Re: WalMart customer service dept.

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

> They

> DO drive out other businesses from areas, and there are some

> communities who have successfully fought off their building in those

> areas.

They don't drive businesses from any area. The consumers of that area

do that. People choose to shop at Wal-Mart and not at the much more

expensive local businesses that are around. Wal-Mart doesn't drive

anyone out of business merely by existing in that community. People

choose not to patronize the smaller shops. People vote with their feet,

and that is as it should be.

I would be quite angry if some city official, in the guise of

representing me, helped to keep a Wal-Mart out of town. As Red said,

people can choose not to patronize the Wal-Mart if they don't want to.

They do not need to fight to keep the Wal-Mart out of town. Wal-Mart

primarily benefits the poor, since the rich can afford to shop elsewhere.

> And there's the fact that they *used* to brag about their

> merchandise being American-made, but for the last 10 years or so, 70%

> of their stuff is from China.

You may find that the timing of that change coincided exactly with Sam

Walton's death.

> That's the thing that most triggers my

> guilt when I shop there, knowing they use such cheap labor, but I

> don't know where to find American or Canadian made clothing.

I have no guilt over buying Chinese goods. I am writing on a

Chinese-made HP laptop right now (manufactured by Quanta Inc., in

mainland China). It is normal for a mature economy to progress away

from industry and manufacturing over to service. A mature economy will

always have higher labor costs than immature (developing) economies;

that has always been true. The only thing that would stop this would be

overwhelming citizen demand for US made products, so that places would

be afraid to do as Wal-Mart is for fear of losing customers, or else

there would have to be burdensome tariffs on goods manufactured abroad.

Both of them would cause an increase in prices; there is no way around

that, since US labor costs are always going to be higher than those in

China or other such places.

>

> > Just for health reasons along it makes no sense that any company

> > would take back a used toilet seat.

>

> Well, of course they're not going to sell it again. They don't

> resell most stuff that comes back either. Damaged goods. Was that

> even worth saying?

>

> > You can bet your bottom dollar that the only place it went after

> > Clay got is refund was into the garbage. This makes the next

> > purchase at Walmart more expensive because someone has to pay for

> > that toilet seat.

>

> Not my problem, nor my fault. The wood looked nice, too, but someone

> else decided to put such cheap, narrow hardware on the thing. If it

> were even real brass, it would have lasted longer, but I think it was

> pot metal made to look like brass. The lady, the Manager of the

> store, did not *have* to give me anything. That toilet seat could

> have lasted 10 years if it had sturdier hardware on it. When she saw

> just how puny it was, she decided to give me a store credit card for

> that amount, just because it was the *right* thing to do, not because

> I had " bullied " her. (And there really wasn't any bullying, that was

> just you jumping to conclusions.)

>

> Clay

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Klein wrote:

> Clay wrote:

> > They DO drive out other businesses from areas, and there are

> > some communities who have successfully fought off their build-

> > ing in those areas.

> They don't drive businesses from any area. The consumers of that

> area do that. People choose to shop at Wal-Mart and not at the

> much more expensive local businesses that are around. Wal-Mart

> doesn't drive anyone out of business merely by existing in that

> community. People choose not to patronize the smaller shops.

> People vote with their feet, and that is as it should be.

Okay, that much is true, but it overlooks the fact that there

IS such a thing as " undercutting the competition " , which is an

unfair business tactic, if you're selling at a loss just to

drive the competition out of business. WalMarts can afford to

do that, temporarily, in specific locations, just long enough

to force other businesses to fold up shop. That $30.00 micro-

wave I got was quite a bit cheaper than I could have gotten

elsewhere. They do this on a massive scale, with what, 3600

stores? You're speaking of the effect, but it is one that they

plan. Standard Oil did the same thing.

> You may find that the timing of that change coincided exactly

> with Sam Walton's death.

Yeah, probably.

> I have no guilt over buying Chinese goods.

It's possible you might if you saw the factories where some of

these things are made, by workers working 10 - 12 hours a day,

for maybe 25 cents an hour. Child labor, too.

> It is normal for a mature economy to progress away from industry

> and manufacturing over to service.

Especially when manufacturers have paid off politicians to sell

out their country to break the backs of unions, who finally got

the upper hand after the sit-down strike in Flint, Michigan.

(I'm sure we'll talk about this more later. Right now, it's

really late.) G'nite. ;-)

Clay

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

> Okay, that much is true, but it overlooks the fact that there IS such

> a thing as " undercutting the competition " , which is an unfair

> business tactic, if you're selling at a loss just to drive the

> competition out of business. WalMarts can afford to do that,

> temporarily, in specific locations, just long enough to force other

> businesses to fold up shop. That $30.00 micro- wave I got was quite

> a bit cheaper than I could have gotten elsewhere. They do this on a

> massive scale, with what, 3600 stores? You're speaking of the

> effect, but it is one that they plan. Standard Oil did the same

> thing.

