Wal-Mart and Public Subsidies
I, too, have avoided wading into the Wal-Mart debate, but the discussion here and also on TAPPED (especially Ezra Klein's post yesterday afternoon -- see below), about whether Wal-Mart employees' use of benefits such as Medicaid or Food Stamps should be considered "corporate welfare" to the company raises some issues of long interest to me.
The argument about whether it's a bad thing that Wal-Mart employees use public programs needs a little perspective: We should recognize the quiet revolution that has taken place in social policy for low-income workers over the last twenty years. Two decades ago, Medicaid was an adjunct of welfare. With some exceptions, the only way to be eligible for Medicaid was to get welfare (AFDC): that meant exclusively non-working single parents and their kids.
When families came off welfare, they also lost Medicaid, which was the key fact that made the argument of Charles Murray's Losing Ground basically true: a parent might well be better off on welfare, with health care, than working at a minimum wage job without it, especially with the added costs of child care. That's not because welfare was too generous, but because the low-end labor market was too cruel, and the cliff too steep.
Over the course of twenty years, however, Medicaid was slowly expanded into a program for low-income families, not just welfare recipients: First, families with incomes up to 150% of the poverty line were made eligible, then states were allowed to cover families up to 185% of poverty. Families leaving welfare also got additional protections -- a year or more of "transitional Medicaid" to smooth the path into the workforce. The State Child Health Insurance Program created in 1997 goes up to 200% of the poverty line and some states go higher. The Earned Income Tax Credit was expanded several times over that period, and in 2001, the Additional Child Tax Credit added another small subsidy for working families with children. Child care spending rose massively in this period. All this made the blow from welfare reform much softer than it would have been otherwise.
In total, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the difference in spending on poor families with children under these entitlement programs, between 1984 and 1999 and adjusted for both inflation and population, was $45 billion a year -- about $5 billion under the 1984 programs, and $51 billion in 1999. (I wrote more about this, in the course of a somewhat different argument, here.)
Meanwhile, in all that time, the minimum wage rose from $3.35 to $5.15, the last increase a decade ago, and in real dollars it's worth fifty cents less than in 1984.
What we have here is a massive decision by the federal government to subsidize low-wage work rather than to force employers to pay more or provide basic benefits. Often the tradeoff was very specific: There was consensus among many Republicans and DLC Democrats that the Earned Income Credit was a "better" way of supporting low-wage workers than a minimum-wage increase, and whenever a minimum-wage increase seemed to gain momentum, Republicans would suddenly become the biggest fans of the Earned Income Credit.
So I sort of agree with Matt that there's no point in blaming Wal-Mart for employing workers who take advantage of these programs. The entire thrust of social policy over the last two decades, albeit a quiet one, has been to encourage the creation of low-wage jobs by subsidizing them. We made a bipartisan political choice not to impose that responsibility on companies, and to use public subsidies instead.
But having made that choice, we can unmake it, or reconsider it. And we should. And if focusing on Wal-Mart, the world's biggest company and the country's biggest employer, helps show the consequences of that choice, that's all to the good.
Here's why we should reconsider it (I say, as if I were suddenly the chair of the Senate Finance Committee): First, it's a very complex and partial system. The refundable tax credits are hugely complicated, forcing many low-income workers to pay for tax prep services that eat up half the benefit. The Medicaid benefits still leave huge gaps. I'd be much more concerned about the Wal-Mart workers who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but still don't have real health insurance. That's a particular problem in the South, where Medicaid eligibility is much narrower, and for people without children, such as workers age 55-65 or women of childbearing age who may never see a doctor until they are pregnant. One might try to extend these programs further, but I would argue that we have reached the limit of what can be done with this cumbersome mix of tax credits and Medicaid expansion, especially when we have to increase taxes just to bring the deficit under control.
Second, supports for workers through subsidies should go hand in hand with internal pressures to support workers within the company. As I pointed out above, Republicans rally behind the Earned Income Credit whenever a real threat to increase the minimum wage arises. If unions were stronger and were fighting cuts in health benefits, employers would be more open to a new national deal on health insurance. That's why Ezra Klein's argument that unions over-emphasize the expansion of employer-based benefits at the expense of more generous public benefits is short-sighted. You only get political consensus for public benefits when there's pressure for employer-based benefits. The union pressure on Wal-Mart is plainly leading it to look for public solutions it can support. And it's not just politics -- we need both employer-based and public benefits. We need a minimum wage increase and the EITC; otherwise the EITC is just filling the gap between an absurdly low wage and the basic costs of survival for a family.
