- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Money
Video: Rep.-Elect Alan Grayson Says Walmart “the Largest Recipient of Public Aid in Country"
Retail giant Walmart posted profits of $15.4 billion in 2011, while paying their employees an average salary of $22,100 a year. The current poverty level for a family of four is $23,050.
So how do Walmart employees survive?
The burden falls on American taxpayers to provide food stamps and Medicaid -- at the cost of $2.66 billion annually -- to make up the difference, reports PoliticsUSA.com.
Walmart also tries to profit by encouraging employees to spend their food stamps in Walmart.
Republicans are fighting to keep corporate welfare intact but, at the same time, they want to slash food stamps and Medicaid to avoid the so-called "fiscal cliff" at the end of the year.
Representative-elect Alan Grayson (D-FL) appeared on Current TV's 'The Young Turks' on Monday and claimed that Walmart is “the largest recipient of public aid in the country."
Grayson said: “The taxpayer pays for the earned income credit. The taxpayer pays for Medicaid. The taxpayer pays for unemployment insurance when they cut hours down. And the taxpayer pays for other forms of public assistance like food stamps. I think the taxpayer is getting fed up of paying these things when, in fact, Walmart could give every employee its got, even the CEO, a 30 percent raise and still be profitable.”
“In state after state after state, Walmart employees represent the largest group of Medicaid recipients, the largest group of food stamp recipients, and taxpayers shouldn’t have to bear that burden. It should be Walmart. So, we’re going to take that burden and put it where it belongs: on Walmart.”
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
http://www.glassdoor.com/Hour
http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Walmart-Stores-Hourly-Pay-E715.htm
The fact is that Walmart
The fact is that Walmart doesn't pay significantly less than the standard wages for the type of work they hire. Also, I don't want an economic environment where an idiot like Grayson can make the rules for businesses to follow. Much of this is arbitrary, including minimum wage and "poverty level". If Grayson doesn't like Walmart employees receiving government assistance, then he should lobby for removing those entitlements, not for ordering a business to pay a certain wage or adopt certain arbitrary standards of work rules that he, Grayson, creates.
I agree, BUT...WalMart may
I agree, BUT...WalMart may pay comparable wages but only part time. They said they will not hire any full time employees just so they will not have to pay for health insurance.
We really need to compare
We really need to compare what Walmart pays and the benefits dollar value with equivalent positions at other or similar companies. I shop at Walmart because of lower cost on items which to me is what brings the level of success to which Walmart enjoys. The savings to me and others looks better to Me in my wallet than in the treasury of some other company who charges higher prices for the same items. Maybe Walmart got big by saving customers money from the start where other companies wanted to make money on higher individual dollar costs instead of going out with lower pricing and making money on volume.
If they pay employees equivalent or a bit better than other companies and have some benefits level to equal, then we need to leave Walmart alone or go after them all equal to bring up pay levels.
There are those and other retail who take a totally different approach as companies who are jealous and hate the level of Walmart success but refuse to do things a different way.
So Wal-Mart pays its 2.2
So Wal-Mart pays its 2.2 million employees an average of $22,100 per year; the federal poverty level is $23,050, which is a difference of $950 per year. The government pays $2.66 billion in aid for these same 2.2 million employees; which is $1,209.09 per year per employee. So it takes the government 127% of the difference in pay to poverty level to aid these employees.
Federal minimum wage is $7.25. $22,100 divided by 2080 (40 hrs/week x 52 weeks), is $10.62 or 146% of minimum wage. So if Wal-Mart gave their employees a raise of $0.46; to $11.08/hour ($950 / 2080), would they no longer need federal aid?
Does this mean that $11.09 per hour for a full time employee is a living wage (that would put them above the poverty level)?
The flip side of the coin is this: if Wal-Mart made less profit than the $2.2 billion it costs the government to aid their 2.2 million employees would anyone care?
Did you get the bait 'n
Did you get the bait 'n switch the author pulled on you?
First he says that the AVERAGE wage for a Walmart WORKER (that is singular) is $22,100/yr.
Then he says that the poverty level for a family of FOUR (that is plural) is $23,050.
So if one assumes that the family of four is two adults (mother and father) and two children; and both of the parents work at Walmart; and both of them earn the average of $22,100; then that family of four earns $44,200/year. They are hardly in "poverty".
Yes Jimpeel, I did pick-up on
Yes Jimpeel, I did pick-up on that. However, when you comment on an article you either use their data as correct or you correct their data. I choose to use their own data against them, a strategy that gregandrene did not pick-up on. You also have to consider that an “average” of all employees include part-time and full-time employees. It would also include new (minimum wage) and long time employees. And yes the poverty level varies by members of the household: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml and the author uses a family of four because three or less are not below the poverty level. But none of that changes the fact that if Wal-Mart increased the average employee’s wage by $950/ yr or $0.46/ hr (full-time), they would be above the poverty level for a family of four (the author’s reference point). It also does not change my question of: would anyone care about Wal-Mart paying this “little” if their profit margin was less then what the author claims the government is paying to help their employees?
"It also does not change my
"It also does not change my question of: would anyone care about Wal-Mart paying this “little” if their profit margin was less then what the author claims the government is paying to help their employees?"
That $.46 adds up to $598,000 / hr in increased business costs. That does not include the SSI costs which have to be borne by the employer based on wages or the up to 6% 401k matching funds also based on wages which is a benefit that Walmart does not have to afford it's employees.
I work for Walmart and we have numerous benefits that people like Grayson are unaware. This lie that Grayson has repeated is one that the unions have been spouting for years on websites such as wakeupwalmart.com and walmartwatch.com. They actually claim that Walmart teaches us classes on how to use public assistance to supplement our low wages. I guess I missed that class.
There are lies and damned lies. Grayson is a damned liar.
The poverty guidelines for a
The poverty guidelines for a single person, working at Walmart and earning the average wage, is $11,170. That would mean that this single person is earning TWICE the poverty rate.
Grayson is a lying prevaricator who throws out numbers and his stupid constituency laps it up without question or doing any independent research of his veracity.
The proof of this is the number of people posting here about Walmart needing to pay a "living wage."
They are also the ones who fell for the bait 'n switch.
The federal poverty level is
The federal poverty level is dependent on how many people are in the family, not a flat $23,050. Not many WalMart employees are full time. Government aid does NOT pay anyone to "poverty level", nor is it meant to.
Read the article above, that
Read the article above, that is where the $23,050 figure comes from. It is the figure used by the author of the article to paint the picture of Wal-Mart they want painted.
The taxpayers _chose_ to take
The taxpayers _chose_ to take this burden upon themselves. Before 1965 people living in poverty worked at low-paying jobs without being a burden on society.
The next big piece of
The next big piece of legislation after the ACA will be something that prevents employers from cutting hours just to avoid benefits. It is time businesses treat employees like the resources they are rather than just overhead.
Hey, I think I can agree on
Hey, I think I can agree on how shitey some businesses are. lol. What about the fact that so many businesses POLLUTE at public expense? Oh yeah, all the trash going into landfills and on roadsides is being collected & disposed of (yet polluting) by tax-$$, often times. So, cheap profits for big corp.'s to sell us all cheap goods & they don't pay for disposal on the containers or ensure they don't pollute.
What about say bread, too? They mill out the nutrients, then use to cheap starch to make bread, sell the wheat germ & wheat bran separately, making triple profits, while the plastic & glass containers go in the landfills at your expense. Meanwhile, local farmers who deliver crops without all the trash...can hardly survive.
I agree that Walmart as an
I agree that Walmart as an employer must pay a living wage and health care benefits for its employees so that only genuinely needy people can continue to obtain safety net support. I do not support any slashing of the nation's safety net at a time when there are still so many Americans unemployed who would otherwise starve or die. Cut federal elected officials salaries and entitlements like a separate system of health care and pension. Bring them all under Social Security and Medicare or the current private health care system. It's time that our elected officials stop getting automatic pay raises as well.