Md. forces Wal-Mart to spend more on health

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: spidey07
man what BS. I'm sure this can't be legal.

Yes, man what BS that giant Companies like Wally World force the work force to be working poor with no health insurance.

That's real American :roll:

I didn't realize that Wal-Mart execs were going around in public whipping people to stand in line to signup for jobs at Wal-Mart. Man, they are evil!

No, they just use loss leaders to force out their competition, become a virtual monopoly and then dictate every term on the local market, rightd own to (indirectly), the standard of living, while supply side apologists like yourself make excuses for their irresponsibility.

 

[TheAdvocate]

If the usual suspect partisanship didnt occur, we could actually debate the effectiveness and implications of the legislation... but there are too many people making completely uninformed idealistic arguments over a very parctical issue.

I'm not going to say that I support the legislation itself, simply because I haven't read it. It's my experience though that well intentioned, and sometimes even well thought out legislation backfires drastically. This example sounds a bit dubious as it was obviously written with a particular target in mind, perhaps to the exclusion of considering collateral effects.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: spidey07
man what BS. I'm sure this can't be legal.

Yes, man what BS that giant Companies like Wally World force the work force to be working poor with no health insurance.

That's real American :roll:

I didn't realize that Wal-Mart execs were going around in public whipping people to stand in line to signup for jobs at Wal-Mart. Man, they are evil!

No, they just use loss leaders to force out their competition, become a virtual monopoly and then dictate every term on the local market, rightd own to (indirectly), the standard of living, while supply side apologists like yourself make excuses for their irresponsibility.

:roll: I'm no supply side apologists but I'm not going to pretend that Wal-Mart is run by Chtulu either. I know a bad bill when I see it and this bill that the Maryland legislator forced through after the Maryland Governor vetoed it is a bad bill.

 

[Metron]

So, you're seeing this from the other side. Open your mind a bit, and look at this situation from another perspective (good debators should be able to argue either side):

Walmart is the largest retailer in the United States, thus they have the corporate resources to adequately compensate their employees, as well as provide a reasonable standard of health care.

Walmart is one of the largest employers in Maryland, yet they are the ONLY company unable to provide a reasonable standard of health care benefits.

Walmart has a history of encouraging it's employees to rely upon state and local welfare and health care programs like MEDICAID.

The law targets Walmart... because Walmart is the biggest corporate cheapskate! That's Walmart's choice in corporate ethics.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Queasy
I'm no supply side apologists but I'm not going to pretend that Wal-Mart is run by Chtulu either. I know a bad bill when I see it and this bill that the Maryland legislator forced through after the Maryland Governor vetoed it is a bad bill.

It may very well be a bad bill, as I just said, but give practical reasons for its failure, not supply side idealism or Adam Smith. Frankly, I'm tired of extreme idealogies and a lack of common sense across the board, globally, on every issue, from every side. The world of practical, common sense, we're all in this together so let's find a solution that benefits us all (if possible), has gone by the wayside in favor of the polarization of the populace, in order to make them easier to mainuplate. It's the new currency, and I'm starting to think it's more powerful than money.

 

[DrPizza]

Look at it this way:
retailer A pays employees a decent wage and provides some benefits.
Wal-mart pays employees a reasonable wage, provides no benefits. Goods are cheaper. Consumers buy the cheaper goods. Retailer A goes out of business. Consumers, while saving money at Walmart, end up paying more money in taxes to now support the Walmart employees who used to receive benefits when they worked for retailer A, but no longer receive since they were forced out of a job and were left with Walmart as one of their few options.

In the end, the net cost is the same (ignoring inefficiencies here and there)

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Metron


Walmart has a history of encouraging it's employees to rely upon state and local welfare and health care programs like MEDICAID.

I can say that is VERY true. When I worked at wal-mart the HR person had all the numbers and even talked someone out of all their raise as they would lose food stamps.

So yes that is true and states are been looking at wal-mart for a while because so many of the employees and even more so their children are on state welfare/medicaid system. I just thought it would be another year or so before states starting doing something like this.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Look at it this way:
retailer A pays employees a decent wage and provides some benefits.
Wal-mart pays employees a reasonable wage, provides no benefits. Goods are cheaper. Consumers buy the cheaper goods. Retailer A goes out of business. Consumers, while saving money at Walmart, end up paying more money in taxes to now support the Walmart employees who used to receive benefits when they worked for retailer A, but no longer receive since they were forced out of a job and were left with Walmart as one of their few options.

In the end, the net cost is the same (ignoring inefficiencies here and there)

What you are arguing is that there is a certain "fixed" cost associated with a labor force. I agree. As a practical matter, you simply cannot get around it. People need food, shelter, doctors and medicine IN ORDER TO SHOW UP FOR WORK. They also need training to do a proper job, and some suggest incentive pay in order to exceed expectations. Those are costs of operating. The Medicare/aid/govt systems/taxpayers should NOT be paying those costs directly. If Wal-Mart needs to up their prices to cover those costs, so be it.

The thing is, they have competitors who are paying those costs and charging similar prices, so who's the real culprit here?

Again, I'm not addressing the legislation istelf. It may be a big stinking turd, but for other reasons.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Look at it this way:
retailer A pays employees a decent wage and provides some benefits.
Wal-mart pays employees a reasonable wage, provides no benefits. Goods are cheaper. Consumers buy the cheaper goods. Retailer A goes out of business. Consumers, while saving money at Walmart, end up paying more money in taxes to now support the Walmart employees who used to receive benefits when they worked for retailer A, but no longer receive since they were forced out of a job and were left with Walmart as one of their few options.

In the end, the net cost is the same (ignoring inefficiencies here and there)

What you are arguing is that there is a certain "fixed" cost associated with a labor force. I agree. As a practical matter, you simply cannot get around it. People need food, shelter, doctors and medicine IN ORDER TO SHOW UP FOR WORK. They also need training to do a proper job, and some suggest incentive pay in order to exceed expectations. Those are costs of operating. The Medicare/aid/govt systems/taxpayers should NOT be paying those costs directly. If Wal-Mart needs to up their prices to cover those costs, so be it.

The thing is, they have competitors who are paying those costs and charging similar prices, so who's the real culprit here?

Again, I'm not addressing the legislation istelf. It may be a big stinking turd, but for other reasons.

When did it become an employers responsibility to provide those things? They provide a wage and whatever benefits they deem necessary to attract employees. It is up to the employee to allocate those wages to food, clothing, housing, and medical care not covered by the offered benefits. The only reason there is employer provided medical benefits in the first place is because employers starting offering it as an incentive to attract employees, not out of some idea that they were obliged to do so.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Look at it this way:
retailer A pays employees a decent wage and provides some benefits.
Wal-mart pays employees a reasonable wage, provides no benefits. Goods are cheaper. Consumers buy the cheaper goods. Retailer A goes out of business. Consumers, while saving money at Walmart, end up paying more money in taxes to now support the Walmart employees who used to receive benefits when they worked for retailer A, but no longer receive since they were forced out of a job and were left with Walmart as one of their few options.

In the end, the net cost is the same (ignoring inefficiencies here and there)

What you are arguing is that there is a certain "fixed" cost associated with a labor force. I agree. As a practical matter, you simply cannot get around it. People need food, shelter, doctors and medicine IN ORDER TO SHOW UP FOR WORK. They also need training to do a proper job, and some suggest incentive pay in order to exceed expectations. Those are costs of operating. The Medicare/aid/govt systems/taxpayers should NOT be paying those costs directly. If Wal-Mart needs to up their prices to cover those costs, so be it.

The thing is, they have competitors who are paying those costs and charging similar prices, so who's the real culprit here?

Again, I'm not addressing the legislation istelf. It may be a big stinking turd, but for other reasons.

