Sponsored Links

[Rev_DelFuego]

Winner, Best Topic: Economy & Business 2003-2004

I opened this topic in regards to and article I have read in USAToday. It pretty much states that WalMart goes into towns with super competitive prices and puts local competitors out of business.
Do you think this is healthy for a community?

This post has been edited by Jaime: Aug 10 2004, 01:32 AM

[Christopher]

NiteGuy I am not arguing the fact of Wal Mart's tactics. I disapprove of them.
I merely pointed out that from a pure capitalistic standpoint they are almost perfect. They are a purely profit driven entity. There are no concerns for people outside the realm of profitability. Forcing the companies to seek cheaper production costs elsewhere in a purely economic standpoint is good. From a societal standpoint its brutal.
Businesses exist to make a profit. They don't exist to care for the needs of employees or the public at large. If they do they will in most cases fail.
While WalMart IMO lowers the quality of life in its surroundings the sickest part is I could not continue on without their deals. Since I make JUST enough money to get by these days the Super Center near me is a life saver. A Stephen King style Catch-22.
Wal Mart has no emotional blocks when it comes to pursuing the best possible profit margin.
As to the overall fairness of their tactics some are indeed cruel and beyond the pale IMO, but at the same time some of the businesses they take down are sometimes poorly run and would have buckled under the strains of any competition or just beyond their prime in this modern economic reality (K Mart was horribly run and a lousy store).
I have had my job outsourced in a sense. I was replaced by two fresh out of college kids for the price it took to pay me. I am far better than they are BUT they together can equal my overall production. They will also begin to reach my numbers and still for quite some time be cheaper than I was. I hate it, it hurt like hell because I had invested so much of my time in that company. But I can't blame them. I might have thought the same way were it my company. The owner has a dream and must pursue it. I could have prepared better and continued my studies and learned new skills to be retained and even promoted. Chances had been available but I didn't pursue them. I didn't want to do any extra, So I got replaced.
As for the customers of that company because of actions like that they can now get the final product cheaper. Which they can then use to further their careers and marketability.
That is how it goes and how it should go. I am back in school and educating myself in fields that are up and coming. No sure bets on any of them but it should be enough to get in somewhere and build on it. This time when the opportunities to advance are available I will take advantage of them.
Whats my point?
My ex-company could have kept me around. I did do fantastic work
but the economy got tight and the best thing for that company was to tighten its belt and only keep those who went above and beyond. They targeted weak areas were they could get by with less and I was smack dead center.
When Wal Mart says we want your product cheaper the reality is that these days there are cheaper alternatives to anything out there. Weak business models will fail. It sucks to be employed by one of those but thats life.
As for Wal Mart unsavory practices in regards to health care, illegals, and the dead peasants insurance.
Sooner or later it all comes around. The grumbling has already begun. It takes time for it to snowball. There are many people doing investigations now. Both official and private. Wal Mart will get nailed for what it does wrong. People will begin to look for alternatives to wal Mart as the effects of Wal Marts business model become apparent.
Many people complain about Microsoft. They are unfair its always said. They stifle competition they say.
Nope they just had a better business model. They played hardball and did whatever necessary to destroy competition. They could beat everyone and did simply because they offered the most value to their customers. Only the tech geeks really complained and criticized. Well now Linux is barking at their heels.
Whole governments are dropping windows for Linux. Businesses are opening their proprietary code to the Open Source community. Microsofts time is coming to an end. A newer and better business model is being developed by the Open Source community and profit methods are being created that benefit from an almost communistic approach to product development. They are offering a better alternative price wise and flexibilty-wise and there is nothing in the end Microsoft can do to stop it.
It'll happen to Wal Mart as well some day.

[Julian]

Fair comment, Christopher - eventually, markets do correct themselves. The question is, do we have the time to wait the decades or longer that it takes for that to happen?

You said

Businesses exist to make a profit. They don't exist to care for the needs of employees or the public at large.

and you're quite right. That is what governments are for, and it is why there must be regulation of markets. This regulation is not there to spite "wealth creators", but to protect consumers from the often very long downturns in the business cycle - as you described, while one particular business model abuses workers and customers.

We must always remember that markets are there to serve people, and not to serve businesses. The businesses that best serve consumer needs will grow, and those that do not will fail, but markets are not perfect (for example, not everyone has access to every retailer. If Wal-Mart is the only store in town, they have a local monopoly) and market dominance gives dominant corporations many years' grace before their shadier practices reign in or undermine that dominance.

