Wal-Mart Cares

[charley]

How incomes have changed for the rich and the rest
THE recovery belongs to the rich. It seemed ominous in 2007 when the share of national income flowing to America's top 1% of earners reached 18.3%: the highest since just before the crash of 1929. But whereas the Depression kicked off a long era of even income growth the rich have done much better this time round. New data assembled by Emmanuel Saez, of the University of California, Berkeley, and Thomas Piketty, of the Paris School of Economics, reveal that the top 1% enjoyed real income growth of 31% between 2009 and 2012, compared with growth of less than 1% for the bottom 99%. Income actually shrank for the bottom 90% of earners. After the Depression households across the income spectrum enjoyed income growth roughly commensurate with losses during the downturn. As a result the top 1% only captured about 28% of total income growth from 1933 to 1936. This time around 95% of the increase in American income since 2009 has gone to the top 1%. No wonder, then, that the share of national income flowing to the rich is at a record high of 19.3%, ahead of both 2007 and 1929.

 

[charley]

[h=1]Meet the Family[/h] The Walton family is the richest family in the United States and one of the richest in the world. They are heirs to the Walmart fortune and the company?s largest shareholders, with over fifty percent ownership of stock in the retail giant.
Sam Walton and his brother Bud opened their first Walmart discount store in 1962. Today three family members serve on Walmart?s board of directors; Rob is the chair, and sits on the board with his brother Jim and his son-in-law, Greg Penner.
The six Waltons on Forbes? list of wealthiest Americans have a net worth of $144.7 billion. This fiscal year three Waltons?Rob, Jim, and Alice (and the various entities that they control)?will receive an estimated $3.1 billion in Walmart dividends from their majority stake in the company.
The Waltons aren?t just the face of the 1%; they?re the face of the 0.000001%. The Waltons have more wealth than 42% of American families combined.
Why does all of this matter? While the Waltons are building billion-dollar museums, driving million-dollar cars, and jumping between vacation homes, Walmart, the country?s largest private employer, is paying its associates an average of $8.81 an hour. The Waltons make billions a year off of a company most of them don?t even work for, while Walmart associates struggle for respect on the job and enough pay to make ends meet.
Through their family legacy, places on Walmart?s board of directors, and their majority stake in the company, the Waltons have the power to turn 1.4 million Walmart jobs into good jobs.

 

[Zaphod]

for you to vote for Gary Johnson and your support for big govt programs like obamacare has me saying wtf? do you even understand what Johnson represents? I don't think so.

You proclaim the advantages of a free market and how it will solve the ills of the world. Use the free market and shop around.

I don't support Obamacare. It's poorly implemented as it was meant to be, being patterned off Romney's program from when he was governor of Massachusetts. You got your republican solution. Live with it.

 

[Swiper]

You proclaim the advantages of a free market and how it will solve the ills of the world. Use the free market and shop around.

I don't support Obamacare. It's poorly implemented as it was meant to be, being patterned off Romney's program from when he was governor of Massachusetts. You got your republican solution. Live with it.

the govt won't allow a free market in healthcare never has never will. if you think the U.S. has anything close to free market capitalism you're badly misguided.

lol I voted Johnson too and Ron Paul in the primaries as he wasn't on the national ballot for potus.

 

[Bowden]

the govt won't allow a free market in healthcare never has never will. if you think the U.S. has anything close to free market capitalism you're badly misguided.

lol I voted Johnson too and Ron Paul in the primaries as he wasn't on the national ballot for potus.

I don't know about the area that you live in but in my area there are a large number of health care providers i.e. physicians, hospitals and other types of private for profit providers of health care services competing in a free market for consumers of health care.

That type of competition falls under free market capitalism.

However due to its nature, health care services delivery is not the same as consumer services delivery in other industries and it has to be very well regulated.
People may die if health care delivery by private for profit corporations are not regulated as private for profit health care industry corporations sometimes consider profit motivation to be the primary factor as to their business models.

 

[Swiper]

I don't know about the area that you live in but in my area there are a large number of health care providers i.e. physicians, hospitals and other types of private for profit providers of health care services competing in a free market for consumers of health care.

That type of competition falls under free market capitalism.

no it does not. not when you have govt forcing people to buy a product (health insurance) from a private company.