Health care is a little different, because that is more of an either/or. Except for a "pay or play" option, which doesn't seem to have much political life anymore, it's a choice between an employer-based system and an individual-based public system. Either we'll continue to hope that the anachronistic employer-based system survives a little longer, or we'll revamp it completely, which will mean much greater public subsidy at all levels of the system. That would be a good thing, even if it resulted in Wal-Mart and other companies getting off the hook on health care costs. But Wal-Mart, the Waltons and the shareholders would have to pay higher taxes for such a system. And that's a good thing too.
Update [2005-12-2 17:28:45 by mschmitt]: I think Ezra Klein and some of the commentors here read this post as a "riposte" to his very smart comments. Although I said his perspective was short-sighted, it was not a disagreement. I was just trying to put this issue in some context, and make the point that what Wal-Mart is doing is a product of a political choice to subsidize low-wage work instead of forcing employer responsibility. I think that choice has to change, and the focus on Wal-Mart might well help to show the consequences of that choice sharply, in a way that economic abstractions can't.]
When Walmart breaks the law to prevent unionization then all the theoretical discussion of social programs start to seem a bit academic.
Walmart gets favorable tax treatment from localities, forces public works projects (like road improvements) as a condition of opening a store and then engages in union busting on top of that.
The fact that Walmart can get away with such labor practices is a result of their economic strength and the influence of big business on government. The NLRB, for example, has been completely gutted starting with Reagan.
We live in a very simple society "might makes right" and money makes might. Asking companies to play by the rules is not a policy issue, but a legal one.
Walmart closed all its meat departments after a handful of butchers organized in one store. It now buys pre-cut meat.
Walmart closed a store in Quebec after it voted in a union. If people don't realize how serious they are about holding on to their position, then they just haven't been paying attention.
There has never been a society where one sector gives anything to another voluntarily. It is always in response to organzining and creating a counterbalance power. This is true in labor as well as civil rights. Currently there is no organization for "health rights". The consequences are obvious.
December 2, 2005 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The entire thrust of social policy over the last two decades, albeit a quiet one, has been to encourage the creation of low-wage jobs by subsidizing them. We made a bipartisan political choice not to impose that responsibility on companies, and to use public subsidies instead."
You missed Part II of the "quiet revolution": withdraw the subsidies as quickly as possible in order to lower taxes on the wealthy. Isn't it great, witnessing the third-world-ization of your country, all done in a bipartisan spirit, and so quietly!
December 2, 2005 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this actually goes to the heart of what Ed said in an earlier post: rather than have Democrats focus on "Wal-Mart is Bad" they should be focusing on "Increase the Minimum Wage". Why?
Saying Wal-mart is bad frames the debate in a way that pits the Dems against Wal-mart shoppers. It would be far better for Democrats to say "Shop at Target!" rather than "Don't Shop At Wal-Mart!" because one encourages shopping and the other passes judgement on shoppers.
Likewise, if Dems fought for an increase in the minimum wage, suddenly the GOP would be forced to trot out the old economic adage that higher wages decrease productivity, thus pitting regular workers against intellectual econ professors. We'd be able to say "hey, we're looking out for the little guy" and they could only respond with "statistics show..." Kind of reverse-bush-aw-shucks jujitsu move. Nobody wants to side with the whiny econ profs, right?
Time after time, voters have shown that they want to have their cake while eating it. Thus, the popular GOP decision to cut taxes mercilessly. However, just as effective in our arsenal should be raising the minimum wage. It nearly sideswipes any arguments and for the workers in question, they'd see a real net increase in wages, regardless of which store they worked at.
December 2, 2005 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or better yet, fill certain jobs with illegal immigrants, so that you don't have to fill out all the messy paperwork in the first place! We have the rare chance to simultaneously drive a wedge issue (immigration) between the GOP groups and create a unifying issue (minimum wage increases) between the various Dem factions. It's a win-win opportunity, if we can exploit it.
