Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ksen

Why? WalMart demands labor at the lowest end of the labor pool. The jobs performed by many WalMart workers are simply not valuable enough to be paid more than that. But the same goes for the kid I pay to rake my leaves. If I had to pay him union wages, I’d eliminate the job altogether and then I’d have leaves and he’d have no money.

If WalMart were forced to pay union wages and be subject to union stupidity, there would be fewer WalMart jobs and the welfare payments to employees who also happen to work at WalMart would increase to $4 billion per year or more. WalMart is providing a public service by creating jobs that non- or low-skilled workers can fill and thus relieve some of the burden those workers place on the public dole.

Finally, receiving public assistance is not just a function of individual income. Cost of living and family size are also factored in. A WalMart wage is fine if you live alone in a small trailer or share an apartment with someone else. It can’t support any luxuries or other family members.

So the issue that needs addressing is why people turn the equation on its head and vilify WalMart for providing jobs to people who might not have them otherwise.


25 posted on 11/27/2012 11:21:53 AM PST by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: FateAmenableToChange
Why? WalMart demands labor at the lowest end of the labor pool. The jobs performed by many WalMart workers are simply not valuable enough to be paid more than that. But the same goes for the kid I pay to rake my leaves. If I had to pay him union wages, I’d eliminate the job altogether and then I’d have leaves and he’d have no money.

Apparently Wal-Mart workers are valuable enough to bring in over $400 billion in sales a year and a $15 billion profit. And equating a 14-year old raking leaves for his neighbor with grown adults trying to work to feed their families is beyond dumb.

If WalMart were forced to pay union wages and be subject to union stupidity, there would be fewer WalMart jobs and the welfare payments to employees who also happen to work at WalMart would increase to $4 billion per year or more. WalMart is providing a public service by creating jobs that non- or low-skilled workers can fill and thus relieve some of the burden those workers place on the public dole.

Sure, Wal-Mart is a wonderful example of the good corporate citizen. If Wal-Mart treated their workers fairly then us taxpayers wouldn't have to subsidize the Walton family fortune.

Finally, receiving public assistance is not just a function of individual income. Cost of living and family size are also factored in. A WalMart wage is fine if you live alone in a small trailer or share an apartment with someone else. It can’t support any luxuries or other family members.

So the issue that needs addressing is why people turn the equation on its head and vilify WalMart for providing jobs to people who might not have them otherwise.

You sound like a character straight out of a Dickens story.

31 posted on 11/27/2012 11:49:39 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson