These are totally irrelevant comments. One of the people calling for WalMart to cough up dough is a Republican, so this isn t a partisan issue. I said politician, because that s what I meant – politician.

And has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Wal-Mart s effect on competition, consumers, etc. is a different conversation.

If you say so. However, the article makes a pretty good case that the effect on competition is inextricable from the effect on employees. For example, the article cites a study that estimates Wal-Mart closed more than 7,000 businesses between 1983 and 1993–in Iowa alone.

I am guessing that they wouldn t be able to make the same claims were they to actually look into it. Grandstanding is what politicians do best.

Hunh. I coulda sworn you said you were sure. My apologies.

Now without working our way down to the level of studying each individual case, couldn’t we guess that people working in retail at Wal-Mart would be likely to work for another retailer if Wal-Mart wasn’t around?

No matter.

I didn’t raise a partisan argument either. You said politicians can’t claim what they can’t prove. In fact, they do it all the time. The practice isn’t unique to this issue.

These are totally irrelevant comments. One of the people calling for WalMart to cough up dough is a Republican, so this isn’t a partisan issue. I said politician, because that’s what I meant – politician.

Here s what those class warriors at Business Week reported a couple of years ago.

And has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Wal-Mart’s effect on competition, consumers, etc. is a different conversation.

You re sure? Then you have a much clearer insight on where those Wal-Mart employees would be without Wal-Mart than any of the rest of us. Share, why doncha?

No, I just said that if these politicians were to do some homework, I am guessing that they wouldn’t be able to make the same claims were they to actually look into it. Grandstanding is what politicians do best.

the politicians cannot claim that Walmart is a drain on taxpayers when they cannot show that things would be better without Walmart.

Nonsense. Politicians make a living doing exactly that. Welfare? Drain on taxpayers. We’d be better off if we cut the deadbeats off cold. Tax rates? Drain on the taxpayers. Why we’d have even more revenue if we just drop that top rate a few percentage points. School funding? Drain on the taxpayers. Those public schools would shape right up if we gave people vouchers to spend wherever they want.

I m sure the proof is not there and this is just a way, through political rhetoric and class warfare, of basically extorting money from Walmart to kick into the government trough.

You’re sure? Then you have a much clearer insight on where those Wal-Mart employees would be without Wal-Mart than any of the rest of us. Share, why doncha?

Instead of recognizing this, you’d impose a convoluted standard of proof that requires us to know a hypothetical: what would those employees be doing if they weren’t working for Wal-Mart?Who knows! They might work for Ma and Pa-Mart. They might move out of state. They might just sit there in the red Georgia clay and pick their banjos. If they did, it wouldn’t be any worse for the taxpayers of Georgia. They’d get the same benefits that Wal-mart gives ‘em.

It’s not impossible. States and localities every day conduct studies that determine if something is cost effective or if it’s a drain on resources.

what would those employees be doing if they weren t working for Wal-Mart?Who knows! They might work for Ma and Pa-Mart. They might move out of state. They might just sit there in the red Georgia clay and pick their banjos. If they did, it wouldn t be any worse for the taxpayers of Georgia. They d get the same benefits that Wal-mart gives  em.

Quaker, the politicians cannot claim that Walmart is a drain on taxpayers when they cannot show that things would be better without Walmart.

Besides, the research CAN be done so it’s convuluted as you claim. All one has to do is examine the records of those on public assistance and employed by Walmart. Were they on public assistance before the Walmart in their area opened? If so, what kind of benefits did they receive? Were they employed? If so, what was their pay? What kind of benefits did their employer offer?

The information is there. And if the proof is in the proverbial pudding, by all means, they should use it any way they can.

By I’m sure the proof is not there and this is just a way, through political rhetoric and class warfare, of basically extorting money from Walmart to kick into the government trough.

Still, I m always uncomfortable with punishing excellence.

Who wants that? If Wal-Mart runs a good operation, I’m all for that. As a former retailer, I know how hard that is. If Wal-Mart offers customers more choices, that’s fine.

What I’m talking about is a company that uses its size to constrain the choices of manufacturers, of employees, and eventually, of customers. If Wal-Mart coerces manufacturers into giving the company exclusive pricing, that could be both unfair and illegal.

Is there proof that Wal-Mart does that? Not that I know of. But the company’s power over small to medium sized manufacturers provides the opportunity for abuse.

Its the same way with evolution – if you didn’t see it happen, you won’t believe it. You’d demand to see the missing link and a dinosaur or they just didn’t happen..

Ah, pointless debate. its so fun.

Where is the evidence that these people would not cost taxpayers a single dime were they not working at Walmart.

I’m going to apologize for anything because you haven’t PROVEN a thing. I’ll break it down for you so you’ll understand.

Let’s say that Mary Schmoe works at the Walmart Anytown, Georgia. Because of the low wages and meager benefits, she is forced to have her children be in Georgia’s state health care program. Ok? That’s settled.

