3 ms·
> "Walmart doesn’t pay its workers very well." I've worked with the very low income, and Wal-Mart (and McDonald's) are at top of their respective categories as
by danielvf 9y ago
> "Walmart doesn’t pay its workers very well."
I've worked with the very low income, and Wal-Mart (and McDonald's) are at top of their respective categories as desired jobs. Both pay better than most alternatives. Our state's Wal-Mart entry jobs pay 20% more than minimum wage.
> "pays its workers so poorly, they have to rely on food stamps and food banks to make ends meet."
Wal-Mart, by quota, hires people their diversity report calls "people of color". In 2015, 51% of people Wal-Mart hired were "people of color". At least in my state, African-Americans are six times more likely to be on food stamps. If Wal-Mart hiring matched the general population ratios, then their food stamp stats would look much more like the general population.
There are real problems in the word, but Wal-Mart's wages aren't one of them - they pay better than the alternatives. I really don't get the Wal-Mart hate.
But having helped someone fill out a job application for McDonalds, I'd personally take a programmer interview any day. That was way too many fricking questions.
- Alex3917 9y ago> At least in my state, African-Americans are six times more likely to be on food stamps. If Wal-Mart hiring matched the general population ratios, then their food stamp stats would look much more like the general population. Are you saying that people of color are six times more likely to be on SNAP at the same household income level, or that if Wal-Mart hired white people then they would pay them more?
- danielvf 9y agoIn my state, at the same individual income levels, people of color have a higher rate of being on SNAP than the overall the population at that income level.
- Fradow 9y agoI have a different take on the article. Wal-Mart is merely an example that the author found relevant. You can substitute by any other alternative. The point the author wants to drive home is that the minimum wage is so low, workers can't provide for their family without supplementing it with food stamps. Because they have food stamps, Wal-Mart and alternatives keep the wages low. Food industry also profit from food stamp massively, so they have incentive to keep wages low so more workers need them and spend them here. This is a vicious circle, that doesn't help worker escape food insecurity.
- metalliqaz 9y agoI think one of the main issues here is assuming that jobs that pay minimum wage are (or should be) meant to support a family. There is all kinds of politics swirling around this issue, but one simple fact remains: a worker must create more value for their employer than it costs to compensate them. Just raising the minimum wage isn't going to help if the work isn't providing the necessary value. Sure, prices can rise to the consumers, but other market pressures will be at work to counteract such a rise (think automation, etc). I think it is much more important to try and train/educate workers such that they aren't dependent on minimum wage jobs for their livelihoods. Then those jobs can be what they are supposed to be: entry points to the workforce that allow workers to develop skills and move on.
- civilian 9y agoThe author might have been using Wal-Mart as an example, but in general there's a trend in the American political left to shit on Wal-Mart because of the reasons given, and because they're a gigantic business. It gets kind of tinfoily-hat.
- ams6110 9y agoMinimum wage is not intended to be "support a family" wage, and it never was.
- david38 9y agoYes it was. It was specifically designed for a man to support a family of four with a modest lifestyle.