Walmart And Costco

[t.nie]

Don't know why some people just have to HATE anyone that is successful following something other than the Walmart, "Stack it High, Sell it Cheap, Pay as Little as Possible" model.

When I read some of the posts on here, the hatred and venom and bitter envy just drips off every word. Always some snide, hateful remark whenever anyone says anything positive about a company that actually values it's workers.

But as I sit here listening to Glenn Beck Radio on Sirius, hearing what flows from the mouth of the Beckster and right wing radio generally, it really comes as no suprise there is so much hate spewed from other people who listen to it.

Monkey See, Monkey Do.

[Clayton_Wetter]

Because Wal-Mart represents the leading edge of this American business revolution, the Left’s crusade against it is more than just a battle against a single company. It is instead a clash of worldviews, as unions and their allies, representing a narrow band of special interests masquerading as a populist movement, try to convince the public that super-efficient discounters like Wal-Mart lower workers’ standard of living even as they actually raise living standards by offering goods to so many at such low prices.

[ss12]

Because Wal-Mart represents the leading edge of this American business revolution, the Left’s crusade against it is more than just a battle against a single company. It is instead a clash of worldviews, as unions and their allies, representing a narrow band of special interests masquerading as a populist movement, try to convince the public that super-efficient discounters like Wal-Mart lower workers’ standard of living even as they actually raise living standards by offering goods to so many at such low prices.

Here is what this nation is headed for "the leading edge of America business revolution."

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=10161

[t.nie]

There's a lot of truth in what he says. There is a war going on between diverging interests. There is Big Business and wealth on one side, and they view the world through the "what's best for Big Business is Good for Everyone" mentality. And they are pursuing the narrow agenda of profit above all else and the human cost be (not a nice word)(not a nice word)(not a nice word)(not a nice word)ed.

Then there is the other side, that says people matter more than corporate profits. Sure, you can call Walmart an "efficient discounter" giving people what they want at a price they can afford. But it just never seems to occur to the people that promote this idea that there might be something fundamentally wrong in a society where the only place people can find jobs is at the "Efficient Discounter" and when you work there, the only thing you can afford is your basic needs provided by the "Efficient Discounter."

It's a poverty trap inside a Trojan Horse. The horse came in the gate and provided low cost goods and jobs. But once the entire Army inside got out and took over, the people really didn't like what they ended up with. Low wage jobs, part time hours, and a low standard of living with little hope of ever getting out of it.

[t.nie]

This is from Politifact. Some politician claimed in Ohio Walmart workers received $67 million dollars in food stamps and Medicare. While politifact found that the dollar amount was questionable, as there was no way to quantify the money Walmart workers got, he did get the fact that a LOT of Walmart workers are the working poor correct. Their employer, BTW, makes BILLIONS in profit each year.

The report listed companies on a monthly basis who employed the most workers receiving various forms of public assistance, including Medicaid and food stamps, from July 2008 to August 2009.

Hagan zeroed in on June 2009 for his attack on Wal-Mart, which topped the Medicaid and food stamps lists in the report nearly every month.

As we studied the report, we realized Hagan had to extrapolate certain figures to reach the conclusion that $67 million was spent on Medicaid and food stamps for Wal-Mart workers.

Despite the overall fuzziness of Hagan’s math, which we will attempt to clarify momentarily, he did nail one statistic in his formula: the number of Wal-Mart workers and their dependents on public assistance.

The Department of Job and Family Services tapped into its centralized system that caseworkers use to issue benefits and reported to Hagan that 15,484 Wal-Mart workers and dependents received Medicaid benefits in June 2009, and 12,872 Wal-Mart workers and dependents got food stamps........

..........
While it is clear thousands of Wal-Mart workers and their dependents are on welfare, neither Hagan nor the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services knows the precise cost.


There is an element of truth to his statement, but knowing that his dollar figure is extrapolated from one-month’s totals is an important detail needed to keep the statement in proper context.
On that basis, we rate the statement Half True.

Hate to say it but as a red-blooded, Patriotic American, it disgusts me to see an employer that is so profitable take advantage of our way of life and our fellow Americans this way. If this was some foreign company operating a sweatshop here, using our fellow Americans this way and passing on so much of the cost to the American taxpayer, I think the right wing talking heads would be losing their minds over this.

Why the outrage when the Democrats try to address this abuse of American workers, while the right wingers look the other way? It's ok with you that this happens in America? To our fellow Americans? It's ok we have to pay the freight for the Efficient Discounter?

And be clear about this. You can't call people with jobs "free loaders who want something for nothing, won't take responsibility for themselves." These are people WITH JOBS. They want to work, are willing, even willing to work and still have to be on food stamps to live and support their families. So it's ok that we, the American Patriotic taxpayers, foot the bill so the Efficient Discounter can run away with the money and shirk it's responsibilities?

[Bubstr]

There's a lot of truth in what he says. There is a war going on between diverging interests. There is Big Business and wealth on one side, and they view the world through the "what's best for Big Business is Good for Everyone" mentality. And they are pursuing the narrow agenda of profit above all else and the human cost be (not a nice word)(not a nice word)(not a nice word)(not a nice word)ed.

