Walmart...
So, I was cruising The Nation online....[it's my masochistic perversion]...and I came upon this little ditty.
For the most part the article is typical socialist fodder: A 2000 study by Andrew Franklin, then an economist at the University of Connecticut, showed that Wal-Mart operated primarily in poor and working-class communities, finding, in the bone-dry language of his discipline, "a significant negative relationship between median household income and Wal-Mart's presence in the market." [...] Only 6 percent of Wal-Mart shoppers have annual family incomes of more than $100,000. A 2003 study found that 23 percent of Wal-Mart Supercenter customers live on incomes of less than $25,000 a year.
Okay so here's my beef...I was checking out family incomes in America, and guess what? Families with an annual income of $30,000 and less make up about 40% of the population...and families that make over $110,000 a year make up 5% of the population. So this would actually pretty much indicate that Walmart shoppers are pretty much a slice of America, there isn't over proportional representation of any class, as far as I can see.
Here's another money quote: Unlike so many horrible things, Wal-Mart cannot be blamed on George W. Bush.
However, the article did mention something pretty troubling: California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, who represents the 22nd Assembly District and is a former mayor of Mountain View,[...]smelled blood when, tipped off by dissatisfied workers, her office discovered that Wal-Mart was encouraging its workers to apply for public assistance, "in the middle of the worst state budget crisis in history!" California had a $38 billion deficit at the time, and Lieber was enraged that taxpayers would be subsidizing Wal-Mart's low wages, bringing new meaning to the term "corporate welfare."
See, if that is the truth, isn't it sad that it is buried in the last pages of such an article? Why don't they just go with that in the first place and forget all the Marxist fodder? I would definitely read an article explaining how Walmart is reducing labor costs – thus increasing their profit - by having welfare pay its employees.
For the most part the article is typical socialist fodder: A 2000 study by Andrew Franklin, then an economist at the University of Connecticut, showed that Wal-Mart operated primarily in poor and working-class communities, finding, in the bone-dry language of his discipline, "a significant negative relationship between median household income and Wal-Mart's presence in the market." [...] Only 6 percent of Wal-Mart shoppers have annual family incomes of more than $100,000. A 2003 study found that 23 percent of Wal-Mart Supercenter customers live on incomes of less than $25,000 a year.
Okay so here's my beef...I was checking out family incomes in America, and guess what? Families with an annual income of $30,000 and less make up about 40% of the population...and families that make over $110,000 a year make up 5% of the population. So this would actually pretty much indicate that Walmart shoppers are pretty much a slice of America, there isn't over proportional representation of any class, as far as I can see.
Here's another money quote: Unlike so many horrible things, Wal-Mart cannot be blamed on George W. Bush.
However, the article did mention something pretty troubling: California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, who represents the 22nd Assembly District and is a former mayor of Mountain View,[...]smelled blood when, tipped off by dissatisfied workers, her office discovered that Wal-Mart was encouraging its workers to apply for public assistance, "in the middle of the worst state budget crisis in history!" California had a $38 billion deficit at the time, and Lieber was enraged that taxpayers would be subsidizing Wal-Mart's low wages, bringing new meaning to the term "corporate welfare."
See, if that is the truth, isn't it sad that it is buried in the last pages of such an article? Why don't they just go with that in the first place and forget all the Marxist fodder? I would definitely read an article explaining how Walmart is reducing labor costs – thus increasing their profit - by having welfare pay its employees.
posted by CaliValleyGirl at 7:28 PM
1 Comments:
Hint...compare Costco with Wal-Mart.
Costco pays $5-7/ hour more and provides benefits and a 40 hour work week. Wal-Mart does not.
All kinds of info is available online about the scourge of the world, Wal-mart.
Being a woman, you should look at the discrimination that prevails at Wal-Mart.
Post a Comment
<< Home