December 2, 2005 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem here, also, is the de-valuing of the the effort of the low-income worker. Under the current system they are entitled to health care not because they earned it through hard work, but because the government deigns to provide it. And the government can, and most probably will, change its mind and decide to take those benefits away.
December 2, 2005 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think I understand your point...and agree with some...but here is the problem.
If we have a company, like Wal-Mart, that has determined how to gain a competitve advantage in the marketplace by abusing a public health care system and paying poverty-wages...while the system in place may have been developed to help the working poor...it was not designed to help remove the responsibility of corporations for their workers, let alone help them save money while taxpayers foot the bill...add to that it basically sends a message to all other retailers and grocery stores to stop being a fool, cut health care, maximise your profit, let your workers feed on a system that is there.
...basically, keep people impoverished, limit benefits and pay, and there you have the solution. Companies, like Wal-Mart can make billions in profits, workers can fend for themselves, people can lose jobs...but hey dont worry...the system is there to help you. The public health care system is there for people not corporations who want to make billions being immoral.
Let me put it this way, Wal-Mart could end this debate today...they could easily provide health care and above poverty-level wages - today! they choose not to...because they see it this way - we (i.e. the walton family and lee scott) made wal-mart what it is, the hell with the poor slobs that work for us, and if they want health care or to feed their family...there is the public system there for them...
all this being said, the truth is that democratic apoligists for Wal-Mart (i.e. Kilgore, Furman, and the others, etc,..etc..I dont consider Mark to be one, or this piece) are quite amusing...they want to make all of the excuses in the world (business-wise and otherwise) for a company that is this profitable but is this despicable...they cant wait to make excuses as to why this company cant be a little more decent...pay your workers a little more, little better health care, stop breaking child labor laws, stop discriminating against women...etc.etc.
listen...as I see it, the goal isnt to destroy wal-mart or alienate people, its to change them. its to have a debate...a serious debate about what the negative impact of wal-mart is on america, and why does not need to be this way...for those democrats who want to make excuses or raise red flags as to why we shouldnt have this debate...well, trust me on this...that debate is here and its getting bigger....and the apologists are on the wrong side of the issue...and I would hate to be democrat or republican who chooses to side with Wal-Mart...that is the wrong side of this political issue...and the candidates who will run in 06 and 08 (especially 06 and 08) may find this out the hard way.
drotto.
December 2, 2005 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that raising the minimum wage is a powerful argument that should be front and center. The right would argue that the economy only prospers if consumers are allowed to keep a greater percentage of a smaller paycheck, thereby recirculating money into the economy. If employers are forced to pay more, then they will go out of business overnight and not be able to employ anyone long enough for the economy to strengthen from those extra dollars. That argument smells like extortion, aside from being demonstrably untrue.
December 2, 2005 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't this present a plan for any community that doesn't want a Walmart? As soon as they are detected sniffing around, businesses & local groups create a "Retail workers Asssociation". This came to me as a facetious thought, but hey, could work.
dc
December 2, 2005 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
With respect to "blaming Walmart", I don't believe that coporations are somehow exempt from the obligation to conduct themselves in a socially responsible manner. The argument that corporations only have a responsibility to maximize profits/ shareholder value is far too too uncritically accepted. Corporations are, among other things, incredibly important social institutions that are a part of the broad social contract that makes society work.
We can't claim to be a truly democratic society if the entire corporate realm is allowed to operate in its own completely selfish, and socially-irresponsible manner - e.g. treating employees poorly, failing to engage workers in important decisions affecting the company, etc. Its not good enough for coporations to shrug off all discussion of the wider social consequences of their actions with glib statements such as "that's for the political system to address", etc.
December 2, 2005 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic Party should promulgate a model code for internal union democracy, and advocate union membership as the default setting for American employees.
December 2, 2005 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
My reaction to Wal-Mart has been like a lot of you: disgust. they have a corporate policy that deliberately squeezes their workers so that profits are kept high. But why do we presume that companies have an obligation to pay for health care? Why not the government? After all the government is the cheapest health care provider in America because it spreads its costs over such a large base, and has no expensive bureaucracy trying to weed out high risk patients. Health care in this country is so expensive precisely because it is privatized and consequently fragmented and focused on organizing and reducing risks to insurance companies.