For example, for how many years have Microsoft been dominant? Only now are open source suppliers beginning to force competition on them again, and only then in certain markets to a certain extent - Microsoft are still globally dominant. Even if the trend towards the open source model your describe continues at the most optimistic predicted rates, it will be another decade or more before Microsoft have to compete for every customer (the only situation in which the customer can truly exercise free choice, and therefore the only situation in which the market approaches much vaunted "perfection").

In the absence of perfection, regulation is the only thing that protects consumers and workers from the cold wind of capitalism.

[Regent]

Having been offered a job at the Wal-Mart headquarters several years back, I find many of the comments here kind of interesting. I grew up in a smaller town and I have heard this debate many times over the years. Does Wal-Mart actually hurt the town or community? The real answer is both yes and no. In terms of employment opportunities for youth and others this can be a great place to gain some work experience. In terms of the mom and pop shops, Wal-Mart forces them to diversify their product lines to stay in business. One of the largest complaints is that Wal-Mart kills the diversification of products in an area. They are a discount entity at the basic level. They are great for those who do not have much to spend, but need great deals.

Their tactics have been described as less then above board by a few in here, but I find these arguments to be nothing more than conjecture with no real substance. The reality of the situation is that few of us here really know what their objectives are and the complete picture as to how they pursue their goals. One example is the fact that they do an impact analysis before building any store. This is something they do to determine not only profit margins, but the potential for backlash if they place a store in a certain area. Contrary to some opinions the management of Wal-Mart does care about their image. When I went through my series of interviews for the corporate job there were many questions and discussions on these issues.

In many suburban areas they thrive due to competition from other entities such as Kroger, Costco, Target, and other grocery chains. However, they always take the most heat as has been mentioned. The reason for this is simple. They are the most successful. Not due to tactics on store placement or other such things, but due to their ability to keep their own costs down. Their information systems are world class and among the best in the world class category. When studying this company you can see that their ability to distribute products in a just-in-time mentality is unmatched. This is achieved through their network of computers and distribution centers strategically positioned. Their transporting section of the company is very efficient and there are always efforts to reduce cost. Wal-Mart is not unionized which further allows them to offer goods and services at lower costs than many of their competitors such as Albertson’s. The strikes in California by certain grocery unions were a direct result of why Wal-Mart is more successful. The unionized chains can’t compete on cost with Wal-Mart because their unions are making unreasonable demands.

Wal-Mart creates jobs that really have no other purpose except employing the elderly. How many stores do you know that have an elderly person saying hello to you? We all know that they are not needed, but here is this company that apparently is only focused on profit paying not just one, but quite a number of people that they certainly do not need. One could argue they are doing this to try and improve their reputation, but no matter how it is spun the reality is that the job positions are unnecessary and cut into profit margins.

Wal-Mart is a good company to invest in as they are a well managed company. Many people invest their money there because they recognize a good company. They certainly are not a monopoly, but they are a tough competitor. Target and Costco survive due to the difference in their target markets. It is similar to how Lowe’s and Home Depot operate---different target niches.

The biggest of the giants always take the shots from those who are against large corporations or entities. But many who work in the corporate world look for such a company due to its stability and ability to offer excellent benefits and career opportunities. When impact assessment on any community is discussed we all need to look at both sides of the fence before passing judgement.

This post has been edited by Regent: Mar 16 2004, 04:55 PM

[jenreiautter]

I have read more than one post on this thread where someone says "I'm forced to go to Wal-Mart because that's all I can afford".

Now, I may get trounced on by a few people for saying this, but I think it's important to make some priorities.

The way things are in my household now: my fiance is supporting me, our infant daughter and my 9 year daughter from a previous relationship earning under 30,000 a year, we NEVER shop at Wall-Mart and we are living quite comfortably. I believe our secret is that we are fairly un-materialistic, aren't afraid to buy or accept things second hand, and think carefully about what we really want and need before making a purchase.

We are a very politcial family, so avoiding corporations that are exploitive is a high priorty for us. There are ways to avoid Wall-Mart and places like it if you just get creative enough.

The scary thing is -- once all of the competition is gone, and we are all working for Wall-Mart, their prices won't seem very cheap to us then . . .