 

[Zaphod]

the govt won't allow a free market in healthcare never has never will. if you think the U.S. has anything close to free market capitalism you're badly misguided.

lol I voted Johnson too and Ron Paul in the primaries as he wasn't on the national ballot for potus.

I had to do a write-in for Johnson here in Michigan. Lack of funding kept him off the ballot, except as a write-in.

 

[Bowden]

no it does not. not when you have govt forcing people to buy a product (health insurance) from a private company.

One reason government forced it is due to the lack of the ability or desire of free market capitalism to deliver a solution to the problem of the millions of people in the working poor economic class who are not provided with health care insurance they can afford on their wages paid by their employers.

People in that economic class cannot afford health care unless they receive government assistance.
Government assistance provided by funding that assistance within a model of forcing everyone to buy health insurance to fund health care insurance provision for people that cannot afford it
These people usually fall within the working poor economic class.

A good example of how private for profit capitalism 'solves' this problem and transfers it to the taxpayers is that the largest employer in the United States, Wal-Mart, has the highest number of employees on government socialist welfare programs like medicare.
Wal-mart does this so that it can allocate its cash to funding 500 billion dollars on stock buybacks.
Instead of funding employee compensation and benefits like health care insurance at a level that would keep its employees off of government socialist benefit programs.

Private for profit insurance companies are not beating down the doors of people that make near minimum wage that cannot afford to buy health care insurance on the free market to sell them health care insurance policies.

Some may argue that health care should only be provided to those that can afford it on their own.
Others disagree with that argument.

 

[Bowden]

The libertarian model of rugged individualism and self reliance works for people that make enough money to afford rugged individualism and self reliance.
That is why most libertarians are people that make good incomes.

For some reason people with families that make good money and suffer a layoff and then need government assistance seem to change their perspectives.

I wonder why that is?

Maybe now they are in the shoes of those that they thought were too lazy to work for a good living?
I know several people that once they suffered a layoff in the last recession and they got a taste of what all of 'those lazy people' go through day to day to survive had a 180 change in their perspectives.

 

[Swiper]

One reason government forced it is due to the lack of the ability or desire of free market capitalism to deliver a solution to the problem of the millions of people in the working poor economic class who are not provided with health care insurance they can afford on their wages paid by their employers.

People in that economic class cannot afford health care unless they receive government assistance.
Government assistance provided by funding that assistance within a model of forcing everyone to buy health insurance to fund health care insurance provision for people that cannot afford it
These people usually fall within the working poor economic class.

A good example of how private for profit capitalism 'solves' this problem and transfers it to the taxpayers is that the largest employer in the United States, Wal-Mart, has the highest number of employees on government socialist welfare programs like medicare.
Wal-mart does this so that it can allocate its cash to funding 500 billion dollars on stock buybacks.
Instead of funding employee compensation and benefits like health care insurance at a level that would keep its employees off of government socialist benefit programs.

Private for profit insurance companies are not beating down the doors of people that make near minimum wage that cannot afford to buy health care insurance on the free market to sell them health care insurance policies.

Some may argue that health care should only be provided to those that can afford it on their own.
Others disagree with that argument.

it was only before wages and price controls is when we had an almost free market in health care. Never had a free market after that. so your argument the free market is flawed is misguided. in the past before the govt dictated wages and price controls which intern companies had to compensate their employees with health insurance instead of raising wages. before all of that govt for the most part wasn't involved in the healthcare industry, people paid out of pocket for their health care needs. and almost no one got turned away. its only when govt got involved is when prices skyrocketed. when govt mandates insurance companies what they need to cover, how much they need to cover, what rx they need to cover, can't buy across state lines (which distorts competition) and ect... is when the prices get out of control.

 

[Swiper]

][/COLOR]The libertarian model of rugged individualism and self reliance works for people that make enough money to afford rugged individualism and self reliance.
That is why most libertarians are people that make good incomes.

For some reason people with families that make good money and suffer a layoff and then need government assistance seem to change their perspectives.

I wonder why that is?

Maybe now they are in the shoes of those that they thought were too lazy to work for a good living?
I know several people that once they suffered a layoff in the last recession and they got a taste of what all of 'those lazy people' go through day to day to survive had a 180 change in their perspectives.

that model is what this country was built on, the constitution was written for and the founding father envisioned. It's too bad you don't like what this country is all about, or at least was......