Wal-Mart is doing us a huge favor by pointing out that society at large is a better provider than they are. Plus, if we de-couple the health care debate from Wal-Mart we can focus instead on living wage issues by encouraging people to shop elsewhere.
Also, it's a little ironic that this holiday season Wal-Mart is doing well because low wage earners are flocking to it to save money and thus pay for their higher heating bills! We are all going to lose the working person vote if we keep shooting at the store they feel is the best deal in town for prices. It is a an easy tactic for a populist right winger to criticize leftist elitists who don't even have to shop at Wal-Mart. Compare that with the relative complexity of building the left wing argument that, somehow, those low prices are a bad thing [even for people who don't work at Wal-Mart?].
That's why while I dislike the bare bones, and what I think is unethical, nature of Wal-Mart's strategy I use them as an example of why business should not be responsible for health care [rather than waste time trying to make them, responsible]. There must be an increasing number of business executives who would agree with the need for a debate about publicly, rather than privately, funded health care. They are drowning in benefit costs [think GM], and would love nothing more than to see the country as a whole step up and take on the job they are failing at.
By the way: in a perverse way the accounting profession, hardly a bastion of liberal thinking, is going to help us: upcoming accounting standard changes will force companies to recognize on their balance sheets their underfunding of benefits. The red ink will scare even more executives our way if we are sensible about the way we cooperate with them!
December 2, 2005 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
In response to Aidan's comments, actually coprorations are legally obligated to only take actions that increase shareholder value, as Joel Bakan illustrated in "The Corporation" by citing court cases to that effect. Corporations, by their very charters and legal definition, cannot be socially responsibile ciitzens in our communities in the sense that you are talking about. When a company talks about corporate responsibility and all of their efforts in their regard, it is because the management of that company believes that whatever these "nice and responsible" gestures/actions cost in dollar amounts, the company will benefit more in the long run from appearing to be a good corporate citizen. A corporation could not give away $1 million to a charity with no publicity without risking upsetting shareholders or even opening itself up to lawsuits. Management would be responsibile for showing how that $1 million giveaway financially benefits the company's bottom line.
Furthermore, we must keep in mind that the issue of WalMart having its low wage workers be subsidized by the public health system is just one example of a broader issue: corporations externalizing their cost(s) of doing business -- be it onto the individiuals, communities, the taxpayers, the public health system or the environment. We must not lose the forest for the tree.
December 2, 2005 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not an expert in corporate governance, but I don't believe that the law is really the issue here. Rather its a matter of changing attitudes, expectations, etc.
As I understand it, the emergence of the straight-forward shareholder value focus is actually relatively recent (post-1980s). Prior to this time, it was common to find businesses trumpeting the importance of balancing different objectives - return on investment with the health of the communities in which they operated, for example.
The classic exhibit in this regard is the Statement on Corporate Responsibility issued by the Business Roundtable in 1981 urging corporations to fulfill their social obligations:
"Balancing the shareholder's expectations of maximum return against other priorities is one of the fundamental problems confronting corporate management. The shareholder must receive a good return but the legitimate concerns of other constituencies (customers, employees, communities, suppliers and society at large) also must have the appropriate attention...a corporation’s responsibilities include how the business is conducted every day. It must be a thoughtful institution which rises above the bottom line to consider the impact of its actions on all, from shareholders to the society at large”, and that “management must be measured for performance in non-economic and economic areas alike”
December 2, 2005 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mark, explain to me why this analysis doesn't apply to healthcare. It seems to me that the only way we'll get some kind of public healthcare system is if there's a similar squeeze -- er, pressure -- on employers and public officials, since neither can offer it all, and since smaller, lower-wage, and global employers are all getting gnawed to death by healthcare costs.
EJ
December 2, 2005 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have heard that this is not the case with European corporations, however. Does anyone know anything about European corporate governance?
December 2, 2005 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's true that Walmart's healthcare practices are consistent with their other practices of forcing local governments to give them generous subsidies that other businesses could never hope to get. There may be a shadowmovement to subsidize low wage work, but it's naive to think that Walmart is innocently participating in this movement.
Having said that, I agree with what pacr says. Businesses basically shouldn't be in the healthcare racket. Watching large employers like GM slowly abandon their obligations only reinforces this view. The difference between Walmart and GM is that Walmart can get away with avoiding their healthcare obligations while GM will have to use bankruptcy to unload theirs. Neither of these behaviours is healthy for the economy and it would be better to drive a consensus to provide national healthcare.