Wal-Mart has never come close to cornering the market on microwave

ovens. They're not going to drive Best Buy, Circuit City, etc., out of

business by cutting prices on microwaves.

> > I have no guilt over buying Chinese goods.

>

> It's possible you might if you saw the factories where some of these

> things are made, by workers working 10 - 12 hours a day, for maybe 25

> cents an hour. Child labor, too.

Why would that make me feel guilty?

> > It is normal for a mature economy to progress away from industry

> > and manufacturing over to service.

>

> Especially when manufacturers have paid off politicians to sell out

> their country to break the backs of unions, who finally got the upper

> hand after the sit-down strike in Flint, Michigan. (I'm sure we'll

> talk about this more later. Right now, it's really late.)

How is breaking the back of the unions " selling out the country? " Heh,

I would vote for a politician that had union-busting as part of his

platform. If you want to know one of the big causes of why our industry

is leaving, or gone, look at the unions.

Like minimum wage laws, unions attempt to mess with the " invisible hand "

of the economy, by pushing the cost for labor higher than it would be if

the market was unimpeded, and when you do that, the economy (consisting

of all businesses as well as the consumers) will adjust to negate the

changes you've made (and the results of that are nearly always exactly

opposite of what the well-intended economy-meddlers wanted). When

unions pushed the cost of labor in America's steel mills too high, the

steel mills went abroad-- which was the only sound economic choice for

them to make, in light of the hostile business climate here. So, now we

have steel workers with no jobs, instead of steel workers with less

money than they wanted.

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

>

> It's possible you might if you saw the factories where some of

> these things are made, by workers working 10 - 12 hours a day,

> for maybe 25 cents an hour. Child labor, too.

25 cents compared to what? You certainly can not compare it to wages

here because goods and services cost much less there. The true

comparison is what they would be earning without these companies being

there. Foreign companies improve the economy of the country where they

locate. They actually help towards balancing out the economy between

rich and poor nations. Without them most of these people would have no

income at all. Where is the exploitation?

Child labor certainly is not the fault of the employers. Where are the

parents and the government? Often it is the parents who send the

children off to work or they are orphans without any other means of

support. Which is better, starvation or child labor at 25 cents an hour?

Red

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

>There are some good points to be made against WalMarts. They

>have been found guilty of discriminating against women and

>minorities who work for them, making it difficult for them to

>get promotions. They DO drive out other businesses from areas...

They pay so little that the public (tax-payers) must subsidize them.

Many full-time WalMart employees are eligible for public assistance.

That means tax-payers are subsidizing the low prices that have made

the Walton family multi-billionaires. When other businesses are wiped

out by this very successful " business model, " people who used to earn

a living wage may have no option in their area except to join the

" WalMart family " -- and rely on public assistance while working full

time.

I do not object to subsidizing people who need help. What I object to

is a handful of people making totally ridiculous amounts of money

thanks to the " contributions " of those in the part of population

(mid- and lower-mid class) to which the largest tax burden has been

shifted over the last couple of decades.

Jane

[Guest guest]

> They pay so little that the public (tax-payers) must subsidize them.

> Many full-time WalMart employees are eligible for public assistance.

> That means tax-payers are subsidizing the low prices that have made

> the Walton family multi-billionaires. When other businesses are wiped

> out by this very successful " business model, " people who used to earn

> a living wage may have no option in their area except to join the

> " WalMart family " -- and rely on public assistance while working full

> time.

Okay, a few points...

First, I can only speak of my town in Wyoming. But after Wal-mart came,

several years later, a university studied the local economy. Wal-mart

employs more people then jobs it eliminated through competition with

other businesses.

The wages are no worse then the other local businesses (I worked as a

*PROGRAMMER* for $7/hour in my town [which is considered a decent wage

here] - an $8/hour job at Wal-mart would have been a wonderful change).

Wal-mart typically locates in areas with relatively affordable cost of

living (in my area, I have lived alone for $400/month - including

maintaining an automobile) - $8/hour goes a lot further here then it would

in a large city. Are they paying their employees as much as they could

afford? Not likely, but no business making a profit does.

Wal-mart employees a higher percentage of full-time employees then most

retailers. Full time means benefits, such as health care. In my area,

you don't get benefits (such as health-care) anywhere but Wal-mart for

part-time work - that significantly helps people who can't work full time

for reasons such as school, children, or whatever else.

Most stores in this area definitely don't start at $8/hour. They start at

$5.15/hour. I know, I've applied for those jobs only to find out there

were far too many applicants for them to consider someone without

experience in that sector like myself. So if Wal-mart starts anything

over $5.15/hour, they are doing better then Safeway, Albertson's, K-Mart,

any of the small downtown merchants I've applied at 8 or 9 years ago, etc.

As for the public assistance, if people need it (and I wouldn't doubt a

single parent would have a hard time living on $8/hour), they would need

it even more without the job. Part of the problem is not just low wages

but the high cost of living. That problem is caused by our desire for

consumption - no one builds small houses today, for instance (just try

finding a new one-bedroom house! Or any house less then 1000 square feet

that was built in the last 25 years)

The only high paying jobs in my area, outside of a very small number of

professional jobs (the last programming position I hired, for

$30-$40K/year and requiring both degree and 4 years experience, got over

150 applicants), is to do manual labor. Wyoming is cold and most of these

jobs are outdoors. I can't do most of them because of my back and the

piss poor shape my upper body is in. That's a problem because there isn't

really other options to make $50K+ a year in this area - but that was a

problem before Wal-mart and will continue to be one long after Wal-mart

unless the real problem is fixed - the chicken/egg problem of college

educated people leaving the state in droves.

> I do not object to subsidizing people who need help. What I object to

> is a handful of people making totally ridiculous amounts of money

> thanks to the " contributions " of those in the part of population

> (mid- and lower-mid class) to which the largest tax burden has been

> shifted over the last couple of decades.

The rich still pay a higher tax per dollar made according to every study

I've read on it. They don't pay as much as they used to, that is true.

They are still the majority of money the federal government makes off of

personal income tax, despite being a minority of the population. You can

argue that they don't pay enough of their money, but you can't argue that

you pay more then them per dollar earned.

But, talking of tax-revenue, Wal-mart typically buys fairly cheap

real-estate. A new Wal-mart raises the value of neighboring real-estate

significantly, often in poor communities. Between sales tax revenue from

Wal-mart (it draws shoppers from wealthier suburbs to the poorer

communities, who end up paying into the poor community's tax base now) and

the increased property values causing higher property taxes for businesses

around Wal-mart, you can't just say it is cut and dry that Wal-mart runs

on the subsidy of the government. In addition, most communities now

getting Wal-marts rightfully ask for infrastructure improvements in the

area of the new Wal-mart, paid for by Wal-mart, but benefiting the entire

area (in my area, they paid for a substantial water main to extend city

water to several neighborhoods near their new location and also upgrade

the water main in other areas - it consisted of 100 year old pipe in some

areas).

My only gripe with Wal-mart is that they use a shallow version of

diversity as a marketing ploy, just as Mc's does. Hiring disabled

custodians and greeters is one thing, promoting all qualified employees is

quite another. When I see a disabled store manager of either, I'll be a

lot happier with both stores.

--

[Guest guest]

wrote (Citing Jane):

> > I do not object to subsidizing people who need help. What I object

> > to is a handful of people making totally ridiculous amounts of

> > money thanks to the " contributions " of those in the part of

> > population (mid- and lower-mid class) to which the largest tax

> > burden has been shifted over the last couple of decades.

>

> The rich still pay a higher tax per dollar made according to every

> study I've read on it. They don't pay as much as they used to, that

> is true. They are still the majority of money the federal government

> makes off of personal income tax, despite being a minority of the

> population. You can argue that they don't pay enough of their money,

> but you can't argue that you pay more then them per dollar earned.

Very true. By the latest numbers from the Congressional Budget office,

projected data for 2005 (numbers are almost identical to numbers for

prior years that are not projected):

Lowest 20% income pays 1.1% of federal taxes

Second 20% income pays 5.1% of federal taxes

Middle 20% income pays 10.3% of federal taxes

Fourth 20% income pays 19.5% of federal taxes

Highest 20% income pays 64.3% of federal taxes

The highest 20% of income earners pay almost two thirds of all federal

taxes. The highest 40% of income earners pay 83.8% of all federal taxes.

The lowest 20% of income earners pay only 1.1% of federal taxes. The

lowest 40% pay 6.2% of federal taxes, compared with the the highest 40%

paying 83.8%.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx%5Cdoc5746/08-13-EffectiveFedTaxRates.pdf

(page 18).

The wealthiest people in America continue to pay a disproportionately

high percentage of the federal taxes in the US.

[Guest guest]

Klein jotted this down:

> The wealthiest people in America continue to pay a disproportionately high

> percentage of the federal taxes in the US.

What kind of impact does this actually have on their lives as individuals? Any

at all?

[Guest guest]

> Klein jotted this down:

> > The wealthiest people in America continue to pay a disproportionately high

> > percentage of the federal taxes in the US.

>

> What kind of impact does this actually have on their lives as

> individuals? Any at all?

I don't know about the wealthiest, but I know I probably paid more taxes

then many members of this list, but I could have used tax dollars for

myself and it would certainly have helped things (things like getting my

teeth's cavities fixed sooner - for instance, today I spent $1300 of

which probably less then $200 will be reimbursed in two or three months

from now).

But, that aside, how would you feel if someone came to your house and took

your TV. You don't *NEED* a TV after all. And there are people who don't

have a TV... There's always someone richer then you are, so it's

convenient to say " But it shouldn't affect people like me, just people

like *him* " . " He has so much, that isn't right, but I have my right to

my computer and couch and TV and houseplants and cat and dog and music CDs

and car... " It's not evil to spend money on things because you like the

things you spend the money on.

The real questions are:

- Did you earn the money in an ethical way? Not everyone in the highest

income brackets cheated or trampled on little people to get their money.

- Do you cheat on your taxes or follow the rule of law?

After that, I'm sorry, but my money *is* my money and I'll spend it as I

wish. I do give to charity, I do help friends who need help, etc. But

that is not my moral duty to all of human kind. (and I suspect *EVERY*

person here has a luxury they don't " technically " need, but which makes

them happy, helps them with life, or whatever else - so until everyone

here takes a vow of poverty and gives up all their worldly possessions,

it is a bit hypocritical to say " Well, other people should give up

theirs. " )

--

[Guest guest]

jotted this down:

>> What kind of impact does this actually have on their lives as individuals?  

>> Any at all?

> 

> I don't know about the wealthiest, but I know I probably paid more taxes then

> many members of this list, but I could have used tax dollars for myself and

> it would certainly have helped things (things like getting my teeth's

> cavities fixed sooner - for instance, today I spent $1300 of which probably

> less then $200 will be reimbursed in two or three months from now).

That's why I was focusing specifically on the wealthiest. It *does* matter to

you. You need the money; it has an impact.

I wasn't being snarky or rhetorical with the question. I seriously am

wondering, for the wealthiest people, what kind of daily life impact taxes have

on them. It seems to me that even with the severe taxation, they can still buy

whatever they want, whenever they want -- so I am wondering if I am wrong.

 

> But, that aside, how would you feel if someone came to your house and took

> your TV.  You don't *NEED* a TV after all.

I don't have one. Mine broke years ago, and I can't afford to have it fixed,

nor can I spare the cash to buy a new one (even one from Goodwill or wherever).

> There's always someone richer then you are, so it's convenient

> to say " But it shouldn't affect people like me, just people like *him* " .   " He

> has so much, that isn't right, but I have my right to my computer and couch

> and TV and houseplants and cat and dog and music CDs and car... "

I'm not saying that it's a matter of being richer than I am. I'm wondering, for

the *wealthiest*, what impact taxes have. I'm not wondering about anybody below

that bracket.

Incidentally, I haven't been able to buy music CDs, houseplants, a television,

computer, etc. in years. The computer I am using right now was assembled with

my student loan money back in 1997... Our couch is from the early 1980s, and

full of broken springs (we put a board under the cushions). I manage to afford

to feed my cats, and $50 in groceries each month, and pay for my Internet

connection by selling off my old school/reading books on-line. My father gave

me his GF's old car, and helps pay for what little gas I need to go to the

doctor or the volunteering I do.

> It's not evil to spend money on things because you like the things you spend

> the money on.

I never said it was. When I have money, I enjoy spending it too. I am merely

wondering, for those in the absolute top income bracket, what difference taxes

actually make...how it alters their lives, if it does.

> - Did you earn the money in an ethical way?  Not everyone in the highest

> income brackets cheated or trampled on little people to get their money.

I never said that they did. Surgeons, award-winning actors, top game designers,

and so forth get paid a huge amount of money, probably enough to be in that top

bracket. What I am wondering is whether taxation impacts them at all.

> - Do you cheat on your taxes or follow the rule of law?

I think that might depend on how one defines " cheating " on taxes. I get the

feeling that there are an awful lot of legal loopholes that allow extremely

wealthy people to avoid paying the technical amount of taxes they're supposed

to.

> After that, I'm sorry, but my money *is* my money and I'll spend it as I

> wish.

I never said you shouldn't, and I wasn't talking about people like you to begin

with.

> I do give to charity, I do help friends who need help, etc.  But that is not

> my moral duty to all of human kind.

Well, charity isn't necessarily a good thing to begin with... But I also never

said that it's your moral duty to help others.

>  (and I suspect *EVERY* person

> here has a luxury they don't " technically " need, but which makes them happy,

> helps them with life, or whatever else - so until everyone here takes a vow

> of poverty and gives up all their worldly possessions, it is a bit

> hypocritical to say " Well, other people should give up theirs. " )

I'm not saying other people should give things up. I'm wondering whether the

fantastically wealthy are giving anything up to begin with.

--

DeGraf ~*~ http://sonic.net/mustang/moggy

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>Very true. By the latest numbers from the Congressional Budget office,

>projected data for 2005 (numbers are almost identical to numbers for

>prior years that are not projected):

>

>Lowest 20% income pays 1.1% of federal taxes

>Second 20% income pays 5.1% of federal taxes

>Middle 20% income pays 10.3% of federal taxes

>Fourth 20% income pays 19.5% of federal taxes

>Highest 20% income pays 64.3% of federal taxes

I don't give a rat's ass about those percentages. It's the proportion

of the individual's total income that counts as a practical matter.

