the effects that anyone who was omitted from from the census for above mentioned reasons (and possibly more) in the 1989 census. Anyone who was omitted during the 1989 census that ended up working in a lower paying job (those who are payed less then the regional average) any time between 1989 and 1999 were not considered when calculating the effect that Wal-Mart has on the overall poverty rate in each county. It is a fact that anyone who works (or has worked) a job that is below the county average; and hasn't been considered in a previous census will inevitably
cause the average income to go down. This couldn't have been considered in the case study because the data simply isn't present in any of the sources that were used.

What follows in an excerpt from "Wal-Mart and County-Wide Poverty" by Stephan J. Goetz and Hema Swaminathan Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology. The same paper that was mentioned in "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price".

The question whether the cost of relatively higher poverty in a county is offset by the benefits of lower prices and wider choices available to consumers associated with a Wal-Mart store cannot be answered here.

An excerpt from "The Effect of Home Ownership on Poverty Measurement" by David M. Betson University of Notre Dame November, 1995:

While this finding was significant, it was questionable whether it was a robust result. The NAS Panel in formulating its recommendations chose not to propose any explicit treatment of home ownership, but suggested that future research should be directed to examining how home ownership should be considered in determining whether or not a household should be counted as poor. Owning one's home could have a significant impact upon whether or not a household should be considered poor. For example, consider two households both with the same income, but one household rents their home and the other owns its home and does not have a monthly mortgage payment. If both households' incomes are less than the poverty line, would we consider both households poor? Clearly the household which rents does not have an income flow which is sufficient to meet its total needed expenditures, and should be considered poor. But what about the household which owns its home? Since this household does not have monthly mortgage payments for its home, it could use the portion of its income which would have gone toward the mortgage or rent for other household necessities such as food or clothing. Hence even if this household's income was less than the poverty line, it could possibly have sufficient income to meet its non-housing needs and should not be considered poor.

Some excerpts from "Reconsidering the Federal Poverty Measure" by Douglas J. Besharov and Peter Germanis October 18, 2004:

Income: The current poverty measure counts some but not all forms of income. It counts
welfare payments (about $4,200), because they are in cash. But it does not count noncash
benefits such as food stamps (about $2,200), housing assistance (about $5,400), Medicaid
(about $6,000 for a family of four), the State Children?s Health Insurance Program
(SCHIP) (about $1,000 per child), energy assistance (about $400), the school lunch and
breakfast programs (as much as $600 per child), and the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (about $400 per person). It also does
not count refundable tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (about
$1,700), because they are ?post-tax.? It also ignores the value of assets (especially home
ownership), although it counts any income generated by assets (but not capital gains or
losses). And, although it counts the income of family members living in the household, it excludes the income of nonfamily household members such as boyfriends.

Of course, not all poor families receive benefits from each of these programs. For
example, housing assistance is not an entitlement and many low-income families are placed on
long waiting lists or do not bother to apply at all. Similarly, many families eligible for Medicaid do not apply for benefits until a medical need arises. Moreover, in regard of Medicaid and Medicare, there is great controversy about how and even whether they should be counted as income. Nevertheless, enough low-income families receive such benefits that counting them would substantially reduce the published poverty rate.

So compounding these above mentioned factors, we really can't determine for sure if Wal-Mart has a positive or negative impact on the economic situation.


My sources:

-http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povdef.html#4 How the U.S. Census Bureau Measures Poverty (Official Measure).
-"Wal-Mart and County-Wide Poverty" found here [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118550917/abstract] October 18, 2004 by Stephan J. Goetz and Hema Swaminathan
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology.
-http://cecd.aers.psu.edu/pubs/PovertyResearchWM.pdf Case study by David M. Betson of the Notre Dame University Department of Economics.
-http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/poverty/povmeasure.description.pdf A paper by Douglas J. Besharov and Peter Germanis.
-http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=iir "Firm Entry and Wages: Impact ofWal-Mart Growth on Earnings Throughout the Retail Sector" by Arindrajit Dube, T. William Lester and Barry Eidlin, University of California, Berkeley.

 

[Ray Huling]

You're right in that sense. But you've also proven my point. People say they are angry at Wal-Mart just because it's Wal-Mart. In fact they are angry at the Government and even the society itself.

That's not your point at all. That's the other side's point.

The people arguing against you are saying that Wal-Mart does all these bad things, these bad things are a symptom of a wider problem in our society, and we should change the way we do business.

You're saying that Wal-Mart doesn't actually do all the bad things that people say it does.

You're not making any wider argument about anything; you're simply trying to refute the very specific claim that Wal-Mart behaves badly.

For my part, I couldn't care less whether people pick on Wal-Mart or Nike or Fox News or whatever. As long as they're taking an interest in making the corporations that receive so much protection and so many benefits from the government adhere to the agenda of the government.

If you want to motivate people to make this sort of change, it helps to have a concrete example. Wal-Mart serves as an excellent one.

 

[Lord George]

Apparently Asda is our equivalent of Wall mart in England and they don't seem that badly run, friend of mine works part time there and she thinks its ok work she gets 10% discount in store for working there as well. Maybe its because we have better minimum wage laws but the wall mart corporation seem to be a lot better over here

 

[Zer_]

The people arguing against you are saying that Wal-Mart does all these bad things, these bad things are a symptom of a wider problem in our society, and we should change the way we do business.

Yes that's why the movie is called "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price" and not "Capitalism: The Adverse Effects of Our Capitalist Society"

You're saying that Wal-Mart doesn't actually do all the bad things that people say it does.

No I'm not, you're putting words in my mouth. I've even said that Wal-Mart isn't the picture perfect corporation. A corporation is either operating within the law, or it isn't. Any time that it is found that Wal-Mart is operating against the law, then yes I fully support the cases against them. The reason you see so many cases against Wal-Mart as opposed to Target is because Wal-Mart employs 1.2 million employees. Target employs around 352,000 individuals.

You're not making any wider argument about anything; you're simply trying to refute the very specific claim that Wal-Mart behaves badly.

Sure, that's one of my arguments.

For my part, I couldn't care less whether people pick on Wal-Mart or Nike or Fox News or whatever. As long as they're taking an interest in making the corporations that receive so much protection and so many benefits from the government adhere to the agenda of the government.

Are you implying that other large corporations like Nike, Fox News, and Wal-Mart operate above the law?

If you want to motivate people to make this sort of change, it helps to have a concrete example. Wal-Mart serves as an excellent one.

Agreed; many of Wal-Mart's practices are a good example of the major flaws with our current society. But by saying this you're ignoring the fact that the Anti-Wal-Mart documentaries, books, and studies are aimed at Wal-Mart as if Wal-Mart was the cause of the problem. The result is a bunch of people who are informed, but only to the degree where they believe that the problem is Wal-Mart.

 

[canadian_ace]

Okay there junior, I am a Wal-Mart employee and nothing has happened to my wages. I would like to extend my Condolences to the family of the man you got trampled in the New York Wal-Mart