And the income thing is total BS, where is your evidence to support that? i say just the opposite. it's probably the lower and middle class who have the most libertarians in it.

 

[Big Puppy]

For passing the increased costs on to the employee. And for not telling the company that administrates the policy they need to control their rates.

Oh i forgot, the employer has to take all these rising costs up the ass.

I can see it now..."um insurance company, please lower your rates. Thank you". Im sure telling them they need to control their rates would solve the problem.

Maybe some day youll be lucky enough to run your own business and see what its really like

 

[Bowden]

that model is what this country was built on, the constitution was written for and the founding father envisioned. It's too bad you don't like what this country is all about, or at least was......

And the income thing is total BS, where is your evidence to support that? i say just the opposite. it's probably the lower and middle class who have the most libertarians in it.

The rugged individualist and totally self sufficient concept needs to be evaluated again what happens in the real world.
No one is an island that has no dependencies in some sort on other people.

Look up the numbers yourself as to who in the middle class/ working poor economic classes actually would fit the definition of a Libertarian rugged individualist and is totally self sufficient that totally rejects and does not take some sort of government benefit what so ever.

For most people, the entire concept of being a Libertarian that is defined as a rugged individualist and thus totally self sufficient in today's society and especially today's economy is laughable.

A Libertarian and a receiver of any Government entitlement benefit program is a contradiction in terms.
Any individual that receives any Government entitlement benefit cannot be a Libertarian.
Most people in the middle and working poor economic classes receive some sort of Government entitlement benefits during their lifetimes.

Thus they cannot be a Libertarian.

 

[Bowden]

Oh i forgot, the employer has to take all these rising costs up the ass.

I can see it now..."um insurance company, please lower your rates. Thank you". Im sure telling them they need to control their rates would solve the problem.

Maybe some day youll be lucky enough to run your own business and see what its really like

Social problems like huge numbers of workers that work for an employer that does not pay a living wage and health care benefits can very quickly become business issues.
As those workers are consumers of business products and services.
Level of worker disposable income = rate of worker consumption of business products and services.

 

[heckler7]

I'm forced to buy home insurance and now because fema did some bougus study from some computer model I have to have flood insurance, as well as auto insurance. just saying I dont hear people complain that these things are unconstitutional and government is going to kill small business and middle class

 

[malfeasance]

[h=1]Meet the Family[/h] The Walton family is the richest family in the United States and one of the richest in the world. They are heirs to the Walmart fortune and the company?s largest shareholders, with over fifty percent ownership of stock in the retail giant.
Sam Walton and his brother Bud opened their first Walmart discount store in 1962. Today three family members serve on Walmart?s board of directors; Rob is the chair, and sits on the board with his brother Jim and his son-in-law, Greg Penner.
The six Waltons on Forbes? list of wealthiest Americans have a net worth of $144.7 billion. This fiscal year three Waltons?Rob, Jim, and Alice (and the various entities that they control)?will receive an estimated $3.1 billion in Walmart dividends from their majority stake in the company.
The Waltons aren?t just the face of the 1%; they?re the face of the 0.000001%. The Waltons have more wealth than 42% of American families combined.
Why does all of this matter? While the Waltons are building billion-dollar museums, driving million-dollar cars, and jumping between vacation homes, Walmart, the country?s largest private employer, is paying its associates an average of $8.81 an hour. The Waltons make billions a year off of a company most of them don?t even work for, while Walmart associates struggle for respect on the job and enough pay to make ends meet.
Through their family legacy, places on Walmart?s board of directors, and their majority stake in the company, the Waltons have the power to turn 1.4 million Walmart jobs into good jobs.

Swiper already ran the calculation. A little over $3 per hour if they poured ALL of the profits into employee raises, leaving nothing for shareholders of this publicly traded company.

So how are they going to turn 1.4 million jobs into "good jobs?"

Have the numbers changed this year?

Magic money bucket?

 

[malfeasance]

You proclaim the advantages of a free market and how it will solve the ills of the world. Use the free market and shop around.

I am self employed. I have had problem after problem with my current insurer.