This post has been edited by jenreiautter: Mar 16 2004, 06:02 PM

[pheeler]

As for Wal Mart unsavory practices in regards to health care, illegals, and the dead peasants insurance.
Sooner or later it all comes around. The grumbling has already begun. It takes time for it to snowball. There are many people doing investigations now. Both official and private. Wal Mart will get nailed for what it does wrong. People will begin to look for alternatives to wal Mart as the effects of Wal Marts business model become apparent.

I'm with you there. I don't think legislation will solve this problem, legislation has already missed its window of opportunity to do so. It's left to us as consumers to use the vote that really counts, our money, to let Walmart know we don't support liars, cheats and thieves. I haven't spent a penny there for years, and I'm working on getting my parents to stop going. Boycott Walmart, get some news coverage and spread the word about their inethical strategies/

[Christopher]

For example, for how many years have Microsoft been dominant? Only now are open source suppliers beginning to force competition on them again, and only then in certain markets to a certain extent - Microsoft are still globally dominant. Even if the trend towards the open source model your describe continues at the most optimistic predicted rates, it will be another decade or more before Microsoft have to compete for every customer (the only situation in which the customer can truly exercise free choice, and therefore the only situation in which the market approaches much vaunted "perfection").

Agreed. However without Microsoft none of the current world of tech would exist. While Apple did make home computers viable it was Microsoft that put them in everyones home. Apple has always been so very "trendy" and never would "Lower" itself to the common consumer. Microsoft itself was the alternative movement of its time in that is was a much better alternative than those that held the market at the time.
There are far too many out there with poor business models that are founded in sand. Look at the dotcom. While WalMart and Microsoft can be brutal they exist because they offer the best deal. Same as japanese compact cars handed Detroit their own backsides in the 70s and 80s. Better product that met the very real need of its customers. Everyone here screamed buy American but American products sucked. they wouldn't meet the reality of the time which was avery real need for fuel efficiency.
We haven't exactly suffered because of microsoft. New businesses and jobs exist that never would have without them and the IT market in ANY feild is much healthier and wide spread because of them. However they got cocky and greedy and will fall. Remember a sudden shift in technology ( disruptive technologies) would cause major damage economic wise not just here but globally as well.
In thenext 10 years the tech landscape will be martian lanscape in comparison to today. A veritable whole new world.
In the areas of retail and sales whole new worldveiws are necessary.
example recording industry. They still think they are in the market of selling CDs. They have forgotten about the customer. Look at Apple's music model. they are already halfway to their goal. They are proving the digital model can be wildly successful. Offer a fair deal and much of the current piracy will fall.
stores and groceries and all such type of businesses need to face the new economic reality and adapt to the new model because it will not go away.
Americans areselves need to realize that the world will now be much much harsher to those that are not ready to meet the needs of tthis new world. Those that fail will lives very nasty short unhappy lives. America needs to desperatly rethink its education policies and priorities or we will rapidly become a third world nation.
I gotta go to work now. I may branch this off into a new thread later today since I am getting away from walmart

[popeye47]

As for Wal Mart unsavory practices in regards to health care, illegals, and the dead peasants insurance.
Sooner or later it all comes around. The grumbling has already begun. It takes time for it to snowball. There are many people doing investigations now. Both official and private. Wal Mart will get nailed for what it does wrong. People will begin to look for alternatives to wal Mart as the effects of Wal Marts business model become apparent.

I'm with you there. I don't think legislation will solve this problem, legislation has already missed its window of opportunity to do so. It's left to us as consumers to use the vote that really counts, our money, to let Walmart know we don't support liars, cheats and thieves. I haven't spent a penny there for years, and I'm working on getting my parents to stop going. Boycott Walmart, get some news coverage and spread the word about their inethical strategies/

I have boycotted Walmart for the past year,also

I also go a few more miles to the Kmart or Target.

I don't believe in Walmarts treatment of employees,low paid, no benefits, telling suppliers they want a certain price or else.

I gladly paid a few more cents to get a item somewhere else. For me to not approve of their business practices and still shop there would make me a HYPOCRITE.

I have been a bargain shopper all my life. And if you buy your necessities in advance of when you need them, I can beat Walmarts regular prices. Various stores have the majority of the items I need on sale ever week.

So if an individual will spent a few extra minutes per week, They can ignore Walmart completely.

I have and still paid a lower price than advertised at Walmart.

[overlandsailor]

I also go a few more miles to the Kmart or Target.

I don't believe in Walmarts treatment of employees,low paid, no benefits, telling suppliers they want a certain price or else.

I gladly paid a few more cents to get a item somewhere else. For me to not approve of their business practices and still shop there would make me a HYPOCRITE.

