Should the federal government be spending billions of dollars to pump up Wal-Mart’s profits? I know that question sounds really bizarre, but unfortunately this is essentially what is happening. Because Wal-Mart does not pay them enough money, hundreds of thousands of Wal-Mart employees enroll in Medicaid, food stamps and other social welfare programs. Even though Wal-Mart makes enormous profits, they refuse to properly take care of their employees so the federal government has to do it. And of course this is not just a Wal-Mart problem. There are hundreds of other major corporations doing exactly the same thing. And they will keep on doing it as long as they can because relying on the federal government to take care of their employees allows them to make much larger profits. This gives these companies an enormous competitive advantage and it distorts the marketplace. If you love the free enterprise system, you should be aghast at this. Our big corporations have become the biggest “welfare queens” of all, and Wal-Mart is near the top of that list.
Does your local Wal-Mart store seem like it needs help from the federal government?
Of course not.
Wal-Marts all over the nation were absolutely packed this holiday season, but according to a recent Bloomberg article, the average amount of welfare that Wal-Mart employees receive from the government each year breaks down to about $420,000 per store…
Kind of surprised you re-posted this. Walmart pays low wages for low skilled jobs. That the .gov crowd takes it upon itself to create a welfare state has nothing to do with this company. It is easy to get on the Bash Walmart Bandwagon but that is exactly what the .gov crowd wants as it gives them leave to interfere even more with a market economy. I don’t think that is the direction you would have us go.
I have no problem with the wages paid to Wal-mart employees. I do have a problem that the government is subsidizing these employees with entitlements. This means that I am paying part of their salary which is benefiting Wal-mart. The same can be said for McDonalds’ healthcare exemption, union exemptions. I do not shop at these companies which is also my decision.
What is being missed is the relationship between big business and the government. Which is one of the basic tenets of Facism.
And I did not bash Wal-mart since I only reposted the article. But I will bash both the company and the government for expecting me to subsidize their lives, paychecks and voting of their employees.
I read both of the linked articles … almost a “chicken vs egg” issue here.
What came first … evil entitlements for people existing at or below some arbitrary “poverty level”, or heartless low margin employers with large market penetration?
I stipulate there have always been low margin employers and people living at or below some arbitrary economic comfort level. And the definition for that threshold is highly dependent upon historical time, culture and geographic location. Entitlements and welfare, however, are a relatively new phenomena and only exist in affluent western nations or failed Marxist states.
The debate is artificial and the result of government intervention. I would side-step it entirely with a snarky directive to eliminate all forms of collectivist entitlements (wealth transfer programs) and let the market for goods and employment sort out wages and the viability of businesses.
After all is said and done, I don’t owe anybody a comfortable economic lifestyle. But I may choose to purchase my consumable goods from the lowest cost provider.
You may choose differently …
Matthew 26
6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,
7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.
8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?
9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.
But once the poor are bribed to vote for “their fair share”, the chains of slavery are never removed without force.
“But once the poor are bribed …” is precisely the heart of the problem. Walmart did not make them poor and Walmart did not establish the system of entitlements or extend the bribes.
The market has been manipulated by the statutes, ordinances and regulations introduced by Positive Legislation, created by leeches of the legislature(s) who receive thier sustinance by theft from my wallet.
How can you seriously fault any business that attempts to navigate the statist swamp and minimize their pain while simultaneously delivering product at a competitive advantage? Do you similarly fault the miriad of healthcare providers who continue in their attempt to deliver service?
The truly moral act for a business faced with state control of the market and labor pool would be to withdraw its goods and services… abstain.
In a similar fashion, you are free to withold your custom from any an all businesses … and free to espouse whatever ideas you wish to share.
In conclusion, I paraphrase:
“For these goods might have been sold for much, and more given to the poor.
When Sam Walton understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye this business? for it hath wrought a good work upon the land.”
The problem is government NOT WalMart. WalMart did not force government to sheds it’s Constitutional confinement and it has little ability to force government back into it’s proper role. Likewise WalMart has little if any control over it’s employees ability and choice to sign up for government handouts of our tax dollars.
I understand the point but we must never allow ourselves to be distracted from the reality that government IS the problem and NOT the answer. As David pointed out we can choose not to shop at certain stores without consequences but we cannot choose avoid government without dire consequences.
I hope we can agree to stay focused on the gross violations of the Constitution by government instead of the choices by employees of a company. Otherwise some damn fool will suggest government solve the problem(s) government created.
I would place more blame on the government but Wal-mart bears some of the blame and so do we for allowing this system to be perpetuated. At our expense and your vote. So let’s play devil’s advocate and take away the government entitlements for people working at Wal-mart. Their wages would go up in a true free market economy. And they would pay more in taxes and possibly being sentient in their votes.
Wal-mart is not the only business involved in what is a transfer of wealth in a subtle way that most people are not recognizing. What if the argument was not Wal-mart but healthcare. My health insurance would be greatly reduced if the government was not mandating that I pay for other people’s insurance cost who cannot afford it.
What is the difference? People shop at Wal-mart to save money because the government (us) is subsidizing their payroll through entitlements. The same argument could be applied to companies hiring illegal aliens to reduce their costs. But I do not see anyone addressing that issue.
As comments here and on Facebook show, this is something that people have issues with. So what is wrong with publishing it for discussion. If you want to blame some party, look in the mirror. When it all comes down to it, the people are allowing the government to buy votes and power with our tax dollars.