A Living Wage for Walmart Associates

:yes:

What Greed advocates, whether he ever acknowledges it or not, is for the welfare state to support businesses (by supplying their employees with medical care and food) than for the businesses to pay their employees an appropriate wage.
If that's what you're basing your opposition to what I say on, then you shouldn't post anymore. How did you come to the basic assumption that I want a welfare state, let alone a welfare state that does (fill in the blank)?

You should also look back on our past conversation about the difference between economics and politics. Your idea of an appropriate wage is one that is politically appropriate. That is completely different from an economically appropriate wage level.

Once again, wages are not a form of charity. Jobs are not a form of welfare. They only take those forms when you equate political power and economic power. Jobs that are provided as a duty and wages that are given as a service is a sucker's deal for anyone who actually creates the job.
 
Well, what you mean by clean up is extra. Above and beyond. But you were off to a bad start with the very first word of your post because Walmart "could raise wages and increase productivity" this very instant by raising prices 1.1% or shedding the equivalent in profit. Your "cleaning up" is beyond the point.
I wanted to ignore your post, but its such an annoying statement.

The concept of profit maximization is the optimal goal of any business big or small. That concept isn't necessarily synonymous with market share or revenue maximization. Raising prices even 1.1% doesn't lend itself to an optimal business condition by default. It's possible that it could make things less effiicient.

The problem is you suffer from the same disease the rest of the people here suffer from, thinking that a politically acceptable solution solves all problems.
 
If that's what you're basing your opposition to what I say on, then you shouldn't post anymore. How did you come to the basic assumption that I want a welfare state, let alone a welfare state that does (fill in the blank)?You should also look back on our past conversation about the difference between economics and politics. Your idea of an appropriate wage is one that is politically appropriate. That is completely different from an economically appropriate wage level.

Once again, wages are not a form of charity. Jobs are not a form of welfare. They only take those forms when you equate political power and economic power. Jobs that are provided as a duty and wages that are given as a service is a sucker's deal for anyone who actually creates the job.
I don't really care what you want. I long ago gave up having these long, repetitive philosophical battles where you and others don't base your ideas on reality. You're ideas, when fully fleshed out and applied to the world that exists right now, would be just what I said: a welfare state for corporations and companies but no legal protections for workers.
 
You ever consider stopping with the subsidies? But of course, once you concede that the government should be in the wealth redistribution business, you have to be consistent no matter how many times it blows up in your face.

Then how do people, who work and still need to depend on food stamps and housing vouchers, support themselves and their families if their employer refuses to pay a better wage? Someone is going to have to work these jobs so "get another job" isn't an option.
 
thoughtone, it's perfectly fine that you think working the floor at Walmart is a complicated job that deserves a higher wage than what they are currently getting. Thankfully Walmart knows better.

What you don't realize is I can take everything you say as canon and it would still end up being an extremely subjective truth.

Walmart can want an employee to deliver the skills you state but still only want it at the level justified with a minimum wage salary.

Of course, I think differently about the skill requirements of a Walmart associate. But even if I agree with your premises, they don't change my conclusion that they are paid what they deserve because they are low-skilled.


You ever consider stopping with the subsidies? But of course, once you concede that the government should be in the wealth redistribution business, you have to be consistent no matter how many times it blows up in your face.


Wow, you've really taught us a lot that Walmart wants the pay scale to have no lower limit and you think that the worth of labor is worthless.
 
I don't really care what you want. I long ago gave up having these long, repetitive philosophical battles where you and others don't base your ideas on reality. You're ideas, when fully fleshed out and applied to the world that exists right now, would be just what I said: a welfare state for corporations and companies but no legal protections for workers.
If you don't want to get into what you said to me, then wouldn't it be better to stop addressing me. We can just take it for granted, that on every subject, we will disagree.

Then how do people, who work and still need to depend on food stamps and housing vouchers, support themselves and their families if their employer refuses to pay a better wage? Someone is going to have to work these jobs so "get another job" isn't an option.
What did they do before those subsidies? This country didn't have those things for 150 years. You're portraying what I say as some kind of theory, but it's actually history.

The results of that history is the modern world that you desperately value so much that you ignore all limits of decency to save it.

Before your welfare state, the primary immigrant type was poor. The knew they weren't going to get the subsidies you think are so important to the survival of poor people, but they came here in droves and sent for others to join them. They knew they wouldn't end up rich in life, but they knew they would have little limits on their lives and would be able to keep most of what they earned. The result was the number one dynamic on why this country is what it is now. They ensured their children were better off than they were.

10-15 generations making their children marginally better off, than their parents were, was the goal. Poor people being rich or even non-poor was not the point of work.

History says that dynamic worked. Your welfare promotions have no history of success. As a matter of fact, inter generational poverty has become the norm. So thanks a lot.
 
If you don't want to get into what you said to me, then wouldn't it be better to stop addressing me. We can just take it for granted, that on every subject, we will disagree.


What did they do before those subsidies? This country didn't have those things for 150 years. You're portraying what I say as some kind of theory, but it's actually history.

The results of that history is the modern world that you desperately value so much that you ignore all limits of decency to save it.

Before your welfare state, the primary immigrant type was poor. The knew they weren't going to get the subsidies you think are so important to the survival of poor people, but they came here in droves and sent for others to join them. They knew they wouldn't end up rich in life, but they knew they would have little limits on their lives and would be able to keep most of what they earned. The result was the number one dynamic on why this country is what it is now. They ensured their children were better off than they were.

10-15 generations making their children marginally better off, than their parents were, was the goal. Poor people being rich or even non-poor was not the point of work.

History says that dynamic worked. Your welfare promotions have no history of success. As a matter of fact, inter generational poverty has become the norm. So thanks a lot.


The government has always subsidized business. The railroads got free land. The canal builders got free right-of-ways. The government builds airports. Know your history!
 
The government has always subsidized business. The railroads got free land. The canal builders got free right-of-ways. The government builds airports. Know your history!
I've given a summation of history that I think is accurate.

The principle of politically driven wealth redistribution is this country has always been applied FROM the bottom TO the top. It happened then and its happening now. That's your principle not mine. Be proud of best judgment. You won, government is redistributing wealth at an unprecedented pace.
Because that's all you are saying.
If you want to take what I said to its logically conclusion, a worthless worker should be paid $0 and doesn't even qualify as a worker.
 
Chicago Wal-Mart Foe Retreats as Living Wage Stakes Rise

Chicago Wal-Mart Foe Retreats as Living Wage Stakes Rise
By Lorraine Woellert
Jul 24, 2013 11:01 PM CT

Chicago Alderman Anthony Beale says he will be celebrating this fall when a Wal-Mart SuperCenter opens in his South Side neighborhood, bringing 400 jobs and an $8.75-an-hour starting wage.

It’s a victory heavy with contradictions for Beale, who in 2006 voted to force big retailers to pay $10 an hour and benefits. The “living-wage” measure was vetoed by then-Mayor Richard Daley, opening the city’s doors to Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) Last week, the company opened its ninth store in Chicago, where it employs about 2,000.

“These are not jobs where you can pay a mortgage or raise a family,” Beale said. “I am a supporter of a living wage. But without Wal-Mart, my site would still be vacant.”

Washington Mayor Vincent Gray is living Beale’s conundrum. Gray soon must decide whether to veto a bill requiring non-unionized retailers grossing $1 billion or more a year to pay at least $12.50 an hour -- 50 percent more than the local minimum wage. The city council approved the measure on a 8-5 vote this month after intensive lobbying by civic, religious and labor leaders.

Gray, who hasn’t said whether he’s running for re-election next year, risks enraging that powerful political bloc if he vetoes the bill. If he doesn’t, Wal-Mart has vowed to abandon at least three urban renewal projects in the city’s poorest neighborhoods. Home Depot Inc., Target Corp. (TGT) and Macy’s Inc. (M) are among retailers that say they might shelve expansions if the bill becomes law.

Legislation Supporter

“People say this is a something-or-nothing proposition,” said the Reverend James Coleman, pastor of the All Nations Baptist Church in Washington and a supporter of the legislation. “Sometimes, something isn’t better than nothing.”

Persistent income inequality, a plodding recovery and the economy’s growing reliance on low-wage service jobs have given urgency to the ideal that all workers should earn enough to afford basics such as food and rent. Labor groups, church leaders and advocates for the poor say forcing employers to pay living wages would lift the economy and reduce spending on food stamps, public housing and other social services.

Congress last voted to raise the federal minimum wage in 2007 and President Barack Obama’s call to raise it to $9 from $7.25 has gone nowhere with lawmakers. That’s sent activists into states and cities, where they’re pressing municipal leaders like Gray to make a difficult call: embrace any and all job creation, or give employers, even big ones, an ultimatum that could send them packing.

‘Huge Impact’

“This has a huge impact,” said Victor Hoskins, Gray’s deputy mayor for planning and economic development, who opposes the measure. “Raising the minimum wage -- I don’t think anybody has any issue with that. Raise the minimum wage for everyone.”

In Chicago some civic leaders remain ambivalent about whether Wal-Mart’s jobs have been a net plus or minus.

“I wouldn’t say the city was worse off. But if we were doing a living wage, everybody would be better off,” said Booker Vance, pastor of St. Stephen’s Lutheran Church and a veteran of the city’s living wage battle. “People are still scraping and scrambling and trying to make ends meet. In that sense we’re not better off.”

More than 140 cities and counties have approved living wage ordinances in the past two decades, according to a study from the Urban Institute in Washington. The earliest adopters, including Baltimore, singled out city contractors. Some laws go further, forcing all employers to link pay to regional costs of living and offer benefits such as health care. Most recently, advocates claimed victories in San Jose, California, and Albuquerque, New Mexico, which raised minimum wage standards for all employers after voter referendums in November.

Higher Minimum

“A lot of it is motivated by the federal government dragging its feet,” said Jack Temple, a policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project, which supports higher minimum wages.

“You’ve seen this structural shift from an industrial to a services economy,” Temple said. “It’s low-wage jobs that have driven that shift, and that’s driving wage inequality.”

Over the next decade, retail will be the second-largest source of new employment behind health care, according to Labor Department data. The United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, which represents restaurant and retail employees, has helped organize and finance local campaigns, which are putting public pressure on employers and governments and mobilizing workers.

$7.35 an Hour

One of them is Cinnamon Tigner, 22, who said she makes $7.35 an hour at a Wendy’s in St. Louis, where she rings up orders, tends the drive-through and handles paperwork. Her fiancé earns $10 an hour managing a McDonald’s. Together they support their two-year-old daughter.

“I work every day,” Tigner said. “It’s not enough. You’re living check to check.” A pay raise might give her the chance to start saving, buy a car or maybe go back to nursing school, which she gave up when she had her daughter, she said.

“I’d have money to actually live my life instead of living day to day,” she said.

In the past year, fast food workers have walked off the job in St. Louis, Milwaukee, New York and Chicago as part of a campaign to raise minimum wages. In Washington, food court workers blocked rush-hour traffic near the White House on July 2 to protest low pay at government-owned buildings.

Singling Out

Wal-Mart spokesman Steven Restivo faults local leaders for singling out a particular industry.

“Local governments should adopt policies that encourage job creation and economic development rather than create arbitrary hurdles that create an unlevel playing field,” Restivo said.

As the number of low-wage positions multiplies, workers in those jobs are losing ground. Between 2002 and 2012, real median wages fell by 5 percent or more in five of the top 10 low-wage jobs, including food preparers, home health aides and housekeepers, Temple said.

The average sales clerk in Alaska, the state with the highest average retail pay, would have to work 262 years to match the average $6.45 million annual salary of a retail company chief executive, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The gap has widened since the recession. In Washington D.C., sales clerks earned an average $23,320 in 2012 and would have had to work more than 276 years to make a chief executive’s salary. That’s 105 years more than it would have taken in 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Ward 7

In Washington’s Ward 7, where Wal-Mart has plans to anchor an 18.5-acre town center of new homes, retail and offices, almost 26 percent of residents live in poverty, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Unemployment last year was 15 percent, the highest in the city, where joblessness is 8.5 percent.

Without Wal-Mart or another big store, the Ward 7 project can’t get financed, smaller tenants won’t come, and the community will be deprived of jobs and services, said Gary Rappaport, chief executive officer of the Rappaport Cos. in McLean, Virginia, the project developer. He and others fault the city’s living wage bill for singling out retailers.

“These are the poorest wards that need these services the most,” Rappaport said. “If retailers could make money and open stores and it’s all on a level playing field then wages should be higher everywhere.” The city loses about $1 billion a year in retail spending to neighboring Maryland and Virginia, according to the mayor’s office.

From Chicago, Beale said Wal-Mart, with its new construction, produce aisles and “starter jobs”, has made his Pullman neighborhood more attractive to other employers even before it opens. On July 16, Method Products Inc., a maker of soaps and cleaning liquids, said it would open its first U.S. factory there and hire 100 workers.

“It’s really opened up the door for all kinds of jobs to start coming back into the area,” Beale said, even as he stands by his 2006 vote.

“At the time it was the right thing to do,” he said. “Sometimes we have to make tough decisions.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...-foe-retreats-as-living-wage-stakes-rise.html
 
I've given a summation of history that I think is accurate.

The principle of politically driven wealth redistribution is this country has always been applied FROM the bottom TO the top. It happened then and its happening now. That's your principle not mine. Be proud of best judgment. You won, government is redistributing wealth at an unprecedented pace.

If you want to take what I said to its logically conclusion, a worthless worker should be paid $0 and doesn't even qualify as a worker.

The principle of politically driven wealth redistribution is this country has always been applied FROM the bottom TO the top. It happened then and its happening now. That's your principle not mine.

Damn real it is. It has been the policy of this country from it's inception and all successful, prosperous nations in all of history. They are called taxes.

You have been asked, cajoled and begged to offer any bit of an example of where in modern history or ancient history where any successful, prosperous society or nation does not have some type of so called wealth distribution, as you right wing spinners label your talking point.


If you want to take what I said to its logically conclusion, a worthless worker should be paid $0 and doesn't even qualify as a worker.

So why would any self respecting business owner hire a useless worker at any wage And if they did wouldn't the business fail?
 
Damn real it is. It has been the policy of this country from it's inception and all successful, prosperous nations in all of history. They are called taxes.
The point of taxes is to fund government, not to shift money from the poor to the rich or to facilitate politically motivated wealth redistribution in general.

Unless you think humanity developed the idea of government just to transfer wealth.

You have been asked, cajoled and begged to offer any bit of an example of where in modern history or ancient history where any successful, prosperous society or nation does not have some type of so called wealth distribution, as you right wing spinners label your talking point.
Wealth distribution is not the same as the wealth redistribution being conducted on your behalf by the government you voted for.

So why would any self respecting business owner hire a useless worker at any wage And if they did wouldn't the business fail?
No self-respecting business owner surrounds himself with useless people. And yes, the business would fail.
 
I looked at the issue, to me it looks like there could be a racial, almost slavery component to minimum wage laws. If the government increases the minimum wage a business can simply increase the price of its goods and services. I have witnessed this happening when the Supreme Court ruled on healthcare, we immediately got rent increase notices.

So if minority racial groups are performing these menial jobs at minimum wage the issue isn't with the business owner. The increase in the minimum wage causes prices to rise which reduces the purchasing power of the majority group. The business owner is unaffected since this person can raise prices along with his competitors.

For example, a farmworker is picking oranges and earns $1000 a month. The government increases this wage to $2000. The farm owner simply raises the price of its product to the consumer. However the majority racial group wage that does not perform these type of jobs was mostly nonaffected by this wage increase however their purchasing power has decreased for this essential product.

This example can occur with construction, hotels, groceries, fast food. It reminds me of slavery which not only provided good profits to the owner, but the white consumer had their purchasing power increase tremendously being able to buy these goods cheaply. Meanwhile the slave got nothing.
 
Last edited:
I looked at the issue, to me it looks like there could be a racial, almost slavery component to minimum wage laws. If the government increases the minimum wage a business can simply increase the price of its goods and services. I have witnessed this happening when the Supreme Court ruled on healthcare, we immediately got rent increase notices.

So if minority racial groups are performing these menial jobs at minimum wage the issue isn't with the business owner. The increase in the minimum wage causes prices to rise which reduces the purchasing power of the majority group. The business owner is unaffected since this person can raise prices along with his competitors.

For example, a farmworker is picking oranges and earns $1000 a month. The government increases this wage to $2000. The farm owner simply raises the price of its product to the consumer. However the majority racial group wage that does not perform these type of jobs was mostly nonaffected by this wage increase however their purchasing power has decreased for this essential product.

This example can occur with construction, hotels, groceries, fast food. It reminds me of slavery which not only provided good profits to the owner, but the white consumer had their purchasing power increase tremendously being able to buy these goods cheaply. Meanwhile the slave got nothing.

:hmm::confused::hmm::confused::hmm::confused:
 
I looked at the issue, to me it looks like there could be a racial, almost slavery component to minimum wage laws. If the government increases the minimum wage a business can simply increase the price of its goods and services. I have witnessed this happening when the Supreme Court ruled on healthcare, we immediately got rent increase notices.

So if minority racial groups are performing these menial jobs at minimum wage the issue isn't with the business owner. The increase in the minimum wage causes prices to rise which reduces the purchasing power of the majority group. The business owner is unaffected since this person can raise prices along with his competitors.

For example, a farmworker is picking oranges and earns $1000 a month. The government increases this wage to $2000. The farm owner simply raises the price of its product to the consumer. However the majority racial group wage that does not perform these type of jobs was mostly nonaffected by this wage increase however their purchasing power has decreased for this essential product.

This example can occur with construction, hotels, groceries, fast food. It reminds me of slavery which not only provided good profits to the owner, but the white consumer had their purchasing power increase tremendously being able to buy these goods cheaply. Meanwhile the slave got nothing.

First let me say
Cointelpro usually posts some interesting posts, even if I don't agree, I enjoy reading them.


But this right here^^^^^, this post right here bruh^^^^^^

Nah bruh. :smh:
 
First let me say
Cointelpro usually posts some interesting posts, even if I don't agree, I enjoy reading them.


But this right here^^^^^, this post right here bruh^^^^^^

Nah bruh. :smh:

I get you and other blacks to pick oranges for a poverty wage or clean hotel rooms. Blacks represent five percent of the population. Therefore, we would only be five percent of the consumers, and the majority group would be the other 95 percent.

When they walk into the store or a hotel, the price of oranges to them is only a $1, keeping their grocery bill down. However, down the road, wages are doubled due to protests, the owner simply passes these costs on to the consumer.

When that majority group comes into the store, that price jumped up to $3. Multiply this by millions of people and you are looking at billions of dollars of wealth going to you. The purchasing power of the majority group declines.

I never understood why minimum wage is resisted by the right and businesses until you use racial economics to understand. Down in Venezuela, Chavez instituted price controls on essential goods and services, he had to nationalize some companies that tried to create shortages in protest.

Setting a higher minimum wage is not a price control which can't be mitigated at all by a business. This pattern of behavior is similar to the higher interest rates that was charged on mortgages that was targeted at minority groups.
 
Last edited:
The point of taxes is to fund government, not to shift money from the poor to the rich or to facilitate politically motivated wealth redistribution in general.

Unless you think humanity developed the idea of government just to transfer wealth.


Wealth distribution is not the same as the wealth redistribution being conducted on your behalf by the government you voted for.

You and your wing nut catch phrases, wealth re-distribution, shifting money. When homeowner tax deductions are used to encourage home sales or when taxes are used to fund public transportation and fund schools, you are funding government and redistribution wealth. There is no separation in terms. You may have an issue to what extant the amount of money is used for these purposes, but it is all funding the government.