Two years ago, I would just call my broker, buy a policy from a competitor, and fire the troublesome insurer all in one day. NOW, however, thanks to Obamacare, I am stuck with the current insurer until some stupid "enrollment window." They know it, too, and therefore they have no incentive whatsoever to keep me happy. I am a captive customer, and they are fully aware of it.

My choice is to either keep them until the next enrollment window or go uninsured . . . wait! No, it is illegal now to go uninsured, so tell me again about how I can use the free market and shop around?

I want to hear all about it.

What sort of twisted incentives does this government regulation set up?

I have no doubt that some of you on the left of this issue mean well, that is, that you have good intentions, but I seriously question whether you have ever spent more than 30 seconds trying to think through the real world consequences of enacting your pet policies. You have certainly never given the downsides any serious consideration, even for a mere 30 seconds.

 

[malfeasance]

Walmart profit 2012 = 17 billion

Walmart employees = 2.2 Million

17 billion divided by 2.2 million = a raise of $7,727 per employee per year.

Equals a raise of $3.71 per hour per employee.


That's with Walmart making NO PROFIT.


it's hilarious how people with no business ownership or experience are telling Walmart how to operate. they are clueless....

I have had minimum wage jobs. I have been unemployed.

I did not like either.

I developed some skills that are marketable, because I did not like the way the future looked otherwise.

The math above shows something, and that is, you cannot be paid more than you produce. Even a $3.71 raise would not be what the less economically literate among you call a "living wage," and yet even that amount would mean no profit at all for shareholders, some of whom work at Wal-Mart.

You cannot pay a worker more than he produces. Doing so means operating at a loss, and eventually that worker will have no job at all, living wage or otherwise.

 

[malfeasance]

For some reason people with families that make good money and suffer a layoff and then need government assistance seem to change their perspectives.

I wonder why that is?

Because they can use the word "need" to justify their robbery? Because if they admitted what they were doing, that is, surviving off the efforts of others, then they would loath themselves and what they have become? Changing one's perspective makes one feel better about oneself, especially when that person clouds his thoughts and language with euphemisms like "government assistance."

Not everybody "changes their perspectives." I have been unemployed, as I posted above, and know many others who have as well, without using the government to take money from others and feed it to me, like a parasite.

But you are correct, for most people it is easier to "change perspectives" than to admit with clear language what they are doing.

I would still love to hear from you a business plan - What "living wage" can Wal-Mart pay its employees and still stay in business? Does a living wage matter if 1.4 million low skilled workers become unemployed because economic illiterates force a company to pay its workers more than they produce?

 

[Zaphod]

it was only before wages and price controls is when we had an almost free market in health care. Never had a free market after that. so your argument the free market is flawed is misguided. in the past before the govt dictated wages and price controls which intern companies had to compensate their employees with health insurance instead of raising wages. before all of that govt for the most part wasn't involved in the healthcare industry, people paid out of pocket for their health care needs. and almost no one got turned away. its only when govt got involved is when prices skyrocketed. when govt mandates insurance companies what they need to cover, how much they need to cover, what rx they need to cover, can't buy across state lines (which distorts competition) and ect... is when the prices get out of control.

Prices started getting out of control when the majority of insurance companies became for-profit. At that point everything went to hell.

 

[Zaphod]

I am self employed. I have had problem after problem with my current insurer.

Two years ago, I would just call my broker, buy a policy from a competitor, and fire the troublesome insurer all in one day. NOW, however, thanks to Obamacare, I am stuck with the current insurer until some stupid "enrollment window." They know it, too, and therefore they have no incentive whatsoever to keep me happy. I am a captive customer, and they are fully aware of it.

My choice is to either keep them until the next enrollment window or go uninsured . . . wait! No, it is illegal now to go uninsured, so tell me again about how I can use the free market and shop around?

I want to hear all about it.

What sort of twisted incentives does this government regulation set up?

I have no doubt that some of you on the left of this issue mean well, that is, that you have good intentions, but I seriously question whether you have ever spent more than 30 seconds trying to think through the real world consequences of enacting your pet policies. You have certainly never given the downsides any serious consideration, even for a mere 30 seconds.

The downside was obvious. Just check with Taxachussets. You have companies that no longer have to sell you anything, you MUST buy. What does anyone think would happen? The healthcare law, which healthcare people were vehemently against at the start, gave the healthcare industry guaranteed customers, which promptly made the healthcare industry do a 180 and now you hear NOTHING from them about it. They are happier than pigs in shit.

