Thank you, Walmart

[natedogg]

linky

Don Beaudreax with an excellent post about an article defending Walmart, explaining why all self-styled "progressives" should be big fans of Walmart. The article includes an especially brutal takedown of those poor confused souls who criticize Walmart because some of their employees are on Medicaid.

Quote:
[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, it's ironic that Wal-Mart's enemies, who are mainly progressives, should even raise this issue. In the 1990s progressives argued loudly for the reform that allowed poor Americans to keep Medicaid benefits even if they had a job. Now that this policy is helping workers at Wal-Mart, progressives shouldn't blame the company. Besides, many progressives favor a national health system. In other words, they attack Wal-Mart for having 5 percent of its workers receive health care courtesy of taxpayers when the policy that they support would increase that share to 100 percent.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, good ol' reason and critical thinking. Remember those, all you "progressives"?

natedogg

[Overdrive]

One thing people often fail to mention when bashing WalMart is that their health insurance has no lifetime cap whatsoever. It is geared more towards taking care of catostrophic illness instead of just running to the doctor every time you have a little sniffle.

Now, Walmart does not provide wages or benefits as good as Costco. But they do give more pay and benefits than the other discounters. Walmarts pay and benefits are much, much better than Targets. Just as an example - Walmart pays up to $2.00 an hour extra for working the overnight shift (depending on locations) while Target does not pay anything extra for working overnight.

Target is just as evil, or even more evil than Walmart. They just don't get all the publicity that is focused on Walmart because they are the 800 pound gorilla.

The rest of the article you linked to makes some decent arguments. Why did you quote the one [censored] stupid part?

Obviously, progressives aren't complaining that walmart employees are receiving Medicaid benefits. They're concerned that people who work full time jobs are still poor enough to qualify. Medicaid eligibility is a marker for poverty. They could just as easily point out that 10% of walmart's workers don't even work their way above the poverty line.

[Jedi Flopper]

[ QUOTE ]
The rest of the article you linked to makes some decent arguments. Why did you quote the one [censored] stupid part?

Obviously, progressives aren't complaining that walmart employees are receiving Medicaid benefits. They're concerned that people who work full time jobs are still poor enough to qualify. Medicaid eligibility is a marker for poverty. They could just as easily point out that 10% of walmart's workers don't even work their way above the poverty line.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, so lets legislate that any corporation that operates in the US must pay its employees at least $45k per year. That will sure wipe out poverty. Of course, then you would have to pay 35 bucks for a pack of toilet paper, or you would have to figure out what to do with the 50% of people who would be unemployed.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, so lets legislate that any corporation that operates in the US must pay its employees at least $45k per year. That will sure wipe out poverty.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. Is that what you think he said ?

Read it back again :

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, progressives aren't complaining that walmart employees are receiving Medicaid benefits. They're concerned that people who work full time jobs are still poor enough to qualify.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Medicaid eligibility is a marker for poverty. They could just as easily point out that 10% of walmart's workers don't even work their way above the poverty line.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you make of it now?

[lehighguy]

He read it fine. Unlike yourself, he understands that simply wanting people to be paid more doesn't increase thier labor productivity. Wal-Marts margins are extremely thin, implying that they in fact pay thier employees the maximum amount possible for thier level of productivity.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
He read it fine. Unlike yourself, he understands that simply wanting people to be paid more doesn't increase thier labor productivity. Wal-Marts margins are extremely thin, implying that they in fact pay thier employees the maximum amount possible for thier level of productivity.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't use reason with these people. These are the same ones who support minimum wage in the face of all evidence to the contrary, not to mention price controls in general. It's religion for them.

These are the same folks who with a straight face will state sheer nonsense such as that Bush's tax cut is bad for the middle class (keeping more money is bad for me how again? I'm still scratching my head over that).

These are the same folks who think that nationlizing certain industries is a good idea. Public POwer! Yeah!

They are convinced the oil companies are immune to competition.

It's the same people who hate WalMart. You know, because it's Walmart's fault they are hiring low-wage, low-skilled workers with few opportunities for any other kind of work and are paying them accordingly. Yeah, it's WalMart's fault.

You can't get through to someone who ignores facts and denies reality.

natedogg

[Jedi Flopper]

I saw a glimpse of the power of the marketplace coming back from a Thanksgiving trip. A Walmart in Louisiana was begging to pay people $9.50 an hour or more if you have experience. The Wendy's was closed at 6:00 PM because they were begging for workers too. There was a sign up in the window offering $250 per week in bonus pay for people willing to come to work.

Why are they paying unskilled labor so much? Because the hurricane chased most of them away and now there is a huge shortage. Supply and demand work every time.

[nicky g]

"These are the same folks who with a straight face will state sheer nonsense such as that Bush's tax cut is bad for the middle class (keeping more money is bad for me how again? I'm still scratching my head over that). "

Ignoring the more general arguments about price controls etc, this is a bit of a mischaracterisation of the argument. The argument that it will hurt the middle class is based on the idea that it disproportionately benefits the rich, and that therefore the middle class will either have to pay more tax to make up for it, or receive fewer state benefits that were previously being subsidised by the rich. Now you can argue against that morally, or posit some sort of trickle down theory, but the argument is ultiamtely that the middle class will effectively end up with less money, rather than keeping more as you posit.

[superleeds]

Hows it working if all that beggings going on?