No self-respecting business owner surrounds himself with useless people. And yes, the business would fail.

So your entire argument has blown up in your face. Raising the minimum wage will not do any harm to Walmart's business!

Thank you.
 
source: Occupy Democrats


Walmart Fuming After ‘Living Wage’ Bill Approved By D.C. City Legislators

Despite threats from Wal-Mart, the Washington, D.C. legislators have approved the “living wage” bill. One supporting council member, Vincent B. Orange (D), said, “The question here is a living wage; it’s not whether Wal-Mart comes or stays.” He continued, “We’re at a point where we don’t need retailers. Retailers need us.”

It is unclear yet what kind of chances the bill has of being signed into law. There may be opposition in the form of Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D), who has argued in the past in favor of Wal-Mart’s entry. If Wal-Mart follows through and backs out of D.C., that would mean the cancellation of three proposed sites. There are three more already being constructed, and Wal-Mart plans to look at the costs of not opening them, assuming the bill is signed. ‘

The Washington Post reports, “The vote sets up a high-profile veto decision for Gray, who has supported Wal-Mart’s entry into the city, arguing that the company would bring badly needed jobs and retail stores to neighborhoods in need of both. The three stores that the company has pledged definitively not to pursue are all in the city’s eastern half, in areas largely devoid of quality retail.” They go on to say, “Gray, who has met recently with Wal-Mart representatives, reiterated serious concerns over the lost jobs and retail opportunities for District residents that the bill will cause,’ in a statement released after the council vote.”

It is unclear at this time what level of “quality retail” Wal-Mart would provide, and Gray’s support of the retail giant doesn’t bode well for the future of the living wage bill, which specifically targets large, profitable employers, forcing them to give employees enough to live on (or closer to it) so that the taxpayers can stop subsidizing the working poor, forcing cheap and greedy corporate employers to pick up the tab instead. Stores with corporate sales totaling more than $1 billion and larger than 75,000 square feet would have to pay $12.50 per hour, 50 percent more than the city’s minimum wage, $8.25.

In preparation for the battle, Wal-Mart is paying David W. Wilmot, a local lobbyist, $10,000 to try and work things out. They’ve also spent quite a bit of money trying to improve their image and local support:
Well before it had any solid plans to open stores in the District, Wal-Mart joined the D.C. Chamber of Commerce and began making inroads with politicians, community groups and local charities that work on anti-hunger initiatives.

The campaign was matched with cash. Through its charitable foundation, Wal-Mart made $3.8 million in donations last year to city organizations including D.C. Central Kitchen and the Capitol Area Food Bank, according to a company spokesman. (Source)
Wal-Mart can definitely afford a wage increase. The question of whether they will support one is determined by which they care more about, profits or people — and they’ve clearly shown, again and again, which of those it is.


<IFRAME height=315 src="//www.youtube.com/embed/G9Tlw6i2xzw" frameBorder=0 width=560 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>
 
Relevant Parties = Walmart

Irrelevant Parties = Employees.

The employees are only irrelevant because they left their best interest up to politicians.

Hopefully everyone will get what they deserve for the choices they've made. And everyone who ends up worse off should reassess their outlook.
 
2007_chevrolet_silverado_2500hd_ironwood_mi_98568420058068745.jpg


DC and San Fran is saying no to Plutocratic Capitalism. It is about government and regulation, how did they expect to come up in DC and disrespect the culture.

:lol::lol::lol:

If Walmart wants to reduce labor costs, there are other ways for them that they should explore.

The NBA and NFL have salary caps to keep salaries from escalating out of control. Why can't the middle class to stop economic depravity?
 
Last edited:
The employees are only irrelevant because they left their best interest up to politicians.

Hopefully everyone will get what they deserve for the choices they've made. And everyone who ends up worse off should reassess their outlook.

You can bet Walmart will be better off either way.

source: Huffington Post

Walmart Heirs Worth Same Amount As Bottom 40 Percent Of Americans In 2010: Analysis

s-WALTONS-NET-WORTH-large.jpg


The six heirs to the Walmart fortune are worth as much as nearly half of all American households.

The Walton family was worth $89.5 billion in 2010, the same as the bottom 41.5 percent of U.S. families combined, according to Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute. That's 48.8 million American households in total.

Sylvia Allegreto of the University of California at Berkeley found last year that the six children of Walmart founders Sam and James “Bud” Walton had the same net worth in 2007 as the bottom 30 percent of American households. But between 2007 and 2010, that net worth rose, while the incomes of most Americans declined, explaining the three-year shift, Bivens notes.

While Walmart heirs are some of the wealthiest people in the world -- two of them are among the top five world’s richest women, according to Wealth X -- many of the employees that work with the company likely fall among that bottom 40 percent of American earners. The company has driven down American wages by outsourcing much of its distribution work to warehouses across the country, according to a recent report from the National Employment Law Project.

In addition, bringing a new Walmart to town may cost a community big time in lost wages. A planned Seattle-area Walmart could cost the area $14.5 million in lost wages over the next 20 years, a local advocacy group found in April.

The discrepancy between the Waltons’ wealth and that of the rest of the country may be huge, but it's just one example of the prevalence of income inequality in America. The top one percent of American earners saw their incomes spike 275 percent between 1979 and 2007, while the bottom one-fifth of Americans saw their wealth grow by only 20 percent during the same period, according to the Congressional Budget Office. In addition, the top 10 percent of U.S. earners control two-thirds of the country’s wealth.
 
Relevant Parties = Walmart

Irrelevant Parties = Employees.


Yep.

What's stopping them from doing that now?

They won't. They want to suck the blood of the poor.

Wal Mart has oversaturated the suburban/rural market and their competition has followed so now they need to go into cities to continue growing. They need DC and Chicago and other cities where they're having this fight as much as the cities need the jobs and possible tax revenue.
Going into cities with living wage laws is good for the workers and good for Wal Mart in the long term but if you're an ideologue, you can't see this.
 
Yep.



Wal Mart has oversaturated the suburban/rural market and their competition has followed so now they need to go into cities to continue growing.

And the Walmarts of the world are taking advantage of this phenomenon:


source: Lancaster Online

Poverty growing faster in county's suburbs than the city

Sharp increase here in number of people outside city getting free school lunches, food stamps


Shortly before 9 a.m. on a sweltering Wednesday, yellow-shirted volunteers at the Hempfield Area Food Pantry scurry about, preparing for the deluge.

Tables are laden with cakes and breads, shelves stocked with canned foods, cereal and fresh vegetables. Huge bags of rice dominate a corner of one room in the bottom floor of Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church in Landisville, where the food pantry distributes food Mondays and Wednesdays.

There's plenty of food to feed the suburban masses. But the masses are growing.

"We just had 21 new client families sign up last month," said president Dave Bleil. The pantry now serves well over 300 families, an all-time high. Some clients are elderly, some are immigrants who speak little English and some are on disability.

INTERACTIVE MAP: Poverty in the Suburbs

Some, such as Kimberly Drace, seem like typical suburban moms.

"We've been coming here for about three years," said Drace, as she bounced 1-year-old daughter, Brooklyn, on her lap and 4-year-old son, Dakota, played at her feet. She and her husband have six kids to feed — three of their own, three from his previous marriage.

Her husband works full time, "but we can't get food stamps; he makes too much money," Drace said. "I don't know what we'd do without this."

In the wake of the Great Recession, food pantries, clothing banks and similar operations have seen demand for aid soar. But here and around the country, demand has grown the most where it's expected least: the suburbs.

"There's always been poverty in the Hempfield area," said food pantry vice president Diane Gerlach. "But nothing like it is now."

In a major study unveiled last month, the Brookings Institute reported that, for the first time, the number of poor people living in suburban areas increased 67 percent between 2000 and 2011 — more than twice the growth rate in cities.

To be sure, both nationwide and in Lancaster County, poverty remains concentrated in urban areas. In the School District of Lancaster, for example, nearly 81 percent of students qualify for a free or reduced-price school lunch, up from 72 percent in in 2005 and by far the highest number in the county.

But in the Manheim Township and Warwick school districts, the percentage of eligible pupils has more than doubled over the same period. In East Hempfield Township, the number of people receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits — commonly called food stamps — nearly tripled between 2008 and 2013.

The trend is worrying, experts say, because the infrastructure created to wage war on poverty remains concentrated in urban areas even as poverty has moved out to the suburbs. Despite longer lines at the Hempfield Area Food Pantry and similar operations, the suburban poor remain largely hidden and, as a result, underserved.

"What the suburbanization of poverty means is that [the poor] are now dispersed, less visible, less able to organize, and thus without much of a voice," said Dr. Antonio Callari, chairman of the economics department and director of the Local Economy Center at Franklin & Marshall College.

"Large numbers of the poor will remain poor. But they will suffer their poverty in anonymity."

A poorer place
Defining "the suburbs" in Lancaster County is tricky. Few might describe places such as West Lampeter or East Cocalico townships as "suburban" — though both have seen a significant amount of suburban development.

And while Lancaster County remains largely rural, new suburban development also have turned portions of the county into "bedroom communities" for Philadelphia, Harrisburg and Baltimore.

But as a whole, Lancaster County is a poorer place than it was.

The 2000 Census counted 35,547 people in Lancaster County living below the poverty line, 7.8 percent of the local population. By 2011, the Census Bureau's American Community Survey estimated that the number of local people living below the poverty line had risen to 49,400 — 9.9 percent.

The ACS uses estimates, and the numbers aren't definitive. But other statistics show that need overall is up — and increasing faster outside the county's urban cores.

Countywide, the number of residents enrolled in the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) — food stamps — rose from 29,766 in April 2008 to 55,991 in April 2013, according to data from the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare.