December 2, 2005 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I cannot recall, at least recently, any public mention of companies being sued by shareholders because they wasted money on charities, or somehow failed to deliver a maxium return on investment.
How would such a lawsuit work, even?
December 2, 2005 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it possible that if people don't like Wal-Mart's policies and wages that they don't have to work there?
December 2, 2005 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't like Wal-Mart, but after reading these posts I am starting to see that bashing Wal-Mart is a bad idea for the democratic party. I don't like it, but mainly for northeast, latte-sippin, saab-drivin, tree-huggin elitist liberal reasons. I like downtowns and Wal Mart kills them. It makes the country uglier. I like getting to know people in stores where I shop and that is impossible in Walmart. I think that Wal Mart is dehumanizing and will bring the whole country down a notch. Its low prices are only possible because of low wages and sponging off the government.
But it is a cheap place for poor people to buy stuff that they probably woulddn't be able to afford otherwise. Many of these people are prospective democratic voters. We hav eto keep an eye on Walmart but is a losing policy for dems to go after Walmart.
December 2, 2005 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Raindog hits the less-discussed side, and I think the heart, of the WalMart debate: aesthetics.
Despite its pervasive and expensive advertising campaign to the contrary, WalMart epitomizes and personifies the conversion of the American landscape from our Jeffersonian agrarian patchwork ideal to vast, anonymous housing tracts and paved parking lots that measure in the acre.
Much has been written on this topic elsewhere, but the nuanced debate over worker benefits and wages does not account for the knee-jerk distaste many who avowedly can afford NOT to shop at WalMart show when confronted with the reality it presents, and the kind of landscape it is carving.
The reason WalMart is held to higher standards than other U.S. corporations that pay similarly low wages or have similar percentages of employees on public assistance is cultural: WalMart, in all its forms, encourages a worship of commodities that has changed American society in the last fifty years.
This is not limited to WalMart, but WalMart is the largest target (no pun intended) and is also displays a particular voracious efficiency. And there are certainly many reasons (im my opinion, chief among them is the underfunding of arts education in the public school system..) why WalMart could gain traction at this point in American history. Historically low wages and income disparity are major contributing factors. The collapse of heavy industry in this country was an accelerant. But at the heart is the prioritization of cheap goods over other aspects of human existence.
Plain and simple, people are afraid of WalMart, what it represents both about us and for us.
December 2, 2005 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhhh! We seem to be getting somewhere in this debate--on this thread anyway. Much as the unrepentant San Francisco liberal (fuck yeah!) in me wants to moralize about Wal-Mart's behavior, I have to agree w/ Voice of Reason and others here that Aidan is making a category error in wanting to have it his way. Social Democracy does not browbeat corporations into being Good Citizens; it creates a fabric of incentives, sanctions, and legal parameters that serve the commonwealth in ways that lead to economic and social justice. Jawboning is in its way as phony as trickledown economics. (Pres. Bush: "Please, please, oil company buddies, don't gouge consumers to fatten your bottom line!)
December 2, 2005 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the things that Walmart has managed to promote is the mantra that it has low prices. This means it is a good place for people of limited means to shop at.
This is not really true. Here is a typical example refuting the claim:
Not Low Prices
Make sure you follow the link in the blog to the actual article from the Denver TV report as well.
December 2, 2005 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a couple of points (OK, four) from the heart of Wal-Martland:
1) Wal-Mart is very active is trying to supress higher wages in other industries as well. Not only does it lobby heavily against raises in the minimum wage, it has a long history of direct campaigning to companies it percieves as paying too high wages. When Bekaert Steel opened a plant in Rogers (next town over from Wal-Mart headquarters in Bentonville,AR), Mr. Sam himself contacted the president of Bekaert in Belgium to demand that they lower the wages they were paying in northwest Arkansas. [I heard Mr. Sam tell this story to a business class at the University of Arkansas.]
2) Wal-Mart doesn't want "off the hook" for insurance -- it just doesn't want to pay for its poor workers. A Wal-Mart VP complained to me yesterday that she had to wait until January to buy new glasses because the newly expanded benefits for corporate execs will pay 100% of the costs, but won't kick in until Jan. 1. That's 100% of eye care, dental care, and premiums.