Then there is the other side, that says people matter more than corporate profits. Sure, you can call Walmart an "efficient discounter" giving people what they want at a price they can afford. But it just never seems to occur to the people that promote this idea that there might be something fundamentally wrong in a society where the only place people can find jobs is at the "Efficient Discounter" and when you work there, the only thing you can afford is your basic needs provided by the "Efficient Discounter."


It's a poverty trap inside a Trojan Horse. The horse came in the gate and provided low cost goods and jobs. But once the entire Army inside got out and took over, the people really didn't like what they ended up with. Low wage jobs, part time hours, and a low standard of living with little hope of ever getting out of it.

Good Post, especially the last paragraph.

It's a poverty trap inside a Trojan Horse. The horse came in the gate and provided low cost goods and jobs. But once the entire Army inside got out and took over, the people really didn't like what they ended up with. Low wage jobs, part time hours, and a low standard of living with little hope of ever getting out of it.

[LITE-INN]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com

[LITE-INN]

Good Post, especially the last paragraph.

realy same ole dribble besides walmart pays alot betters than many other jobs in retail trust me

[t.nie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com

I really could care less what your take is on the site the information came from. They even rated what the guy claimed as a "half true."

What you cannot dispute, argue with or ignore is the glaring facts contained within that piece. 10,000 plus Walmart workers in Ohio have to rely on public assistance, welfare, to meet their basic needs and THEY GO TO WORK. Not freeloaders, not irresponsible people, but people who get up off their butt, get a job and go to work.

As a red-blooded Patriot, it's inexcusable to me for anyone who works in this nation to have to rely on food stamps and medicare while their employers make billions. It's Un-American.

[t.nie]

realy same ole dribble besides walmart pays alot betters than many other jobs in retail trust me

Ok, so you're good with your tax dollars paying for Walmart's workers to get food stamps and medicare? I'm glad you think it's ok for taxpayers to subsidize Walmart's low wage workers. Personally, I don't.

And your comment "they better than a lot" just tells me that even MORE working people at this cheap n nasty outfits are on welfare. But you're good with that. It's your "American Way." You think that's what every Patriotic American should be ok with. Get a job, still have to be on food stamps because the job doesn't pay.

[LITE-INN]

try working in auto parts or the cleaners where its part time no benefits and min wage and guess what no public aid

[t.nie]

You don't get public aid application forms when you start your job.

You go apply for them after you see your first paycheck.

[Bubstr]

try working in auto parts or the cleaners where its part time no benefits and min wage and guess what no public aid

So there are more jobs with slave labor wages. That doesn't make it right. This is all about cheap and abundant labor force. This is about the costs of these practices and who dodges the bills on them costs. Walmart is making working poor and we are paying the bill for their profits. The auto parts store or cleaners has to keep up with the competition and lower their wages. Everyone is doing this now and it has become a death spiral that will get everyone before any see the in-sustainability of it. Wages go down, consumer buying power goes down, increasing pressure to lower wages, increasing unemployment, increasing the tax bill that also reduces buying power. How long do you think this business model can last?

[Clayton_Wetter]

realy same ole dribble besides walmart pays alot betters than many other jobs in retail trust me

Yes, we are talking about unskilled jobs stocking and cash register work for goodness sake. We don't need a union to force them to pay $20 an hour at Walmart when these same jobs anywhere else in small busines don't even pay what Wal-Mart does. And the profit margin of Wal-Mart is not excessive by any means.

[Clayton_Wetter]

Every one who thinks unions are going to make anything better don't seem to realize that this just comes from wishful supporters. Unions drive up costs too much getting you a better wage that your purchasing power actually drops and also kills commerce as so many more products and services become unaffordable for the vast unemployed masses and the lower income and part time workers. When unions demand more wages, whomever they work for have to pass the increase on in the form of increased prices for their products and services.


THE SOCIALIST LEAGUE

is an organisation of convinced Socialists, fulfilling the conditions of membership of the Labour Movement laid down below, who believe that Socialism can come only through the conscious and determined action of the working-class movement in this and other countries and who believe further that only through such action can the dangers of Fascism and reaction in every country be averted.

Its members, accordingly, are pledged as units within their Labour Parties, Trade Unions and Co-operative Societies, to do everything in their power to further the promotion and ultimate realisation of a militant Socialist programme and policy.

They are linked together in the Socialist League in order to equip themselves more effectively for the work of Socialist education and propaganda.

The Socialist League runs Socialist Forums, Study Groups, Discussion Circles, etc., for the discussion of practical Socialist problems.

It organises Week-end Conferences and Summer Schools for longer and more detailed discussion.

It publishes books and pamphlets in order to stimulate opinion and action throughout the Movement.

MEMBERSHIP OF THE LEAGUE

Membership of the Socialist League is open to all Socialists who are either individual or politically affiliated members of the Labour Party and who accept the League’s constitution, rules and policy.