When did it become an employers responsibility to provide those things? They provide a wage and whatever benefits they deem necessary to attract employees. It is up to the employee to allocate those wages to food, clothing, housing, and medical care not covered by the offered benefits. The only reason there is employer provided medical benefits in the first place is because employers starting offering it as an incentive to attract employees, not out of some idea that they were obliged to do so.

Even if an employer "provides" health insurance they aren't paying for the health insurance. The employee is paying for the health insurance.

There are two components to having employees 1) The salary that is paid that the employee sees and 2) the salary that the employee does not see. Every dollar that companies spend on health insurance for employees is money that the employee is not directly seeing via paycheck.

By the same vain, companies do not pay taxes. They collect taxes through consumers, employees, and shareholders and pass them on to the government.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

What you are arguing is that there is a certain "fixed" cost associated with a labor force. I agree. As a practical matter, you simply cannot get around it. People need food, shelter, doctors and medicine IN ORDER TO SHOW UP FOR WORK. They also need training to do a proper job, and some suggest incentive pay in order to exceed expectations. Those are costs of operating. The Medicare/aid/govt systems/taxpayers should NOT be paying those costs directly. If Wal-Mart needs to up their prices to cover those costs, so be it.

The thing is, they have competitors who are paying those costs and charging similar prices, so who's the real culprit here?

Again, I'm not addressing the legislation istelf. It may be a big stinking turd, but for other reasons.

The thing is, people shouldn't be making a career out of Walmart. It's a good job for a teenage kid or a college student - someone who gets their health insurance through their parents or a spouse. The problem isn't so much that Walmart doesn't give their employees health insurance, it's that their employees don't have the ambition to get a job that does! They'd rather let the government pay their way. Walmart just attracts these freeloaders. If the government doesn't want to keep giving free insurance to Walmart's workforce, they should stop doing it! Then see how Walmart reacts when all of their employees start quitting to get jobs that give them insurance.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: LinflasWhen did it become an employers responsibility to provide those things? They provide a wage and whatever benefits they deem necessary to attract employees. It is up to the employee to allocate those wages to food, clothing, housing, and medical care not covered by the offered benefits. The only reason there is employer provided medical benefits in the first place is because employers starting offering it as an incentive to attract employees, not out of some idea that they were obliged to do so.

You don't do well on reading comprehension tests, do you?

Let's summarize once again for the slowpokes:

1. Wal-Mart's responsibility to pay for its workforce is to itself. It needs a workforce, it needs to provide itself one, and like their raw goods, it costs money to acquire and to upkeep/store.

2. It is most certainly not the fed gov's responsibility to pay for upkeep of Wal Mart's Labor Force. Hence the legislation.

Don't post again until you really understand the concepts there.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: mugs

The thing is, people shouldn't be making a career out of Walmart.

Why not?

At least a portion of the jobs Wal Mart supplants were most definitely "careers". Every store owner, manager, etc that gets displaced by Wal Mart's business model lost a career.

If anything, you just indicted Wal Mart for destroying careers. Far from just a nostalgiac turn, I think that's a bad thing. I have a great uncle who made a great life for himself Managing a dry goods store. Like him, it's gone now.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
You don't do well on reading comprehension tests, do you?

Let's summarize once again for the slowpokes:

1. Wal-Mart's responsibility to pay for its workforce is to itself. It needs a workforce, it needs to provide itself one, and like their raw goods, it costs money to acquire and to upkeep/store.

2. It is most certainly not the fed gov's responsibility to pay for upkeep of Wal Mart's Labor Force. Hence the legislation.

Don't post again until you really understand the concepts there.

It is the government's responsibility, they assumed the responsibility. They need to fix that situation, not force Walmart to fix it for them.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: mugs

It is the government's responsibility, they assumed the responsibility. They need to fix that situation, not force Walmart to fix it for them.

LOL, when?

And I'm guessing you're not a typical supply side liber-publican-whatever-they-are-calling-themselves-now. Because that statement is idealogical blaspehemy.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: LinflasWhen did it become an employers responsibility to provide those things? They provide a wage and whatever benefits they deem necessary to attract employees. It is up to the employee to allocate those wages to food, clothing, housing, and medical care not covered by the offered benefits. The only reason there is employer provided medical benefits in the first place is because employers starting offering it as an incentive to attract employees, not out of some idea that they were obliged to do so.

You don't do well on reading comprehension tests, do you?

Let's summarize once again for the slowpokes:

1. Wal-Mart's responsibility to pay for its workforce is to itself. It needs a workforce, it needs to provide itself one, and like their raw goods, it costs money to acquire and to upkeep/store.

2. It is most certainly not the fed gov's responsibility to pay for upkeep of Wal Mart's Labor Force. Hence the legislation.

Don't post again until you really understand the concepts there.

Ignoring your gratuitous insults it is obvious we will not see eye to eye on this but to answer your 1 point you are correct it is not the federal governments responsibility to pay for the upkeep of any citizen period. The "Wal Mart Labor Force" are citizens that entered into an agreement with Wal-Mart to work X hours for Y per hour plus whatever benefits are offered by Wal-Mart for that position. I understand perfectly the concept that you somehow want to mandate that it is an employers obligation to become responsible for feeding, clothing, and providing health care for their employees and I disagree. It is the employees responsibility to provide for themselves those things and if the wage they agreed to work for does not cover them they need to take steps to find another position that pays the necessary wage and benefits they need to live. As an earlier poster pointed out Wal-Mart is not lining people up by force and forcing them to work or shop at Wal-Mart.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Holy straw man.

Just give up. That's two fallacies in a row, and two more than I care to deal with.

This isnt between WalMart and the employees, it's betweem WalMart and the Government. If it helps, think of them both as companies, so they gain that revered deity status...

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: mugs

It is the government's responsibility, they assumed the responsibility. They need to fix that situation, not force Walmart to fix it for them.

LOL, when?

And I'm guessing you're not a typical supply side liber-publican-whatever-they-are-calling-themselves-now. Because that statement is idealogical blaspehemy.

I'm guessing you didn't read my post too thoroughly, because you didn't understand it.

It's the government's responsibility because the government made it their responsibility. They need to stop giving free healthcare to people who lack the ambition to get a better job than Walmart. Then those people who realize the importance of health insurance will realize that Walmart is a bad place to work and seek better jobs. Lazy people aren't going to better themselves if you keep giving them handouts.

It is a problem that the government is paying for the healthcare of so many of Walmart's employees. But the solution is not to force Walmart to pay for it, that should be up to Walmart. The solution is to stop making free healthcare available to people who need it because they're lazy!

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: mugs
It's the government's responsibility because the government made it their responsibility. They need to stop giving free healthcare to people who lack the ambition to get a better job than Walmart. Then those people who realize the importance of health insurance will realize that Walmart is a bad place to work and seek better jobs!

Oh no, I understood the inherent contradiction all too well.... The govt should stop providing basic, absolute bottom of the barrel healthcare, so that employees of Wal Mart, who, as a company, is not responsible for their healthcare, will leave their jobs and go to another company, who is also not repsonsible for their healthcare, and then they'll suddenly have healthcare?

What can I say? You pwned me with that logical masterpiece.

 

[Metron]

I heartily disagree.

Hillary Clinton and company attempted to push for more "socialized" healthcare in the United States, and the proposal was soundly defeated. The United States government does not provide for the healthcare of all of it's citizens.

Companies began providing healthcare for their employees back in the early part of the 20th century. It's only recently with the advent of skyrocketing healthcare costs that most employers have been searching for ways to reduce costs.

Most companies have employees cover a potion of the costs, but Walmart is attempting to dump the entire cost upon the US taxpayers at large. I cry foul.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: mugs
It's the government's responsibility because the government made it their responsibility. They need to stop giving free healthcare to people who lack the ambition to get a better job than Walmart. Then those people who realize the importance of health insurance will realize that Walmart is a bad place to work and seek better jobs!