In the City of Lancaster, the number of food stamp recipients rose from 15,211 in 2007 to 23,341 this year — a 53 percent increase. But Mount Joy Township saw a 222 percent increase. East Hempfield Township saw a 152 percent increase; West Lampeter 150 percent; Manheim Township 135 percent.

Some rural municipalities fared even worse. Bart Township saw a tenfold increase — from 12 people receiving benefits in 2007 to 120 this year. East Drumore Township saw the number of SNAP recipients rise from 40 to 172, a 330 percent rise; West Cocalico Township saw a 361 percent increase, from 71 to 327 over the same spell.

Or consider the number of schoolchildren here eligible for free or reduced-price school lunches. In October 2005, 19,216 students at area districts qualified; by October 2012, that number had risen to 27,466.

As has long been the case, the School District of Lancaster had the most eligible pupils.

The 8,563 students eligible in 2005 (72.3 percent of the student body) had grown to 9,043 in 2012 (80.8 percent of the student body). That's an increase of 480 kids.

But in Manheim Township, the number of eligible students rose from 588 to 1,517 — 929 kids. And eligible students as a percentage of the overall student body more than doubled, from 11.2 percent to 26.2 percent.

Conestoga Valley, Ephrata, Hempfield, Penn Manor and Solanco also saw greater increases in the number of eligible pupils than city schools did.

Suburban and rural districts also are seeing a surge in homeless students. In 2011, according to story in the Sunday News, the School District of Lancaster had by far the most homeless students, with more than 1,000. But Hempfield outpaced all the other suburban and rural school districts with 297 — a figure that continues to grow, according to district superintendent Dr. Brenda Becker.

That number increased to 324 for the 2012-13 school year.

"Where you have communities that are more 'walkable,' where it's easier for people to depend on public transportation, that tends to attract more folks in a transient situation," Becker said. "Where you see more rental properties, if they are not on the high end, you will see more transience."

Recession hits
What's going on? The Great Recession is an obvious answer.

"We knew there was poverty in this community," said the Rev. Matthew Lenahan, pastor of Zion Lutheran Church in Akron, where the Peter's Porch program serves a free hot breakfast the third Saturday of every month and distributes food, clothing and household items.

"We were connected to Akron Elementary school, where one in three students get a reduced-price or free lunch; it wasn't like we woke up one day and it was here."

But when the recession hit, "It was unbelievable — we went from 60 people coming [to Peter's Porch] to a couple hundred showing up, all within a few months. It just exploded."

Dr. Gene Freeman, superintendent of the Manheim Township School District, thinks the economy is to blame.

"More parents/guardians are without jobs or [are experiencing] decreased employment, which directly relates to the increased needs of our student body," Freeman said in an e-mail.

The authors of the Brookings study, Elizabeth Kneebone and Michael Berube, write that the recession hit some economic sectors, such as construction, particularly hard.

In the Cocalico School District, superintendent Dr. Bruce Sensenig says the building industry's woes have been a factor in the increase in Cocalico students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches.

"We do have a heavy concentration of builders, electricians, plumbers and trades," said Sensenig. "When that industry declined, we did have more unemployed."

Brookings also cites an increase in affordable housing in the suburbs, writing that by the end of 2010, "roughly half of residents in voucher households lived in suburbs."

Said F&M's Callari: "The assumption has been that if the poor are located in more affluent neighborhoods, they will be better served: more resources would be available to help them, and poorer kids would grow up with more role-model adults around them and have better chances of escaping poverty. But, of course, this is a huge assumption to make."

Hunger and poverty
Whatever the reason, schools, social service agencies, faith-based groups and others who work to alleviate hunger and poverty are seeing a significant uptick in clients, many of whom are seeking help for the first time in their lives.

"A lot of people who come to us have never utilized any kind of public service before," said Lenahan, of Akron's Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church. "They're new to this kind of need, but they'll say, 'Here are our circumstances: Job loss, unemployment, high medical bills and rising costs, most of it resulting from un- and underemployment."

Bob Thomas is President of Tabor Community Services, which like many of the organizations that help the poor in Lancaster County is located in the city. Traditionally, Thomas said, a slight majority of the clients using Tabor's services — credit counseling, mortgage and foreclosure counseling, housing for the homeless and rental counseling — have been from the city. But in recent years, he said, the number of clients from outside the city has crept steadily upward.

"Our consumer-credit counselors say that compared to the lower-income people from the city, people from the county are more likely to be carrying debt — and generally, they're more resistant to giving things up."

That, Thomas said, "suggests you're dealing with people who are accustomed to a higher standard of living, but who have then lost income... They can be reluctant to seek this kind of assistance, because it means admitting to themselves that they're really in trouble."

Joan Espenshade founded the "Power Packs" program in 2005, designed to provide food and nutritional information to families in one School District of Lancaster elementary school who were experiencing "food insecurity" on weekends, when school lunch programs are unavailable.

"We started in the School District of Lancaster because it was the most acute need," Espenshade said. But soon, she was getting requests from other school districts; now the projects serves 24 schools in five school districts, including Manheim Township, Warwick and Penn Manor.