I guess I am a hypocrite then because on some Items I can not find a cheaper deal in my area then Walmart. However, are you aware of the fact that Walmart owns Target as well? I know they own Lowes, but I believe they also own Target.

[Mrs. Pigpen]

However, are you aware of the fact that Walmart owns Target as well?   I know they own Lowes, but I believe they also own Target.

No, Walmart doesn't own Target. They trade under different tickers on the New York stock exchange (TGT and WMT). Target owns Marshall Field's, Dayton's, and Hudson's.

Edited to add: Are you sure they own Lowes? That is traded under another ticker, too. I've never heard this.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Mar 17 2004, 02:41 PM

[NiteGuy]

I guess I am a hypocrite then because on some Items I can not find a cheaper deal in my area then Walmart.  However, are you aware of the fact that Walmart owns Target as well?  I know they own Lowes, but I believe they also own Target.

Sorry, overlandsailor, but you are not correct.

Walmart's subsidiaries include Sam's Club, and a group of stand-alone grocery stores called Neighborhood Market.

Target, Inc., is the parent company of Marshall Fields and Mervyn department stores. There is no connection between any of these and Wal-Mart.

Same with Lowes. They are a completely separate and non-affilliated, publicly traded corporation, as far as I can see on any financials page. No connection to Wal-Mart at all.

[Paladin Elspeth]

It seems to me that Target is owned by Dayton Hudson Corporation, which also owns Mervyn's and Marshall Fields and which, in fact, is considering cutting back on those two chains because of losses.

Wal-Mart and Sam's Club are owned by the same people. There are probably other companies, distributers anyway, that are owned by Wal-Mart, but I do not know their names.

[Rev_DelFuego]

It seems to me that Target is owned by Dayton Hudson Corporation, which also owns Mervyn's and Marshall Fields and which, in fact, is considering cutting back on those two chains because of losses.

Wal-Mart and Sam's Club are owned by the same people. There are probably other companies, distributers anyway, that are owned by Wal-Mart, but I do not know their names.

The only thing you left out was the Neighborhood Hood Markets. They are grocery only Wal Marts. According to Wal Mart Watch there are 32 of them in the US, 16 of them in Texas, 6 of them in Houston. Houston was the test market 2-3 years ago, They have already spready to Oklahoma (9) , Arkansas (6), and now they are in Colorado (1). Like I said in a previous post, this is what pushed Albertsons out of town, even though they were not unionized in Texas like someone else mentioned.

This post has been edited by Rev_DelFuego: Mar 17 2004, 06:00 PM

[overlandsailor]

My mistake, I thought Wal-Mart and Target was connected. However, I was sure Wal-Mart and Lowes was connected. I heard it awhle back and just assumed it was true, same with Target. OH well, sorry about that.

[Desert Resident]

I merely pointed out that from a pure capitalistic standpoint they are almost perfect. They are a purely profit driven entity. There are no concerns for people outside the realm of profitability. Forcing the companies to seek cheaper production costs elsewhere in a purely economic standpoint is good. From a societal standpoint its brutal.
Businesses exist to make a profit. They don't exist to care for the needs of employees or the public at large. If they do they will in most cases fail. christopher

The biggest of the giants always take the shots from those who are against large corporations or entities. But many who work in the corporate world look for such a company due to its stability and ability to offer excellent benefits and career opportunities. When impact assessment on any community is discussed we all need to look at both sides of the fence before passing judgement. Regent

Agree with you both on many points in your posts...WalMart is a grand case study for imitating success by large and small businesses. As a consumer...most love WalMart....as a competitor....most hate them.

Below is a link to a WalMart article...must register to L. A. Times to read full report:

Another WalMart squeezed out by the voters:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-04070...-home-headlines

A bid by the world's largest corporation to bypass uncooperative elected officials and take its aggressive expansion plans to voters failed Tuesday, as Inglewood residents overwhelmingly rejected Wal-Mart's proposal to build a colossal retail and grocery center without an environmental review or public hearings.

With all votes counted Tuesday evening, 4,575 Inglewood residents had voted in favor of Wal-Mart's plan, while 7,049 had voted against it.

The company had spent more than $1 million on its campaign, and opponents had warned that if the company won, residents throughout California should gird for similar battles.

"What this shows is that Wal-Mart can't dupe people in this city to sign away their rights," said Mike Shimpock, a strategist for the campaign against the move. "If they spent $1 million here and lost by this margin, I doubt they'll try this elsewhere. They'll have to approach cities as equal partners."

Thwarted by officials in Inglewood and elsewhere, company strategists decided to take their proposal directly to voters, who the retailer said would be well served by new jobs, tax revenues and low prices.

The expansion encountered fierce opposition from organized labor, which insisted that Wal-Mart's aggressive business practices and anti-union employment policies would result in lost jobs and depressed wages for millions of workers.

The United Food and Commercial Workers and Teamsters amassed a seven-figure war chest to fight Wal-Mart's effort statewide and vigorously lobbied public officials.

State Democratic legislators have introduced bills that would force Wal-Mart to provide health insurance to a wider number of employees and pay for expensive economic studies before it could build stores. In Los Angeles, officials are drafting an ordinance that would effectively ban such stores from the city.

[UGA Boy]

Do you think this is healthy for a community?

Healthy? I love Wal-Mart! It is the only place I iknow where you can get an oil change for 12 DOLLARS!!!

But seriously, Wal-Mart has been increasing jobs and giving back to the community. How many mom and pop shops do you know give thousands of dollars back to their community each month?

It seems to me that if there were more Wal-Mart's the world could wuite possibly be a better place.

[Paladin Elspeth]

But seriously, Wal-Mart has been increasing jobs and giving back to the community.

Increasing and decreasing jobs in communities. Forcing small businesses to close, businesses that have been there for decades. While they "give back" to the community, many of their own employees have to send their kids to the public health departments because on their low wages they cannot afford health insurance.

How many mom and pop shops do you know give thousands of dollars back to their community each month?

Mom and pop shops, by virtue of the fact that the owners live in and have long-term acquaintances and commitments to the community, are already an integral part of the community. The owners pay their tithes in church, buy Girl Scout cookies, have collection jars on their counters for community members who have to undergo cancer surgery/chemotherapy and cannot afford it, donate their time and money to local events and charities.

Wal-Mart did not invent the practice of "increasing jobs and giving back to the community." They just do it on a grander scale and don't consider that keeping their employees at or near poverty level has a deleterious effect on a community.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Apr 8 2004, 12:27 AM

[pbottle]

I find wal-mart to be the quintessential expression of our materialism.

The country is now so wealthy from exploitation of fossil fuels and other regions of the world that our rulers can afford to let the american peasant have untrammeled access to junk. Hence, wal-mart and its ilk.

The ruthless ugliness of big-box architecture, the amount of land despoiled by these outlets, and the banality of the low-quality trash sold within mirrors the current american spirit: turn your back on the past, ignore the hard work and self-control of former generations; heedlessly destroy valuable ground once nurtured by some american for a lifetime; willfuly ignore the fine architecture and cultural icons that still exist or else surround them with freeway off-ramp sprawl. Rural opportunities vanish as quickly as the asian produced trinkets proliferate. Hope to climb the socio-economic scale keeps everyone willing to sell anything and everything.

The brave knights of the corporate round-table have a greater and bolder vision than this even. All independant life and activity will eventually be eliminated, or so they imagine. If the fuel bonanza lasts long enough, and they intend to make sure it does. Fortunately, not all - in fact the most powerful forces are not under their control. The filth will crush itself by sheer wieght - perhaps mimicing the geologic formation of the black gold. Humanity is beginning to re-assert itself, opposition blooms here and there and everywhere. Eventually the tide will turn, beauty and insularity and de-centralization will triumph and dis-mantling the ugliness will be the holy work for a generation.

[Regent]

Increasing and decreasing jobs in communities. Forcing small businesses to close, businesses that have been there for decades. While they "give back" to the community, many of their own employees have to send their kids to the public health departments because on their low wages they cannot afford health insurance.

First, Wal-Mart does not force other jobs in the community to close. These businesses close due to their inability to compete. Bashing Wal-Mart because it is more successful and is larger is a popular tactic, but unfair. Basing your argument on an appeal of emotion is touching and moving, but the facts remain that they are successful and people do not want them because of that fact. Competition is not always healthy, but the consumer almost always benefits. Competitors do not benefit and will do almost anything to protect their market.

Second, those who work at Wal-Mart, and are salary employees, have a health plan. There are even those who are not 'exempt' who also have such benefits. There are also a number of employees from many other smaller companies that also must send their kids to public health departments for small businesses simply can’t provide much insurance. What is your point here? It appears as if you are trying to paint Wal-Mart as this bad company based on this and other reasons, yet you completely ignore the fact that the same is true of the mom and pop stores.

Mom and pop shops, by virtue of the fact that the owners live in and have long-term acquaintances and commitments to the community, are already an integral part of the community. The owners pay their tithes in church, buy Girl Scout cookies, have collection jars on their counters for community members who have to undergo cancer surgery/chemotherapy and cannot afford it, donate their time and money to local events and charities.

Simply being a part of the community does not mean they give back in terms of hard dollars. Hard dollars are what the community needs in order to fund the needs and wants of the community. Girl Scout cookies and collection jars are peanuts to large private donations. But even if Wal-Mart did these things would you change your view of the company?

Wal-Mart did not invent the practice of "increasing jobs and giving back to the community." They just do it on a grander scale and don't consider that keeping their employees at or near poverty level has a deleterious effect on a community.

Can you provide any credible evidence demonstrating that Wal-Mart keeps it employees at or near the poverty level?

[popeye47]

Increasing and decreasing jobs in communities. Forcing small businesses to close, businesses that have been there for decades. While they "give back" to the community, many of their own employees have to send their kids to the public health departments because on their low wages they cannot afford health insurance.

First, Wal-Mart does not force other jobs in the community to close. These businesses close due to their inability to compete. Bashing Wal-Mart because it is more successful and is larger is a popular tactic, but unfair. Basing your argument on an appeal of emotion is touching and moving, but the facts remain that they are successful and people do not want them because of that fact. Competition is not always healthy, but the consumer almost always benefits. Competitors do not benefit and will do almost anything to protect their market.

Second, those who work at Wal-Mart, and are salary employees, have a health plan. There are even those who are not 'exempt' who also have such benefits. There are also a number of employees from many other smaller companies that also must send their kids to public health departments for small businesses simply can’t provide much insurance. What is your point here? It appears as if you are trying to paint Wal-Mart as this bad company based on this and other reasons, yet you completely ignore the fact that the same is true of the mom and pop stores.

Mom and pop shops, by virtue of the fact that the owners live in and have long-term acquaintances and commitments to the community, are already an integral part of the community. The owners pay their tithes in church, buy Girl Scout cookies, have collection jars on their counters for community members who have to undergo cancer surgery/chemotherapy and cannot afford it, donate their time and money to local events and charities.

Simply being a part of the community does not mean they give back in terms of hard dollars. Hard dollars are what the community needs in order to fund the needs and wants of the community. Girl Scout cookies and collection jars are peanuts to large private donations. But even if Wal-Mart did these things would you change your view of the company?

Wal-Mart did not invent the practice of "increasing jobs and giving back to the community." They just do it on a grander scale and don't consider that keeping their employees at or near poverty level has a deleterious effect on a community.

Can you provide any credible evidence demonstrating that Wal-Mart keeps it employees at or near the poverty level?

maybe you didn't read the followng from an earlier thread.

Walmart is not healthy for a community. My reason is the amount of money the community has to spend to help the Walmart employees who are paid a low wage and do not have any benefits.

An example

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/busine.../27walmart.html


QUOTE 


Wal-Mart stands out on rolls of PeachCare
Retailer's sign-up ratio far exceeds other firms'



A state survey found 10,261 of the 166,000 children covered by Georgia's PeachCare for Kids health insurance in September 2002 had a parent working for Wal-Mart Stores

Wal-Mart, with 42,000 workers in the state in 2002, had about one child in the health care program for every four employees. The ratio for Publix was one child in PeachCare for every 22 employees. For Shaw, it was one for every 30 employees, and for Mohawk, one for every 26 workers.

PeachCare now insures 185,000 kids. Eligibility is based on family income. State employees' children, though, are not eligible because of federal rules





So people in the community may get a lower price at Walmart but they are subsidizing the Walmart employees who are using state funds for medical help

[Hugo]

Of course the whole previous post assumes that without Wal-Mart the Wal-Mart employees would be earning more money and/ or have better benefits. A pretty absurd premise. Of course eliminate government paid for healthcare and the burden to the community is eliminated. Amazing how government intervention always neccesitates more government intervention. Wal-Mart lowers prices, giving the large majority of the community an effective raise. It benefits the poor, who spend a higher proportion of their income than the wealthy, a greater benefit.

I worked for a "mom and pop" right out of high school. That dime over minimum wage and no benefits was a great deal. Got me started.

This post has been edited by Hugo: Apr 20 2004, 11:56 PM