That's what makes sales tax regressive. If you and Bill Gates both

pay the same sales tax on necessities, you are forced to pay a much

higher proportion of your income in sales tax than he is.

Jane

[Guest guest]

Imagine a future utopia...

The wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, so that the poor can receive

their fair share of assistance. All is now balanced. There are no more

poor. There are no more rich.

I wonder...Who will be hauling away my garbage? Who is cleaning the floors

at the grocery store? Who is picking the lettuce for my salad? Who is

picking the beans for my coffee?

Am I willing to pay $20 for a cup of coffee so that everybody in the

production chain, from picker to brewer, can make the same wage that I do?

Are you?

For that matter, where would I be getting that $20 for the cup of coffee?

Would I work for it? Why would I want to work for it? Any income that I

might make working for it would eventually come to no more than what I could

" earn " by doing nothing.

And so, as the millions multiply and the resources on this small blue speck

dwindle, where, oh where is the incentive for somebody to take my descedants

into the bigger universe? Where is the incentive for somebody to create

robots who will take that burden of manual labor off the poor? Where is the

incentive for anybody to create, to invent, to push for progress, when it

will earn them nothing? If there are no poor and no rich, and no risk

involved in doing nothing, why do anything at all?

Elayne

http://cablespeed.com/~solinox/index.htm

" Those who refuse to support and defend a state have no claim to protection

by that state. "

[Guest guest]

A few browsings for anyone who is interested.

<http://www.dsausa.org/lowwage/walmart/2004/walmart%20study.html>http://www.dsau\

sa.org/lowwage/walmart/2004/walmart%20study.html

The full report is a PDF; above link gives you

the summary (click on link at bottom of that page

for the PDF)

WalMart Watch

<http://www.walmartwatch.com/>http://www.walmartwatch.com/

includes a " Myths and Reality " section (I think

you click on " general information " first, then on

" myths & realities " )

from:

<http://www.walmartswaronworkers.com/care.php>http://www.walmartswaronworkers.co\

m/care.php (where

you will be able to click to see the sources):

" Because Wal-Mart wages are generally not living

wages, the company uses taxpayers to subsidize

its labor costs " 2004 U.S. House of

Representatives Report

<javascript:popUp('http://www.walmartswaronworkers.com/content/sources.htm#1')>[\

source]

California taxpayers have subsidized $20.5

million worth of medical care for Wal-Mart in

that state alone

<javascript:popUp('http://www.walmartswaronworkers.com/content/sources.htm#1')>[\

source]

A 200-person Wal-Mart store can cost taxpayers

(you and me) $420,750 per year - about $2,103

per employee.

<javascript:popUp('http://www.walmartswaronworkers.com/content/sources.htm#1')>[\

source]

Wal-Mart is simply sticking the burden of

health care and basic living standards with

American taxpayers. (To learn more about why it

costs $420,750 per year,

<http://www.walmartswaronworkers.com/multimedia/reports/WMTDemHouseCommitteeRepo\

rt2-04.pdf>download

and read this report)

Wal-Mart encourages managers to tell employees

to use State and Federal assistance (taxpayer

funded programs) instead of using it's Billion's

of dollars in sales to help it's own workers (and

thus the communities it says it helps).

Wal-Mart even produced a flyer, that was put in

with paychecks, so workers can apply for social

services easier.

<javascript:popUp('http://www.walmartswaronworkers.com/content/sources.htm#4')>[\

source]

“The connection may be lost on many, but

consumers' addiction to low prices is

accelerating a shift toward a two-tiered U.S.

economy, with a shrinking middle class and a

growing pool of low-wage workers.” --

Reich, U.S. secretary of Labor under President

Clinton and now a professor of economic and

social policy at Brandeis University in Waltham,

Mass

<javascript:popUp('http://www.walmartswaronworkers.com/content/sources.htm#6')>[\

source]

“A single parent employed full-time at Salina's

Wal-Mart and raising two children aged 4 and 12

does not earn enough money to supply the family's

basic needs by shopping at that same Wal-Mart.”

-- Stan , Writer

<http://www.walmartswaronworkers.com/kb.php?ToDo=view & questId=51 & catId=38>[Read

Article]

[Guest guest]

danced around and sang:

> I am merely wondering, for those in the absolute top income

> bracket, what difference taxes actually make...how it alters

> their lives, if it does.

> What I am wondering is whether taxation impacts them at all.

But of course it does! They have to hire tax accountants to

find them tax havens and loopholes. ;-)

Clay

[Guest guest]

June wrote:

> According to

> http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

> in 2002 WalMart accounted for 10% of *all* imports from China

> into the U.S (12 billion USD). If we extend the logic that it's

> okay for companies to exploit slave labor in 3rd world countries

> where will all this end? Can all Americans have " service jobs "

> and who will be left to service after all of our jobs are sent

> overseas? WalMart is becoming a major player in bringing poverty

> into America by assisting in the mass exodus of jobs to other

> countries. And the irony -- now those un/under -employed American

> *have* to shop at WalMart because it's the only place they can

> afford to shop. This is a viscious circle and I wonder how it

> will all end.

Yes, that's the right way to look at it. We're hurting our own

economy, and killing our industrial base by exporting all these

jobs to China. And the workers there are very poorly paid, as

well as abused by their employers.

Clay

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

>

>

> Yes, that's the right way to look at it. We're hurting our own

> economy, and killing our industrial base by exporting all these

> jobs to China. And the workers there are very poorly paid, as

> well as abused by their employers.

>

It certainly is but I would not call it the right way. It is a seriously

distorted view. First off it's the unions,not Walmart who have been

driving the jobs overseas. They were doing it long before anyone had

even heard of Walmart. As to poorly paid and abused there is no proof of

that. Define poorly paid. Is that more or less than being unemployed?

Red

[Guest guest]

Red wrote:

>Clay wrote:

> >

> > It's possible you might if you saw the factories where some of

> > these things are made, by workers working 10 - 12 hours a day,

> > for maybe 25 cents an hour. Child labor, too.

>

>25 cents compared to what? You certainly can not compare it to wages

>here because goods and services cost much less there. The true

>comparison is what they would be earning without these companies being

>there. Foreign companies improve the economy of the country where they

>locate. They actually help towards balancing out the economy between

>rich and poor nations. Without them most of these people would have no

>income at all. Where is the exploitation?

According to

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

in 2002 WalMart accounted for 10% of *all* imports from China into the U.S

(12 billion USD). If we extend the logic that it's okay for companies to

exploit slave labor in 3rd world countries where will all this end? Can all

Americans have " service jobs " and who will be left to service after all of

our jobs are sent overseas? WalMart is becoming a major player in bringing

poverty into America by assisting in the mass exodus of jobs to other

countries. And the irony -- now those un/under -employed Americans *have*

to shop at WalMart because it's the only place they can afford to shop.

This is a viscious circle and I wonder how it will all end.

J

[Guest guest]

DeGraf wrote:

> Klein jotted this down:

> > The wealthiest people in America continue to pay a

> > disproportionately high percentage of the federal taxes in the US.

>

> What kind of impact does this actually have on their lives as

> individuals? Any at all?

The short answer is that it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what kind

of impact it has-- whether it is right or wrong to take someone's money

without their permission (otherwise called 'theft') does not hinge upon

how much it hurts that person.

The slightly longer answer is that it does impact their lives. Why is

it that you would think that having a rather large percentage of your

income taken would not impact you if you happen to be higher than most

of the rest of Americans? With more money, they could eat better, live

in bigger or better houses, have better cars, et cetera-- the same

things that more money would afford to people in lower middle class on

up. Who is to say that they are entitled to less of their own money

than anyone else?

[Guest guest]

Klein wrote:

> It was certainly belligerent, in my opinion, and probably not

> necessary, given how good Wal-Mart is on returns.

It did seem to be necessary, as the first person I talked to

had just said, " Sorry, you don't have a receipt, and we can't

know when or where you bought it. " In fact, I didn't know for

sure when I bought it, it possibly was over the 90-day limit,

even if you have a receipt. But I've seen toilet seats last

for 20 years, in families with several children. My point was

that if this seat had two cent's worth more metal where it

needed it, it would have lasted much longer. Literally, I mean,

the amount of metal in one penny on both sides on that screw

would have made the phalange thing Much stronger. It cost

$17.98. I would have been happy to pay the whole $18.00 for a

seat that had stronger hardware on it. ;-)

The hardware is hidden by the packaging.

Even when you open it and see, you think it might be

allright, as it looks like brass. But it's porous pot metal.

Defective *and* deceptive, so I wanted my money back.

> If you must stand up against what you see as abusive behavior,

> please don't do it with references to the transgressors' head

> being up his ass.

Noted. But perhaps you failed to see the humor of the image I

was evoking? Still trying to be witty with my criticisms.

Clay, who will speak about unions momentarily

[Guest guest]

DeGraf wrote:

> I wasn't being snarky or rhetorical with the question. I seriously

> am wondering, for the wealthiest people, what kind of daily life

> impact taxes have on them. It seems to me that even with the severe

> taxation, they can still buy whatever they want, whenever they want

> -- so I am wondering if I am wrong.

You would be surprised at who is in the 80th percentile for income.

It's not all millionaires that are in the 80th percentile. The average

income for the upper 20% (including all of the millionaires) was

%182,700 in 2001. For the next lower group, it was $75,600. Still a

lot more than I will ever get, but not rich either. And the government

gets a large chunk of that money... so what they actually get to keep is

a lot less than that.

> I don't have one. Mine broke years ago, and I can't afford to have

> it fixed, nor can I spare the cash to buy a new one (even one from

> Goodwill or wherever).

I have about the same income as you, and I can afford one if mine breaks

(although not easily). If you lived in a section-8 place like I do,

that would free up more moeny for other things. You choose not to for

reasons that are important to you, but that does not mean that it is

your income alone that means you cannot afford a TV. (And if you could,

I bet you would get the best price at Wal-Mart).

> > - Do you cheat on your taxes or follow the rule of law?

>

> I think that might depend on how one defines " cheating " on taxes. I

> get the feeling that there are an awful lot of legal loopholes that

> allow extremely wealthy people to avoid paying the technical amount

> of taxes they're supposed to.

The amounts reported by the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) match very

well with the data from the IRS, and the amount there is what they

actually collected.

> I'm not saying other people should give things up. I'm wondering

> whether the fantastically wealthy are giving anything up to begin

> with.

I don't consider people making $150,000 (which is very close to the 80th

percentile income) to be fantastically wealthy.

[Guest guest]

Klein jotted this down:

> The short answer is that it is irrelevant.  It doesn't matter what kind of

> impact it has-- whether it is right or wrong to take someone's money without

> their permission (otherwise called 'theft') does not hinge upon how much it

> hurts that person.

Taxes aren't theft -- they're a system that adults agree to deal with by living

in this country.

> The slightly longer answer is that it does impact their lives.  Why is it

> that you would think that having a rather large percentage of your income

> taken would not impact you if you happen to be higher than most of the rest

> of Americans?

If I had so much money that I could spend it indiscriminately already, then why

would it?

> With more money, they could eat better, live in bigger or better houses, have

> better cars, et cetera-- the same things that more money would afford to

> people in lower middle class on up.

I'm talking about people that can already afford the absolute best as they wish.

That's sort of my point -- somebody that has enough money that they can spend it

as they wish without thinking of cost, just buying a brand-new Jaguar here, a

nice new personal plane there, perhaps a summer home somewhere else... What I

am wondering is: if they are able to do that *with* taxes, then can it really be

said that it's having an impact on their daily lives? Does it force them to

even slow down spending at all?

> Who is to say that they are entitled to less of their own money than anyone

> else?

Nobody is; you are leaping to conclusions based on what was basically a simple

question.

On the other hand, if disabled people unable to work are going to survive on

money collected through taxation, it has to come from somewhere. Not enough is

generated if there is a flat tax on all income, not without raising it to the

point of crippling the middle/lower income brackets. Where would you have it

come from?

--

DeGraf ~*~ http://sonic.net/mustang/moggy

[Guest guest]

Jane Meyerding wrote:

> wrote:

> > Very true. By the latest numbers from the Congressional Budget

> > office, projected data for 2005 (numbers are almost identical to

> > numbers for prior years that are not projected):

> >

> > Lowest 20% income pays 1.1% of federal taxes Second 20% income

> > pays 5.1% of federal taxes Middle 20% income pays 10.3% of

> > federal taxes Fourth 20% income pays 19.5% of federal taxes

> > Highest 20% income pays 64.3% of federal taxes

>

> I don't give a rat's ass about those percentages.

Of course, because they effectively rebut your belief that it is the

poor that are shouldering too much of the tax burden. There is that

belief, and then there is the fact that the wealthiest 40% pay the

majority of the federal income taxes.

> It's the proportion

> of the individual's total income that counts as a practical matter.

And the rich pay a much, much higher percentage of their income than the

poor. The last time I worked gainfully, I ended up paying no taxes, and

I even got an earned income credit-- I got back more than I put in.

> That's what makes sales tax regressive. If you and Bill Gates both

> pay the same sales tax on necessities, you are forced to pay a much

> higher proportion of your income in sales tax than he is.

Only if he doesn't spend like I would if I had his money.

[Guest guest]

Jane Meyerding wrote:

> " Because Wal-Mart wages are generally not living wages, the company

> uses taxpayers to subsidize its labor costs " 2004 U.S. House of

> Representatives Report

>

<javascript:popUp('http://www.walmartswaronworkers.com/content/sources.htm#1')>[\

source]

That's not Wal-Mart's fault. Wal-Mart is paying the market value for the

labor of their employees. If they weren't, they would not have anyone

willing to work for the money they offer.

> A 200-person Wal-Mart store can cost taxpayers (you and me) $420,750

> per year - about $2,103 per employee.

>

<javascript:popUp('http://www.walmartswaronworkers.com/content/sources.htm#1')>

Nonsense. That assumes that the people that work at Wal-Mart would not

have to use taxpayer-supported services if Wal-Mart had not given them

jobs.

> “The connection may be lost on many, but consumers' addiction to low

> prices is accelerating a shift toward a two-tiered U.S. economy, with

> a shrinking middle class and a growing pool of low-wage workers.” --

> Reich, U.S. secretary of Labor under President Clinton and now

> a professor of economic and social policy at Brandeis University in

> Waltham, Mass

I would expect nothing more than that from Reich. It's nonsense, of

course. " Our addiction to low prices? " Come on, that's called

capitalism. Paying low prices is good for the economy-- and a good

economy means that all of us do better. A better economy means more

jobs, more income growth, and rising wages. Low prices encourage people

to put money into the economy, which is exactly what is needed to get a

stagnant economy going. It was all of the spending in the dotcom years

in the 1990s that made the economy good.