"We've noticed a shift in our demographics," Espenshade said. "There are families who were previously two-income families and could easily stop at Ruby Tuesday's and pick up an easy dinner to go. Now they've been downsized and they're struggling with mortgage payments and maybe part-time work; and unfortunately, because they were so comfortably middle class, they have no skills to live in poverty."

But they learn, because they must.

At the Hempfield Area Food Bank, Stacey — who asked that her last name not be used — picked out supplies for herself and her 15-year-old son.

"This is actually my first time here," said Stacey, of East Petersburg, who had no idea the food pantry existed until last month.

She's on food stamps; she's been unable to find a job; the food pantry helps her and her son gets by. But she dreams of a day when things are different, when she doesn't need the help — and can give back in response to what she's received.

"One day, I'd like to be on the other side of this," she said. "Not as the person getting food from the pantry — but as the one donating."
 
What's stopping them from doing that now?

They won't. They want to suck the blood of the poor.

DC and San Fran is saying no to Plutocratic Capitalism. It is about government and regulation, how did they expect to come up in DC and disrespect the culture.

:lol::lol::lol:

If Walmart wants to reduce labor costs, there are other ways for them that they should explore.

The NBA and NFL have salary caps to keep salaries from escalating out of control. Why can't the middle class to stop economic depravity?

Wal Mart has oversaturated the suburban/rural market and their competition has followed so now they need to go into cities to continue growing. They need DC and Chicago and other cities where they're having this fight as much as the cities need the jobs and possible tax revenue.
Going into cities with living wage laws is good for the workers and good for Wal Mart in the long term but if you're an ideologue, you can't see this.
Are you guys in denial that Walmart had already been doing what I suggested? If Chicago is anything like DC, then Walmart was likely always just out the city limits and serving many of the same people anyway. Those cities then acknowledge that they were only hurting themselves and then this, relatively recent, Walmart push happened. They should go back to that model in DC because it's was obviously a trap.

Hopefully they can also figure out a way to sue to recoup the loses from breaking ground at multiple sites, then having an arbitrary political dictate come down saying you labor cost is suddenly increased by 50% in the name of "you can afford it."

Politicians use the same rhetoric as the rest of you. Sucking blood and disrespecting the culture? How? By providing tens of millions in fixed capital investment in an area that need it? By providing someone, with low-skills, a job they did't have before? By kicking off the snowballing city effect of agglomeration where it was presumably wanted and needed? For some reason, all these things are a massive slap in the face.
 
Are you guys in denial that Walmart had already been doing what I suggested? If Chicago is anything like DC, then Walmart was likely always just out the city limits and serving many of the same people anyway. Those cities then acknowledge that they were only hurting themselves and then this, relatively recent, Walmart push happened. They should go back to that model in DC because it's was obviously a trap.

Hopefully they can also figure out a way to sue to recoup the loses from breaking ground at multiple sites, then having an arbitrary political dictate come down saying you labor cost is suddenly increased by 50% in the name of "you can afford it."

Politicians use the same rhetoric as the rest of you. Sucking blood and disrespecting the culture? How? By providing tens of millions in fixed capital investment in an area that need it? By providing someone, with low-skills, a job they did't have before? By kicking off the snowballing city effect of agglomeration where it was presumably wanted and needed? For some reason, all these things are a massive slap in the face.

There's a lot of rhetoric spewed but I'll focus on the bolded.

No one is in denial. I live in Charlotte and without any living wage ordinance, they already did this. They saturated the rural areas, then the suburban areas but so did the competition. Now they're moving into the city, primarily in minority heavy areas.
DC and the other cities have the advantage here and should press it for the betterment of their citizens, not just short term but long term.

You want them to sue those cities too? So you want them to take even more tax payer money?
Strange thinking but that's how pro-corporatists are.
 
There's a lot of rhetoric spewed but I'll focus on the bolded.

No one is in denial. I live in Charlotte and without any living wage ordinance, they already did this. They saturated the rural areas, then the suburban areas but so did the competition. Now they're moving into the city, primarily in minority heavy areas.
DC and the other cities have the advantage here and should press it for the betterment of their citizens, not just short term but long term.

You want them to sue those cities too? So you want them to take even more tax payer money?
Strange thinking but that's how pro-corporatists are.
You act like Walmart finds success independent of providing something people want, whether it be a job or something to buy. They aren't some infestation that wants to move into the city. People in the city want the jobs and the products. However, politicians want their pound of flesh for themselves in the name of "The People."

You guys always cite ideology, but you are the ones with the religious belief that raising labor cost and restricting jobs leaves everyone better off "not just short term but long term." It takes a real zealot to believe a politician has an advantage over business in making people better off. Politicians provide welfare, businesses provide jobs. Your preference for a politician's welfare model comes through when you want jobs to be given as a business's duty.

Walmart should sue the city for changing the business conditions after Walmart already broke ground at multiple sites. That's not likely since governments make sure to always protect itself from such liabilities. Walmart will likely never get their money back.
 
Back
Top