3) Wal-Mart has been on the welfare train for decades. When I was in the U of A College of Business 25 years ago, more Wal-Mart workers were eligible for welfare in Arkansas than were ineligible. They are famous here for not allowing workers to work enough hours to qualify for insurance or overtime benefits.
4) Mr. Sam had a clearly articulated business philosophy: only go into towns under 30,000 people, put the competition out of business, then maintain a choke-hold on the work force. If workers are poor enough, in many rural towns the only place they can afford to shop is Wal-Mart. Since Mr. Sam died, Wal-Mart has moved into larger population areas, adjusting their corporate approaches with more or less success.
I absolutely agree that Wal-Mart is usually not the most economical place to shop, but in many rural towns, it is the only choice (and sometimes the only employer). For the first year after I began my Wal-Mart boycott 9 years ago, I kept track and found that I saved more than $100/month by not shopping at Wal-Mart. They are masters of merchandising.
December 2, 2005 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't the documentary "The Corporation" diagnose corporations as they are currently structured as sociopaths? Corporations are legal fictions that can be structured with socially responsible functions. Even Adam Smith said that those that prosper most from the system must put the most back into it.
December 3, 2005 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Under securities law, corporate officlals and boards of directors have a fiduciary duty to manage the corporation in a way that will maximize gain to shareholders. Shareholders are investors -- they give their money to a corporation for the sole purpose of making a profit. The corporation works on their behalf to do that.
Shareholders bring class-action lawsuits against corporations all the time, but coverage of them is generally limited to business or legal publications. Commonly, shareholders sue corporations for restating earnings, corporate malfeasance (think Enron, WorldCom), not accepting buyout offers that would have maximized shareholder gain, or not buying out other companies when that would have maximized shareholder gain. Sometimes a group of shareholders will sue a corporation to force it to be more socially responsible. This happens rarely and is rarely successful when it does happen, partly because other shareholders won't go along and partly because securities law is weak on allowing shareholder lawsuits for these reasons. For example, it wouldn't be considered a breach of fiduciary duty to do business with apartheid-era South Africa if doing so maximizes profit.
Giving money to charity is generally fine, because management usually can show that the positive exposure in the community outweighs whatever money was lost, eventually resulting in more profits down the line. You'll notice, however, that shareholders sue corporations for not buying out other companies or for not allowing takeovers. These actions often result in a net loss of jobs for workers but a fat payoff for investors. Corporations that cut jobs are generally rewarded in the market with higher stock prices, which results in higher dividends to shareholders. Market incentives work against corporate responsibility unless there is a pushback from government.
December 3, 2005 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
What seems to be missing (perhaps it came up in one of the other threads?) is that when Wal Mart comes to a small town with a marginal downtown, it turns business owners into employees and takes what limited cash there is in the local economy and ships it off to Bentonville.
This seems like a good frame for the issue of a predatory business that hurts small towns and plays the old game of privatizing gains and socialized costs/risks. If Wal Wart wants to open one of its big boxes, let it pay for its own utility service and roads, do it without tax giveaways and hold it accountable to paying real wages for real work, not holding people below thresholds that require them to pay for benefits.
These are all well-known tactics and I don't understand why anyone sees them as admirable. If I owned stock in Wal Mart I would be ashamed of myself.
December 3, 2005 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
In small businesses, it is the individual owners who are ultimately financially, socially, and personally responsible for the conduct and consequences of their business. We exempt the millions of stockholders in corporations of this responsibility (unwieldiness being the main reason); therefore, why shouldn't we use the "personhood" of the corporation to pay back this exemption with social responsibility?
Also, WalMart has never worked in a vacuum, in a totally free-market society. While I would still disagree with their treatment of workers, etc., I would be somewhat more sympathetic if WalMart actually competed freely and fairly against other businesses. Too many tax breaks, too many political favors, too many privileges granted to corporations make the playing field terribly uneven.
As a former small business person, and friend to a great many small business owners in my hometown, most of whom have supported this community for close to 100 years, the idea of giving tax breaks to "new" businesses moving in is a slap in the face. Why didn't I get them? Why don't they give some retroactive breaks to the local companies who made the town desirable for the WalMarts and Targets? Why don't we get the kind of deference and insulation from local personality politics that WalMart is granted?