If the workers at Wal-Mart want more money, the real solution is to find

a way to make their work be more valuable. They get paid what they're

worth. Sites like " walmartswaronworkers " are written by people who don't

have a great understanding of economics-- in capitalism, the price of a

good or service is based on the market value of that good or service. It

is not based on how badly the seller of that item or service needs the

money. I'm not going to volunteer to pay 20% above Blue Book from a car

that I may be buying from a poor person, nor would I expect to get that

car for 20% less than Blue Book if the owner is wealthy. I expect to pay

what that car is worth.

That is what Wal-Mart is doing. They are paying the workers what their

labor is worth. How can I tell? If they paid less, they would not have

enough applicants to fill their needs; employees would leave and go

elsewhere. As long as they get the number and quality of applicants they

want, they are offering enough money. Asking Wal-Mart to pay more than

the market value for the labor of their employees (because they are

poor) makes no more sense than asking me to pay more than the market

value for a car I may be buying from a poor person.

The fact that Wal-Mart pays below-living wages does not mean that its

employees are doomed to live in poverty forever. If they have good work

performance, they will get promoted, or else they will be more able to

get better-paying jobs at places other than Wal-Mart. No one working at

Wal-Mart is an indentured servant, and I have yet to see a town where

Wal-Mart is the only employer around. It may be the only one willing to

give a job to a given person-- which, somehow, a lot of people see as a

bad thing, saying that Wal-Mart is preying upon the poor. For many poor,

Wal-Mart is the chance to get the foot in the door and make a better

life for themselves. If they perform well, they don't stay at

entry-level wages for the rest of eternity.

[Guest guest]

June wrote:

> in 2002 WalMart accounted for 10% of *all* imports from China into

> the U.S (12 billion USD). If we extend the logic that it's okay for

> companies to exploit slave labor in 3rd world countries where will

> all this end? Can all Americans have " service jobs " and who will be

> left to service after all of our jobs are sent overseas?

Yes, they can all have service jobs. Let me look at the jobs of people

I know.

My brother is an auto mechanic. He works at a gas station, where there

are cashiers that take payments for gas and repairs. Could those jobs

be exported?

His wife works at a rent-to-own shop. There are store managers, credit

managers, and truck drivers that work there. Can those jobs be exported?

My father is in sales. He comes to places where his customers have

hydraulic systems installed. He meets with them and discusses what

products (made overseas) they need. These products are warehoused in

the US, and they are trucked all over the country by American truck

drivers, like most products. When they get to where they are to be

used, they are installed by more Americans.

Jerry Newport was a taxi driver. I am not sure if he still is. It

would be hard for him to shuttle Americans around if he was in China.

Think of all of the jobs that do not involve manufacturing anything.

Those are all service jobs-- including every job at every store

(including Wal-Mart), every bank, every hotel, every restaurant, every

car dealer... the list is endless.

Are there enough jobs for all Americans that do not involve

manufacturing? You bet there are.

> WalMart is

> becoming a major player in bringing poverty into America by assisting

> in the mass exodus of jobs to other countries.

We live in a global economy now. It is not really pertinent to worry

about whether the products are being manufactured by Americans. The

lower prices we pay for goods made abroad boost our economy, and that

means more service (including commercial) jobs here. Manufacturing jobs

have never been the highest-paying jobs (although the unions certainly

tried to change that-- and ended up doing more to kill the jobs of their

members than any other entity). We have a mature economy; we don't need

industry like we once used to.

> And the irony -- now

> those un/under -employed Americans *have* to shop at WalMart because

> it's the only place they can afford to shop. This is a viscious

> circle and I wonder how it will all end.

It's not a vicious cycle at all. Wal-Mart benefits every shopper they

have... those shoppers then have more money to spend elsewhere, and that

helps the economy... and a growing economy lifts wages and increases the

number of good, well-paying jobs.

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

> Yes, that's the right way to look at it. We're hurting our own

> economy,

" Helping " is the correct word, not " hurting. "

> and killing our industrial base by exporting all these jobs

> to China.

Let the industry go-- we don't need it anymore.

> And the workers there are very poorly paid, as well as

> abused by their employers.

And being brought into more and more trade with the US and other western

countries, and membership into various free-trade pacts, will help them

too. As the surplus of workers in China abates, labor costs will rise--

and this is already happening now. Have you heard all of the talking

heads on TV talk about how the Chinese per capita income is growing so

fast that many Chinese are buying cars, when they have had only bicycles

in the past, and how that will continue to keep oil prices high?

Protectionism is not a strategy that has ever worked. This is a global

economy-- you ought to embrace it, and realize that it is good for all

parties involved.