The accusation is, that because Walmart doesn’t pay her enough and because they don’t have good benefits, her having to enroll her kids in the state health care system is essentially the same thing as the state subsidizing health care for Walmart employees. Agreed? Good.

Now, let’s say for whatever reason, that WalMart never existed in Anytown, GA. In order for these accusations to have merit, Mary Schmoe would have had to have been earning more money somewhere else that also supplied her with the kind of benefits that would keep her from having to enroll her children in the state health care program.

It’s that simple. In order for somebody to prove that Walmart is costing the state money, they have to provide some evidence that things would be better were Walmart not around.

I undestand that people are pushing Walmart to pay better wages and better benefits. That’s fine. Push all you want. I would go so far as to say that I agree that with the kind of money Wal-Mart makes it could easily provide better wages and benefits. But that’s not really the issue. The issue is whether or not they are “costing” the taxpayers anything and I say they aren’t.

I don’t either. I don’t want an investigation. As I said, I’m uncomfortable with their easy sashay into the grocery business and the impact thats had. And I would worry if we didn’t have a few other major discount chain comeptitors. As you said, need to know more, but I might consider some restrictions on their ability to expand into other fields. Still, I’m always uncomfortable with punishing excellence.

Dugger

“And backers of a measure that will be on California’s ballot tomorrow, which would force big employers like Wal-Mart to either provide affordable health insurance to their workers or pay into a state insurance pool, say Wal-Mart employees without company insurance are costing California’s state health care programs an estimated $32 million a year.”

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/sweatshops/2665.html

I’ll be waiting for that apology, but I’m assuming you’ll come up with some other excuse.

REPUBLICAN LEGISLATOR BLAMES WAL-MART FOR RISING HEALTH CARE COSTS
(This one speaks for itself)

This proves nothing. It’s more accusations, backed up by ZERO evidence. Like I said, I want to see evidence that were Walmart not employing these people, they would:

A. Be making more money
B. Have better benefits that would keep them off state health care programs

Where is the evidence?

My comments had nothing to do with Costco and their business model. It’s completely irrelevant to what I was saying.

Your argument became  they should just be happy they have jobs stemming from  In fact, I would argue that Wal-Mart saves taxpayers money because without that job, the Wal-Mart employee might have to use more government services.

Oh please. My comments implied nothing of the sort. I am not defending WalMart and their business practices. What I am defending them against, are the idiotic politicians and people who somehow reached the absurd conclusion that WalMart is a drain on taxpayer dollars. It’s quite simply a nutty argument.

So the fact that almost no Walmart worker has health insurance, isn t allowed to work over 38 hours and is usually underpaid is a GOOD thing because at least they arn t on the streets& .

You need to learn to read for content. Again, my comments about Walmart had nothing to do with the working conditions, benefits or pay scale their employees work under. You keep missing the point, so try and stay with me. My comments were a simply a rebuttal to those who, again, are making the claim that taxpayers are somehow being forced to pick up health care costs of Walmart employees.

Again, as I said above, the implication is that if they did NOT work for Walmart, they be making the wages and getting benefits that would not necessitate their entry into a state health care program. I want to see the evidence of this.

When Wal-Mart rumbles into a small town, plops its fat ass on top of every local business it drives the average wages into the ground

Again, I want to see evidence. You’re actually making the claim that these little mom and pop stores are paying better wages than Walmart and providing them with better benefits. You’d have to show that in order for your claim that they drive down average wages to be accurate.

So would you bust up Wal-Mart? Not a polemical question, just curious.

I dunno. I haven’t done much reading on the current state of antitrust law, so I don’t know if there’s any standing for the government to do so.

On the other hand, Wal-Mart is now in a position to dictate terms to its suppliers. The supplier complies or goes out of business. That doesn’t seem like a “free market” to me.

Off the top of my head, I’d probably start with an investigation of whether Wal-Mart is demanding and receiving preferential pricing from suppliers that isn’t available to competitors. And by “preferential,” I’m not talking about volume discount. I’m talking about a “Wal-Mart only” price.

I agree Costco is a good employer. They actually show capitalism can work well. But again, Wal-Mart forces no one to work there. The country stops no one from supplanting Wal-Mart with a theoretical better product and with higher wages etc. Why don’t investors just jump at the chance, if its doable? People love to make money. If I thought Progressive Mart or The People’s Liberation Mart would make me big bucks, I’d invest my $1.95 in it. Of course, its not easy to do what Wal-Mart does and maybe those on the outside who can’t do what Wal-mart does, can’t offer a better alternative.

Quaker, So would you bust up Wal-Mart? Not a polemical question, just curious.

Dugger

And yes they are big, very big, but that could be because they are good at what they do

Mr. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil was also very big for the same reason. However, there is a point at which a company gains the ability to control markets to its own advantage.

That’s bad. Or at least, that’s what we used to think in this country.