You can shop around. Just during the enrollment window. Next time don't vote for one moron because you like the other moron less. Vote third party. Want to change the status quo? Then quit voting to keep it.

 

[Swiper]

Prices started getting out of control when the majority of insurance companies became for-profit. At that point everything went to hell.

so u don't like for profit companies?

 

[Swiper]

The downside was obvious. Just check with Taxachussets. You have companies that no longer have to sell you anything, you MUST buy. What does anyone think would happen? The healthcare law, which healthcare people were vehemently against at the start, gave the healthcare industry guaranteed customers, which promptly made the healthcare industry do a 180 and now you hear NOTHING from them about it. They are happier than pigs in shit.

You can shop around. Just during the enrollment window. Next time don't vote for one moron because you like the other moron less. Vote third party. Want to change the status quo? Then quit voting to keep it.

dude u vote for people u have no clue what they stand for. lol.

 

[Zaphod]

so u don't like for profit companies?

So you don't equate those for-profit companies with the rising cost of healthcare? They are making a profit in the healthcare business and you are complaining at how they do it. Do you punch yourself in the balls and wonder why they ache?

 

[Zaphod]

dude u vote for people u have no clue what they stand for. lol.

Believe what you want.

 

[Big Puppy]

Prices started getting out of control when the majority of insurance companies became for-profit. At that point everything went to hell.

Yeah like the non-profit organizations keep it cheap. If youre naive enough to think that non-profit organizations exist i got a bridge to sell you

 

[Swiper]

So you don't equate those for-profit companies with the rising cost of healthcare?

They are making a profit in the healthcare business and you are complaining at how they do it.

Do you punch yourself in the balls and wonder why they ache?

nice dodge of my question.

no I do not. they are making nice profits now that the Obama admin is in bed with big business with the health care industry. as you said Obama gave them customers on a silver platter.

my balls are so small I'd probably would even feel it. lol

 

[Dale Mabry]

With the implementation of Obamacare, there was no choice but for rates to go up for 2 reasons. One, allowing people with pre-existing conditions, which is universally agreed that it needed to happen. The second...The health insurance industry had a very inventive way of turning a profit. They would let you pay premiums for years, but once you became more of a liability by using your insurance and were less profitable, they would cut you. While these 2 things are likely the cause of most of the increase, I think most people agree that they these things needed to be implemented. So, in essence, insurance rates went up because companies had to start providing actual insurance.

Obamacare is a piece of shit, but the way it was before was far worse. Your rates are going up, but they are going up because you have the assurance that they can't fuck you as bad as they could before. Honestly, even though I am libertarian, I would love to see the health insurance industry die a quick, painful death and have it replaced with single payer. Optimally, we'd just have health savings accounts that accumulated over time depending on how much you used the system, which is ideal, but will never happen.

 

[LAM]

it was only before wages and price controls is when we had an almost free market in health care. Never had a free market after that. so your argument the free market is flawed is misguided. in the past before the govt dictated wages and price controls which intern companies had to compensate their employees with health insurance instead of raising wages. before all of that govt for the most part wasn't involved in the healthcare industry, people paid out of pocket for their health care needs. and almost no one got turned away. its only when govt got involved is when prices skyrocketed. when govt mandates insurance companies what they need to cover, how much they need to cover, what rx they need to cover, can't buy across state lines (which distorts competition) and ect... is when the prices get out of control.

Price controls went into effect during WWII health care rates didn't start to drastically increase at double the CPI until the 1980's, explain the 4 decade long lag if price controls and "gubment" interfering with the markets was the main cause of increasing health care costs.

Data collected across the OECD once again shows your wrong.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/09/business/econgraphic3.jpg

 

[Swiper]

Price controls went into effect during WWII health care rates didn't start to drastically increase at double the CPI until the 1980's, explain the 4 decade long lag if price controls and "gubment" interfering with the markets was the main cause of increasing health care costs.

Data collected across the OECD once again shows your wrong.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/09/business/econgraphic3.jpg

I'm not wrong at all. prices have gone up. you can read right?
what was wrong with the health care system when govt didn't distort it with wages and price controls? yea thats what i thought.