I agree with previous posters: make this a wedge issue. Don't attack the poor who are FORCED to shop at WalMart. Attack the corporate system that FORCES them to be poor.
December 4, 2005 4:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good question. But mustn't corporations be granted charters in order to form and operate? If so, then why can't they be taken away if they fail to meet whatever standards are set? Lawyers, fill us in.
December 4, 2005 4:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I shop at Wal-mart and am not ashamed of it. I save about 20% a year over other places to shop. I like to do my shopping all in one place. If you notice someone with a really sharp outfit on and you compliment them they will usually say they bought it at Wal-mart. Their Metro 7 clothing line is great.
The real villain is the health care insurance. Think about what is ruining Medicare, Medicaid, the Veteran's health care, busting family budgets and making businesses that pay health insurance less competitive overseas. Each year we pay more on our insurance, plus higher co-pays and deductibles. Nationalized Health care is the only answer.
I can't help but think the insurance companies are stirring the pot to force Wal-mart to pay their gouging prices.
We pay taxes that pays Bush's insurance on down to the lowest government worker. We pay taxes for Veterans, Medicare and Medicaid. The only one who isn't insured are those who work for places that don't furnish insurance or retire before they are eligible for Medicare. It is mostly the middle class worker.
Many state workers are eligible for all the benefits that the lowest paid Wal-mart worker are eligible for.
Wal-Mart doesn't pay its CEOs as much as the other retail companies.
Wal-mart does say "Merry Christmas" and it has broadened its health insurance choices. Some are forcing them to feed the insurance beast by all of the ranting.
The only complaint I have against Wal-Mart, as a shareholder, is they donate to the Republican Party.
I am not upholding Wal-mart because I have shares. I really believe they are no worse than the other retailers, but some of their competition and insurance companies are out to ruin them. Most retailers buy overseas just like Wal-Mart, but they charge twice as much for their products.
December 4, 2005 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't we pay the government's health insurance? People like Bush all the way down?
I know the wages of some states government workers match Walmarts lowest wages. The state government workers qualify for benefits.
Wal-mart is paying double the minimum wage to it's lowest paid workers.
Why is the minimum wage so low?
I love Ted Kennedy and the Union, but I think they and the Democrats are wrong on Wal-Mart. Follow the money to see who is stirring the Wal-Mart pot.
I remember what it was like when Wal-Mart came to our town. We had 2 expensive clothing stores. Groceries were very expensive. The only jobs were the chicken kill plant and the seasonal canning factory.
Wal-Mart hires those they put out of business many times at higher wages than they had at the mom and pop store.
Stores flourish around Wal-mart. No one can compete head on with WalMart but they can flourish with high end goods and unique products.
I would not shop their if I thought they were bad. Their items are not any cheaper made, just lower priced. I figure I save $2000 to $3000 dollars a year shopping there.
December 4, 2005 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know I do not remember the Mom and Pop stores offering health or stock benefits? Walmart offers both. I guess I do not understand what the fuss is all about.
There are still some A&P around, but didn't their "benefits" program hurt them?
Same for GM. K-Mart went under. Was it that their benefits?
If it is the cost of healthcare, maybe there should be more focus on that.
December 4, 2005 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are different kinds of shoppers. There are those who want to relate to the people in the store. Some dress to the hilt and think shopping is a special experience.
Most of us are busy. I don't want to waste a lot of time taling to strangers. I just want to slip in, in slouchy clothes at times, if I have been gardening or in the middle of something and find I need something.
I like Walmart because I can pick up something for dinner, buy a paint brush, get my prescription filled and buy garden seeds without running all over town.
Walmart pays double the minimum wage. They offer health insurance. Attacking them won't change the other stores who are just as bad.
The root of the problem is health care. Nationalized health care with higher taxes on businesses to pay for it would work for me. We already pay for everyone, as taxpayers, to have health care except the middle class worker. It would be worth some extra taxes on all of us to get a stable health care system.
The financial pages say to plan on paying $200,000 after retirement for health care. That is with Medicare. One year in a nursing home is $50,000 to $150,000.
None of us are working hard, so we can give it all to the health industry when we get old. Think of how the small businesses would thrive without the burden of health care.
December 5, 2005 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink