|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 22 2014 07:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) and wife Maureen were indicted on federal corruption charges Monday, the Washington Post reports.
The couple is being charged for illegally accepting gifts while McDonnell was in office.
Earlier this month, McDonnell acknowledged the scandal during his final State of the Commonwealth address, saying he was "deeply sorry" for any pain caused.
More from the Associated Press:
Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and his wife have been indicted on federal corruption charges.
Peter Carr, a spokesman for the U.S. Justice Department, says McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, were indicted Tuesday. The 14-count indictment includes conspiracy, wire fraud and other charges.
McDonnell left office earlier this month after four years in the governor's office. Virginia law limits governors to a single term. Source
Follow up...the short version of all this is that Bob McDonnell tried to help hide what his wife got him into, and their credit card debt.
Ex-first lady's email: 'We are broke... and I need help'
Richmond-Times Dispatch
The stories have been out there in pieces previously when the couple went to the Feds 12-16 months ago with separate attorneys...but this pretty much lays it all out there. Almost all the charges begin with her asking for money/gifts/loans first.
|
On January 22 2014 17:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2014 16:52 WhiteDog wrote:On January 22 2014 09:12 oneofthem wrote:
unskilled labor like walmart or mcdonalds is more or less a big labor pool, since each worker is largely indistinguishable. it's not the best market to be making teh monopsony claim
rather, capital in general has power leverage over the laborer because the laborer must work in order to live, and the reserve wage is essentially not tied to productivity. It is exactly because unskilled labor is more or less a big labor pool that it is close to a monopsony. A monopole is when there is a huge demand facing a lone offer, by contrast a monopsony is a huge offer facing a unique demand. In the situation of the labor market, the demand of labor refers to the firms asking for people to work for them - Wal Mart or Mc Donald. In this situation, they are so big that they are almost alone, facing a big pool of unskilled labor. My claim does not comes out of thin air, it has been discussed since some years now, mainly since David Card & Alan Krueger's paper on the effect of minimum wage on the fast food industry (where an increase in minimum wage in a state had a positive result on employment, paper here). Your point of view, on capital in general, is absolutly true, but that's just another perspective on the matter (a more intelligent perspective at that, because that's marxist). Danglars, I don't understand why you are so eager to defend Wal-Mart. I thought real free marketists saw both the state and big firms as the enemy of the market, both trying hard to destroy competition. Big firms have one mark against them in the free market mindset: In the world where the government is willing to manipulate the winners and losers in business, there is extensive pressure to lobby the government to protect their interests and hurt their competitors. One such process is putting onerous regulators that no small/midsize business can keep up with. Another is certain slyly crafted anti-competition or price-setting laws. Big business that cozies up to government (nowadays called Crony Capitalism) or forms collectives in the industry to hurt the consumer or markets (parts of which are included in what is sometimes called corporatism). Walmart can deliver cheap products to needy families and individuals. I personally have been helped by having a wide assortment available close by that has helped me meet my budget and fill needs. It's really not the size that matters to me. It's the state intervention, crony capitalism, and aspects of corporatism that matter to me. The phrase "too big to fail" is anathema in my book.
So you think that with no government, with no state, big firms would not exist ? Or that with no government, big firms would have no power over the market ?
About Walmart, well I love the US (I lived 5 years in north america so I know a little) but I just don't understand the seduction americans all have towards money (I've always been shocked at how casually americans says the word "business", almost an injure in France). I've heard a lot of people, even in economic papers, stating how Walmart is a great "innovation" and the sole argument for that is that it makes more money than its competition.
Walmart's business plan actually appeared in France. It is in our country that was created the idea of "super market", with "big surface" and lower prices. When it arrived, it is true that the prices were (and still are to a certain extent) lower than in most of their competition, but that doesn't mean it's an economic revolution - nor that it is charrity.
They propose cheap goods at "cheap" (and not the cheapest) price, by using their strong market power to push on production price - while taking a huge margin afterwards. Small retailers, with half or even less than half the margin of a Wal-Mart, still cannot compete on Wal-Mart's price because they don't have the same market power and can't buy goods at the same price, nor at the same quantity.
So what Wal-Mart did is basically shifting power from production to selling, pushing price down not by pushing their margin down, but by pushing producers' margin down - to a point where small producers are oftentime actually pushed to sell at a loss. Wal-Mart is the domination of the middle man. Now maybe you don't think it is not a problem, but for small farm, small business and industries this is a huge problem (and the fact that most of small business disappeared by the end of 1960 has a lot to do with the appearance of Wal-Mart like compagnies at the beginning of 1960).
Add to that the fact that big retailers destroyed small competition, that were most of time more than just "retailers" (they were part and agent of the society at large, participating in the construction of a social link), and I just can't see Wal Mart as a good thing, even if it actually "helped" (if you only have a short vision) the poorest to buy poor product at cheaper prices. Now I guess it's less of a problem in america, because it is a big country, with a smaller density than in France, but considering how rich the Walton familly is...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
austrian tinted view of government is really ancient in its style of thinkinng. think of rousseau's state of nature analogy and how abstract and unrealsitic it is, and tweak it with feudal assumptions of everyone to his own castle and we be fine. in this perfect state of nature, there comes a disturbance in the force. le state arises to fuck things up. this state is a priori conceived with perhaps some empirical inspiration in the tyrannical states of the continent at the time, but really is just a big fantasy play
|
On January 23 2014 01:51 oneofthem wrote:
austrian tinted view of government is really ancient in its style of thinkinng. think of rousseau's state of nature analogy and how abstract and unrealsitic it is, and tweak it with feudal assumptions of everyone to his own castle and we be fine. in this perfect state of nature, there comes a disturbance in the force. le state arises to fuck things up. this state is a priori conceived with perhaps some empirical inspiration in the tyrannical states of the continent at the time, but really is just a big fantasy play
Rousseau's state of nature is brilliant tho, and backed out by some ground evidence.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 23 2014 01:56 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 01:51 oneofthem wrote:
austrian tinted view of government is really ancient in its style of thinkinng. think of rousseau's state of nature analogy and how abstract and unrealsitic it is, and tweak it with feudal assumptions of everyone to his own castle and we be fine. in this perfect state of nature, there comes a disturbance in the force. le state arises to fuck things up. this state is a priori conceived with perhaps some empirical inspiration in the tyrannical states of the continent at the time, but really is just a big fantasy play Rousseau's state of nature is brilliant tho, and backed out by some ground evidence.
the style of thinking is a bit lacking though. you can clearly see that
1. starts from a conception or vision of how things work, rather than filling out the picture through empirical investigation gradually.
2. has actors and forces that are typecast from the start. so and so is this and this way and thus they will surely do these things.
i like rousseau better than shit tier hobbes so i guess i should have used hobbes as an example
|
On January 23 2014 01:56 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 01:51 oneofthem wrote:
austrian tinted view of government is really ancient in its style of thinkinng. think of rousseau's state of nature analogy and how abstract and unrealsitic it is, and tweak it with feudal assumptions of everyone to his own castle and we be fine. in this perfect state of nature, there comes a disturbance in the force. le state arises to fuck things up. this state is a priori conceived with perhaps some empirical inspiration in the tyrannical states of the continent at the time, but really is just a big fantasy play Rousseau's state of nature is brilliant tho, and backed out by some ground evidence.
Yes but the brilliance in Rousseau's writing comes not from its accuracy but rather its place in the time-line of political philosophy, particularly in relation to the other Enlightenment thinkers of the time.
|
On January 23 2014 01:18 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2014 17:56 Danglars wrote:On January 22 2014 16:52 WhiteDog wrote:On January 22 2014 09:12 oneofthem wrote:
unskilled labor like walmart or mcdonalds is more or less a big labor pool, since each worker is largely indistinguishable. it's not the best market to be making teh monopsony claim
rather, capital in general has power leverage over the laborer because the laborer must work in order to live, and the reserve wage is essentially not tied to productivity. It is exactly because unskilled labor is more or less a big labor pool that it is close to a monopsony. A monopole is when there is a huge demand facing a lone offer, by contrast a monopsony is a huge offer facing a unique demand. In the situation of the labor market, the demand of labor refers to the firms asking for people to work for them - Wal Mart or Mc Donald. In this situation, they are so big that they are almost alone, facing a big pool of unskilled labor. My claim does not comes out of thin air, it has been discussed since some years now, mainly since David Card & Alan Krueger's paper on the effect of minimum wage on the fast food industry (where an increase in minimum wage in a state had a positive result on employment, paper here). Your point of view, on capital in general, is absolutly true, but that's just another perspective on the matter (a more intelligent perspective at that, because that's marxist). Danglars, I don't understand why you are so eager to defend Wal-Mart. I thought real free marketists saw both the state and big firms as the enemy of the market, both trying hard to destroy competition. Big firms have one mark against them in the free market mindset: In the world where the government is willing to manipulate the winners and losers in business, there is extensive pressure to lobby the government to protect their interests and hurt their competitors. One such process is putting onerous regulators that no small/midsize business can keep up with. Another is certain slyly crafted anti-competition or price-setting laws. Big business that cozies up to government (nowadays called Crony Capitalism) or forms collectives in the industry to hurt the consumer or markets (parts of which are included in what is sometimes called corporatism). Walmart can deliver cheap products to needy families and individuals. I personally have been helped by having a wide assortment available close by that has helped me meet my budget and fill needs. It's really not the size that matters to me. It's the state intervention, crony capitalism, and aspects of corporatism that matter to me. The phrase "too big to fail" is anathema in my book. So you think that with no government, with no state, big firms would not exist ? Or that with no government, big firms would have no power over the market ? About Walmart, well I love the US (I lived 5 years in north america so I know a little) but I just don't understand the seduction americans all have towards money (I've always been shocked at how casually americans says the word "business", almost an injure in France). I've heard a lot of people, even in economic papers, stating how Walmart is a great "innovation" and the sole argument for that is that it makes more money than its competition. Walmart's business plan actually appeared in France. It is in our country that was created the idea of "super market", with "big surface" and lower prices. When it arrived, it is true that the prices were (and still are to a certain extent) lower than in most of their competition, but that doesn't mean it's an economic revolution - nor that it is charrity. They propose cheap goods at "cheap" (and not the cheapest) price, by using their strong market power to push on production price - while taking a huge margin afterwards. Small retailers, with half or even less than half the margin of a Wal-Mart, still cannot compete on Wal-Mart's price because they don't have the same market power and can't buy goods at the same price, nor at the same quantity. So what Wal-Mart did is basically shifting power from production to selling, pushing price down not by pushing their margin down, but by pushing producers' margin down - to a point where small producers are oftentime actually pushed to sell at a loss. Wal-Mart is the domination of the middle man. Now maybe you don't think it is not a problem, but for small farm, small business and industries this is a huge problem (and the fact that most of small business disappeared by the end of 1960 has a lot to do with the appearance of Wal-Mart like compagnies at the beginning of 1960). Add to that the fact that big retailers destroyed small competition, that were most of time more than just "retailers" (they were part and agent of the society at large, participating in the construction of a social link), and I just can't see Wal Mart as a good thing, even if it actually "helped" (if you only have a short vision) the poorest to buy poor product at cheaper prices. Now I guess it's less of a problem in america, because it is a big country, with a smaller density than in France, but considering how rich the Walton familly is...
It should be noted that Wal-Mart is also a highly innovative and efficient company (particularly in the supply chain) - bargaining power with suppliers plays a role today, but it could not be the whole story, obviously, since bargaining power was a negative early on in the company's history.
Wal-Mart and other discount retailers tend to earn thin margins. So the lower prices are being shifted to the consumer, rather than to the larger retailers.
I don't see why shifting bargaining power from producers to sellers would be a bad thing. Why should producers have more bargaining power than sellers? It's really odd for you to argue that Wal-Mart's bargaining power is a bad thing, while not acknowledging that P&G's bargaining power is quite large as well.
Finally, only some small businesses have gone away because of Wal-Mart. There are many, many left.
|
Rousseau was a terrible person and a terrible thinker. His most famous works are obviously the worst lol.
And his "best" stuff is negligeable and people usually don't even know about it (he tried to make some interesting Constitution drafts).
|
On January 23 2014 02:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 01:18 WhiteDog wrote:On January 22 2014 17:56 Danglars wrote:On January 22 2014 16:52 WhiteDog wrote:On January 22 2014 09:12 oneofthem wrote:
unskilled labor like walmart or mcdonalds is more or less a big labor pool, since each worker is largely indistinguishable. it's not the best market to be making teh monopsony claim
rather, capital in general has power leverage over the laborer because the laborer must work in order to live, and the reserve wage is essentially not tied to productivity. It is exactly because unskilled labor is more or less a big labor pool that it is close to a monopsony. A monopole is when there is a huge demand facing a lone offer, by contrast a monopsony is a huge offer facing a unique demand. In the situation of the labor market, the demand of labor refers to the firms asking for people to work for them - Wal Mart or Mc Donald. In this situation, they are so big that they are almost alone, facing a big pool of unskilled labor. My claim does not comes out of thin air, it has been discussed since some years now, mainly since David Card & Alan Krueger's paper on the effect of minimum wage on the fast food industry (where an increase in minimum wage in a state had a positive result on employment, paper here). Your point of view, on capital in general, is absolutly true, but that's just another perspective on the matter (a more intelligent perspective at that, because that's marxist). Danglars, I don't understand why you are so eager to defend Wal-Mart. I thought real free marketists saw both the state and big firms as the enemy of the market, both trying hard to destroy competition. Big firms have one mark against them in the free market mindset: In the world where the government is willing to manipulate the winners and losers in business, there is extensive pressure to lobby the government to protect their interests and hurt their competitors. One such process is putting onerous regulators that no small/midsize business can keep up with. Another is certain slyly crafted anti-competition or price-setting laws. Big business that cozies up to government (nowadays called Crony Capitalism) or forms collectives in the industry to hurt the consumer or markets (parts of which are included in what is sometimes called corporatism). Walmart can deliver cheap products to needy families and individuals. I personally have been helped by having a wide assortment available close by that has helped me meet my budget and fill needs. It's really not the size that matters to me. It's the state intervention, crony capitalism, and aspects of corporatism that matter to me. The phrase "too big to fail" is anathema in my book. So you think that with no government, with no state, big firms would not exist ? Or that with no government, big firms would have no power over the market ? About Walmart, well I love the US (I lived 5 years in north america so I know a little) but I just don't understand the seduction americans all have towards money (I've always been shocked at how casually americans says the word "business", almost an injure in France). I've heard a lot of people, even in economic papers, stating how Walmart is a great "innovation" and the sole argument for that is that it makes more money than its competition. Walmart's business plan actually appeared in France. It is in our country that was created the idea of "super market", with "big surface" and lower prices. When it arrived, it is true that the prices were (and still are to a certain extent) lower than in most of their competition, but that doesn't mean it's an economic revolution - nor that it is charrity. They propose cheap goods at "cheap" (and not the cheapest) price, by using their strong market power to push on production price - while taking a huge margin afterwards. Small retailers, with half or even less than half the margin of a Wal-Mart, still cannot compete on Wal-Mart's price because they don't have the same market power and can't buy goods at the same price, nor at the same quantity. So what Wal-Mart did is basically shifting power from production to selling, pushing price down not by pushing their margin down, but by pushing producers' margin down - to a point where small producers are oftentime actually pushed to sell at a loss. Wal-Mart is the domination of the middle man. Now maybe you don't think it is not a problem, but for small farm, small business and industries this is a huge problem (and the fact that most of small business disappeared by the end of 1960 has a lot to do with the appearance of Wal-Mart like compagnies at the beginning of 1960). Add to that the fact that big retailers destroyed small competition, that were most of time more than just "retailers" (they were part and agent of the society at large, participating in the construction of a social link), and I just can't see Wal Mart as a good thing, even if it actually "helped" (if you only have a short vision) the poorest to buy poor product at cheaper prices. Now I guess it's less of a problem in america, because it is a big country, with a smaller density than in France, but considering how rich the Walton familly is... It should be noted that Wal-Mart is also a highly innovative and efficient company (particularly in the supply chain) - bargaining power with suppliers plays a role today, but it could not be the whole story, obviously, since bargaining power was a negative early on in the company's history. Wal-Mart and other discount retailers tend to earn thin margins. So the lower prices are being shifted to the consumer, rather than to the larger retailers. I don't see why shifting bargaining power from producers to sellers would be a bad thing. Why should producers have more bargaining power than sellers? It's really odd for you to argue that Wal-Mart's bargaining power is a bad thing, while not acknowledging that P&G's bargaining power is quite large as well. Finally, only some small businesses have gone away because of Wal-Mart. There are many, many left.
Wal-mart basically wipes out small business retailers -- particularly in small towns.
|
On January 23 2014 03:03 Boblion wrote:
Rousseau was a terrible person and a terrible thinker. His most famous works are obviously the worst lol.
And his "best" stuff is negligeable and people usually don't even know about it (he tried to make some interesting Constitution drafts).
I disagree. He was a terrible person, sure, but his thinking basically gave birth to critical theory - and he is still the basis of all theory that put forwards the problems that arise when we make society (it's not my take on the subject, it's Axel Honneth's take). But I've understood it is a trend for philosopher to dislike his work (I've heard teachers in philosophy saying how bad his work is), most certainly it is my lack of knowledge in the discipline that makes me like his perspective, as flawed as it can be.
I would gladly learn more on the subject.
|
Let's not forget labor markets in general.
ABSTRACT
We estimate the effects of Wal-Mart stores on county-level retail employment and earnings, accounting for endogeneity of the location and timing of Wal-Mart openings that most likely biases the evidence against finding adverse effects of Wal-Mart stores. We address the endogeneity problem using a natural instrumental variables approach that arises from the geographic and time pattern of the opening of Wal-Mart stores, which slowly spread out from the first stores in Arkansas. The employment results indicate that a Wal-Mart store opening reduces county-level retail employment by about 150 workers, implying that each Wal-Mart worker replaces approximately 1.4 retail workers. This represents a 2.7 percent reduction in average retail employment. The payroll results indicate that Wal-Mart store openings lead to declines in county-level retail earnings of about $1.4 million, or 1.5 percent. Of course, these effects occurred against a backdrop of rising retail employment, and only imply lower retail employment growth than would have occurred absent the effects of Wal-Mart.
The Effects of Wal-Mart on Local Labor Markets
And WhiteDog, you give Boblion too much credit.
|
On January 23 2014 03:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 02:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 01:18 WhiteDog wrote:On January 22 2014 17:56 Danglars wrote:On January 22 2014 16:52 WhiteDog wrote:On January 22 2014 09:12 oneofthem wrote:
unskilled labor like walmart or mcdonalds is more or less a big labor pool, since each worker is largely indistinguishable. it's not the best market to be making teh monopsony claim
rather, capital in general has power leverage over the laborer because the laborer must work in order to live, and the reserve wage is essentially not tied to productivity. It is exactly because unskilled labor is more or less a big labor pool that it is close to a monopsony. A monopole is when there is a huge demand facing a lone offer, by contrast a monopsony is a huge offer facing a unique demand. In the situation of the labor market, the demand of labor refers to the firms asking for people to work for them - Wal Mart or Mc Donald. In this situation, they are so big that they are almost alone, facing a big pool of unskilled labor. My claim does not comes out of thin air, it has been discussed since some years now, mainly since David Card & Alan Krueger's paper on the effect of minimum wage on the fast food industry (where an increase in minimum wage in a state had a positive result on employment, paper here). Your point of view, on capital in general, is absolutly true, but that's just another perspective on the matter (a more intelligent perspective at that, because that's marxist). Danglars, I don't understand why you are so eager to defend Wal-Mart. I thought real free marketists saw both the state and big firms as the enemy of the market, both trying hard to destroy competition. Big firms have one mark against them in the free market mindset: In the world where the government is willing to manipulate the winners and losers in business, there is extensive pressure to lobby the government to protect their interests and hurt their competitors. One such process is putting onerous regulators that no small/midsize business can keep up with. Another is certain slyly crafted anti-competition or price-setting laws. Big business that cozies up to government (nowadays called Crony Capitalism) or forms collectives in the industry to hurt the consumer or markets (parts of which are included in what is sometimes called corporatism). Walmart can deliver cheap products to needy families and individuals. I personally have been helped by having a wide assortment available close by that has helped me meet my budget and fill needs. It's really not the size that matters to me. It's the state intervention, crony capitalism, and aspects of corporatism that matter to me. The phrase "too big to fail" is anathema in my book. So you think that with no government, with no state, big firms would not exist ? Or that with no government, big firms would have no power over the market ? About Walmart, well I love the US (I lived 5 years in north america so I know a little) but I just don't understand the seduction americans all have towards money (I've always been shocked at how casually americans says the word "business", almost an injure in France). I've heard a lot of people, even in economic papers, stating how Walmart is a great "innovation" and the sole argument for that is that it makes more money than its competition. Walmart's business plan actually appeared in France. It is in our country that was created the idea of "super market", with "big surface" and lower prices. When it arrived, it is true that the prices were (and still are to a certain extent) lower than in most of their competition, but that doesn't mean it's an economic revolution - nor that it is charrity. They propose cheap goods at "cheap" (and not the cheapest) price, by using their strong market power to push on production price - while taking a huge margin afterwards. Small retailers, with half or even less than half the margin of a Wal-Mart, still cannot compete on Wal-Mart's price because they don't have the same market power and can't buy goods at the same price, nor at the same quantity. So what Wal-Mart did is basically shifting power from production to selling, pushing price down not by pushing their margin down, but by pushing producers' margin down - to a point where small producers are oftentime actually pushed to sell at a loss. Wal-Mart is the domination of the middle man. Now maybe you don't think it is not a problem, but for small farm, small business and industries this is a huge problem (and the fact that most of small business disappeared by the end of 1960 has a lot to do with the appearance of Wal-Mart like compagnies at the beginning of 1960). Add to that the fact that big retailers destroyed small competition, that were most of time more than just "retailers" (they were part and agent of the society at large, participating in the construction of a social link), and I just can't see Wal Mart as a good thing, even if it actually "helped" (if you only have a short vision) the poorest to buy poor product at cheaper prices. Now I guess it's less of a problem in america, because it is a big country, with a smaller density than in France, but considering how rich the Walton familly is... It should be noted that Wal-Mart is also a highly innovative and efficient company (particularly in the supply chain) - bargaining power with suppliers plays a role today, but it could not be the whole story, obviously, since bargaining power was a negative early on in the company's history. Wal-Mart and other discount retailers tend to earn thin margins. So the lower prices are being shifted to the consumer, rather than to the larger retailers. I don't see why shifting bargaining power from producers to sellers would be a bad thing. Why should producers have more bargaining power than sellers? It's really odd for you to argue that Wal-Mart's bargaining power is a bad thing, while not acknowledging that P&G's bargaining power is quite large as well. Finally, only some small businesses have gone away because of Wal-Mart. There are many, many left. Wal-mart basically wipes out small business retailers -- particularly in small towns.
The only time when I've seen that remotely happen is in small towns where the small retailers were terrible.
On January 23 2014 03:19 farvacola wrote:Let's not forget labor markets in general. Show nested quote +ABSTRACT
We estimate the effects of Wal-Mart stores on county-level retail employment and earnings, accounting for endogeneity of the location and timing of Wal-Mart openings that most likely biases the evidence against finding adverse effects of Wal-Mart stores. We address the endogeneity problem using a natural instrumental variables approach that arises from the geographic and time pattern of the opening of Wal-Mart stores, which slowly spread out from the first stores in Arkansas. The employment results indicate that a Wal-Mart store opening reduces county-level retail employment by about 150 workers, implying that each Wal-Mart worker replaces approximately 1.4 retail workers. This represents a 2.7 percent reduction in average retail employment. The payroll results indicate that Wal-Mart store openings lead to declines in county-level retail earnings of about $1.4 million, or 1.5 percent. Of course, these effects occurred against a backdrop of rising retail employment, and only imply lower retail employment growth than would have occurred absent the effects of Wal-Mart. The Effects of Wal-Mart on Local Labor Markets
Yeah, like I said - they're more efficient 
|
Considering that Wal-Mart employees are the single largest employer specific group recipient of Medicaid and food stamps, I'd say you're wrong.
At the end of 2012, there were 3,216 Wal-Mart employees who were enrolled in Wisconsin public health care programs, more than any other employer. Add in the dependents of Wal-Mart workers and the total jumps up to 9,207.
Factoring in what taxpayers contribute for public programs, the report estimated that one Wal-Mart supercenter employing 300 workers could cost taxpayers at least $904,000 annually.
Wal-Mart's low wages cost taxpayers
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
a flood is more efficient at putting water across land but that doesn't mean you prefer a flood over a field of rice.
mmkay
|
On January 23 2014 03:38 farvacola wrote:
Considering that Wal-Mart employees are the single largest employer specific group recipient of Medicaid and food stamps, I'd say you're wrong.
lol pretty brutal argument.
|
On January 23 2014 03:38 farvacola wrote:Considering that Wal-Mart employees are the single largest employer specific group recipient of Medicaid and food stamps, I'd say you're wrong. Show nested quote +
At the end of 2012, there were 3,216 Wal-Mart employees who were enrolled in Wisconsin public health care programs, more than any other employer. Add in the dependents of Wal-Mart workers and the total jumps up to 9,207.
Factoring in what taxpayers contribute for public programs, the report estimated that one Wal-Mart supercenter employing 300 workers could cost taxpayers at least $904,000 annually.
Wal-Mart's low wages cost taxpayers
Relevance?
Lots of small retailers with employees on benefits is better than a big retailer with employees on benefits because...
|
On January 23 2014 03:39 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 03:38 farvacola wrote:
Considering that Wal-Mart employees are the single largest employer specific group recipient of Medicaid and food stamps, I'd say you're wrong. lol pretty brutal argument.
Isnt that what this discussion is about tho. Wages are so low that they still receive massive government support to live.
|
On January 23 2014 03:38 oneofthem wrote:
a flood is more efficient at putting water across land but that doesn't mean you prefer a flood over a field of rice.
mmkay
That's a pretty bad definition of more efficient.
|
On January 23 2014 03:19 farvacola wrote:
And WhiteDog, you give Boblion too much credit.
Because i don't trust someone who couldn't even take care of his own children ?
|
On January 23 2014 03:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 03:38 farvacola wrote:Considering that Wal-Mart employees are the single largest employer specific group recipient of Medicaid and food stamps, I'd say you're wrong.
At the end of 2012, there were 3,216 Wal-Mart employees who were enrolled in Wisconsin public health care programs, more than any other employer. Add in the dependents of Wal-Mart workers and the total jumps up to 9,207.
Factoring in what taxpayers contribute for public programs, the report estimated that one Wal-Mart supercenter employing 300 workers could cost taxpayers at least $904,000 annually.
Wal-Mart's low wages cost taxpayers Relevance? Lots of small retailers with employees on benefits is better than a big retailer with employees on benefits because...
The thing is that small retailers are struggling to stay afloat while Walmart swims in a seas of money. There are people involved in this company that are so rich they could probably buy a part of Asia but they pay their employees so little that they need food stamps to survive? Like what the actual fuck
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