Members of the League must, if eligible, be members of their Trade Unions; and, if possible, be members of the Co-operative Movement. All members are expected to become individual members of their Constituency Labour Parties.

Applications for membership, and all inquiries should be addressed to the:—

GENERAL SECRETARY, THE SOCIALIST LEAGUE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trade Unions and Socialism

FOR nearly one hundred and fifty years the workers of Britain have struggled to build Trade Unions. Long before there was a political party of the workers there were Trade Unions. Their history is an amazing record of valiant workers who fought the laws which prohibited the existence of the Unions, who dared imprisonment, deportation, victimisation and persecution in order that their Unions could become strong and powerful. One generation succeeded another in continuous effort, in great strikes, massive demonstrations, political struggles, until to-day millions of workers are organised in Trade Unions.

Have you ever stopped to ask why and for what these organisations have been built? Of course you are familiar with what the Trade Unions do. You know they defend the wages and conditions of the workers, insure them against unemployment, sickness and old age, provide legal defence in their claims against employers. And all these things you will agree are good things. But why was and is it necessary to fight for them? The answer to this question is important because it goes to the foundations of Trade Unionism and Socialism too.

You will undoubtedly say that the workers had to fight for these things because the employers and governments were not prepared to give them until they were forced. That is true and the force which they used was based upon their power to stop work, in other words in their power to strike. Hence Trade Unionists have always aimed at one hundred per cent. organisation, and have regarded the non-unionist as a danger and the strike breaker as a “blackleg”.

There still remains a further question: Why have the workers had to rely upon their power to strike? Now it is certain you will answer— “Because they have no other power than their labour power”. And again you will be right, for even the workers’ right to vote in Parliamentary and municipal elections only came when the Trade Unions had become a power in the land.

Nor has the right to vote taken away the necessity for the development of the power to strike. This has been demonstrated time and again throughout the history of the labour movement. In fact our history proves the need for the ballot box to be supported by the economic power of the workers. This organisation of the workers’ economic power is expressed in the trade unions.

The working class in society holds a special position. It has no property. It is a propertyless class—dependent upon the class which owns property—the land, the factories, mills, mines, railways, transport. But the land cannot give forth its fullness unless workers plough and sow and reap. The earth cannot deliver its mineral wealth unless workers dig it. Factories, mills, mines, railways, etc., cannot work unless workers are employed to make them serve their purpose in the transformation of nature’s wealth into social wealth. It is this fact which compels the owners of the means of producing wealth to employ labour. They need that labour or their ownership ceases to be of value. That is why the withdrawal of labour by the workers can be so powerful a weapon when used on a large scale.

Trade Unions were formed by the workers because they possessed no means of production of their own, i.e. they were propertyless and their labour power which is inseparable from them could only be withdrawn from production in sufficient strength when it was organised.

Now we know why Trade Unions were formed, in what consists their power, and why the fight for a hundred per cent. trade unionism continues in a society where there is a class owning the means of production and a working class owning nothing but its power to labour.

It may be asked “Will the Trade Unions disappear when the working class ceases to be selling its labour power to the private owners of the means of production?” That is an all important question. It raises the issue of the relations of Trade Unionism to Socialism. The roots of Socialism lie in precisely those conditions which give rise to Trade Unionism.

WHAT SOCIALISM IS.

Socialism is, first, the name given to that form of society in which there is no such thing as a propertyless class, but in which the whole community has become a working community owning the means of production—the land, factories, mills, mines, banks, transport and all the means whereby wealth is created and distributed to the community. Socialism is also the name given to a body of scientific and philosophic thought which explains why the Socialist form of society is now a necessity, the forces upon which its achievement depends, the conditions under which and the methods whereby it can be achieved.

It will be obvious at once that the basic principles of Socialist society are diametrically opposite to those of Capitalist society in which we live. Socialism stands for social or community property. Capitalism stands for private property. Socialism is a society without classes. Capitalism is divided into classes—the class owning property and the propertyless working class.

We can easily understand, therefore, why the great majority of landlords, employers of labour, financiers and the like are opposed to Socialism. Their very existence as the receivers of rent, interest and profit is at stake. They do not merely reject the theory of Socialism, but actively and bitterly fight every movement which is in any way associated with the struggle for Socialism.

Whilst there are individual capitalists and landlords who through moral and intellectual conviction are ready to abandon the private property system when society is ready to make the change, and openly advocate and support the struggle for Socialism, the landlord and Capitalist class as a class cannot be the force in society which fights for Socialism.

On the contrary, it is to the individual and social interest of the propertyless class to fight against the private property system and for Socialism. They do it every day, though as yet only a minority do it consciously for Socialism. When Trade Unionists fight the employers on wages questions and the conditions of labour they are really fighting against consequences of the private property system. The existence of the private ownership of the means of production means also the private ownership of the things produced and their sale as commodities in competition one with another. Labour also is a commodity and those who sell their labour power, the members of the working class, manual and brain-worker alike, also compete like other commodities.