Oh no, I understood the inherent contradiction all too well.... The govt should stop providing basic, absolute bottom of the barrel healthcare, so that employees of Wal Mart, who, as a company, is not responsible for their healthcare, will leave their jobs and go to another company, who is also not repsonsible for their healthcare, and then they'll suddenly have healthcare?

What can I say? You pwned me with that logical masterpiece.

Why do you have such a hard time understanding that what is being disagreed on here is who is responsible for an individuals health care? You evidently believe it is enshrined as a right somewhere while others of us believe that each individual is responsible to see to our own health care. And you have the nerve to question other peoples reading and comprehension skills. :roll:

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: LinflasWhen did it become an employers responsibility to provide those things? They provide a wage and whatever benefits they deem necessary to attract employees. It is up to the employee to allocate those wages to food, clothing, housing, and medical care not covered by the offered benefits. The only reason there is employer provided medical benefits in the first place is because employers starting offering it as an incentive to attract employees, not out of some idea that they were obliged to do so.

You don't do well on reading comprehension tests, do you?

Let's summarize once again for the slowpokes:

1. Wal-Mart's responsibility to pay for its workforce is to itself. It needs a workforce, it needs to provide itself one, and like their raw goods, it costs money to acquire and to upkeep/store.

2. It is most certainly not the fed gov's responsibility to pay for upkeep of Wal Mart's Labor Force. Hence the legislation.

Don't post again until you really understand the concepts there.

Good Post explaining it.

 

[Metron]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
You don't do well on reading comprehension tests, do you?

Let's summarize once again for the slowpokes:

1. Wal-Mart's responsibility to pay for its workforce is to itself. It needs a workforce, it needs to provide itself one, and like their raw goods, it costs money to acquire and to upkeep/store.

2. It is most certainly not the fed gov's responsibility to pay for upkeep of Wal Mart's Labor Force. Hence the legislation.

Don't post again until you really understand the concepts there.

It is the government's responsibility, they assumed the responsibility. They need to fix that situation, not force Walmart to fix it for them.

Again, you're looking at this argument from the wrong side.

All other large companies provide sufficient health care coverage for their employees.

And gee... let's see, Walmart is the largest retailer in the United States. They can afford to compensate their employees fairly with a salary and package of benefits. Instead, they are trying to have the government (read the US taxpayers) subsidize their healthcare costs.

Why should the US taxpayers have to subsidize the healthcare benefits for a privately held corporation who just happens to be the largest retailer in the US?

If that's your argument, you might as well jump on the bandwagon of socialized medicine (like Canada and other countries), nationalize healthcare, and have the government totally responsible for providing healthcare for all US citizens. If you follow the logic of your argument, that is the ultimate conclusion.

You, and Walmart's lobbyists (and maybe you are a Walmart lobbyist), would love to be rid your most favored corporations of those costs.

That would put these profiteering pharmaceutical and healthcare companies out of business (nationalized), relieve big business of the "insufferable" burden of providing health care, and we'd all be happy. Right?

*edited* for spelling...

The real fundamental issue here... is which party should be ultimately responsible for providing healthcare coverage?

Personally, I'm sick of seeing advertisements from drug companies. I'm sick of drug and healthcare companies in general. They are already making too much money, they have too much control of the market (and of society in general). Look at the mess they are creating, just in this instance. Societal discord is the result of MBA's hyperfocused on the bottom line. Balance needs to be restored.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Government health care for underbenefitted Wal Mart employees amounts to corporate welfare doesn't it?

Keep in mind that Costco does fine paying employees well and providing many more of them benefits.

 

[Metron]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Government health care for underbenefitted Wal Mart employees amounts to corporate welfare doesn't it?

Keep in mind that Costco does fine paying employees well and providing many more of them benefits.

My point exactly... :shocked: Somebody gets it!

Why do WE owe assistance to a private company that neither needs nor deserves it?