Hey, this story is so one-sided. The Walton family has access to government benefits as well, should they ever need them.
That’s how I was explaining this to my daughter, ha ha. The Waltons are the ones receiving those welfare benefits, as in they effectively allow them to pay the workers part-time minimum wage. Whereas if those gov benefits weren’t available to the workers, how many of those Wal-Mart employees would be able to make that work for them. So isn’t the government de facto subsiding Wal-Mart? Maybe that’s what you were saying, going on day five with about 12 hours of sleep.
Yes, exactly. If the government is giving food stamps to employees of a business, it is paying the wages of those employees on behalf of the business. It always amazes me how the US, for all the anti-socialist talk, has just as many social programs as any other country, it’s just that the very rich get a big cut of them.
Per person public health care spending in the US is actually somehow higher than public health care spending in Canada despite the fact that in the US people are paying for their own health care coverage. Where does all the extra money go? Hint: it doesn’t result in higher life expectancies or lower child mortality.
Yet, the Walton clan has enough money to buy air time showing ads about how great it is to work at Walmart.
I thought your pa raised you better than that, John-Boy.
More people need to make the commitment not to shop there.
And that’s just one way governments subsidize Wal-Mart. Another is that when they want to build a new location on the edge of town, local governments will build or expand the infrastructure (roads, water, power, etc) needed to sustain it. Small businesses get no such luck.
Maybe it’s like the evil twin of the (not entirely accurate) story about Ford. By raising wages, he made customers out of his employees. By lowering its wages, Wal-Mart stops its employees from being able to go anywhere else.
A side note on that story about Ford, though, is that Forbes story has a juvenile analysis of the economics. If people are paid a wage that satisfies their needs and gives them some room for luxuries, and they are treated well, then they are a lot less likely to jump ship, even if other companies pay comparable amounts. And while Boeing would be in trouble if it paid it’s employees enough to buy planes, one could see how they would be doing quite well if everyone made enough money to take a trip on a plane now and then.
Employers sometimes think that bad economic years are good for them because they have an easier time finding employees for lack of other employment options, but it’s a nonsense idea. The more money going around the more money there is for everyone. That’s not radical left-wing economics, that’s directly out of the Wealth of Nations.
The same people who argue, “A rising tide floats all ships” to justify how giving lots of money to a few rich people will make poor people better off can’t get their head around the idea that giving more money to poor people might make rich people better off.
Boeing is doing more than “quite” well. They have record sales and record profits. They do pay most of their workers enough to fly on their planes, maybe even occasionally first class. But that is only true because they are union. Here in Washington state Boeing got our dope of a governor to give them $9 Billion in tax breaks just before the Machinist’s union went to vote over a contract that ended their future pension benefit and replaced it with a 401K system. Because “OMG THEY’RE GONNA LEAVE AND GO DOWN SOUTH OR TO THE MIDWEST!!!11”. And the local papers and blogs seethed with non-employees complaining that the Machinists were greedy and risked plunging our entire region into economic hell, so they OWED it to the rest of us to vote yes. Younger union members leaned towards “yes”, mostly due to the signing bonus (i.e. short term bribe). The vote passed and the lesser contract was accepted. Two days later was the Dubai airshow, where Boeing posted record sales and announced record profits. I have never been so ashamed of a governor who I voted for. I won’t make THAT mistake again.
This reply isn’t because I think you said anything different, just wanted to expand on your Boeing example.
I like your “rising tides” comment, and the next time someone uses it I’ll point out to them that the only way to raise a tide is to dump more water into the ocean, not pour it into private reservoirs.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.