8 ms·

Very lengthy article. This part about Walmart made me raise an eyebrow, and I’ll admit, I kept reading to see if the author addresses this further because at th

Very lengthy article. This part about Walmart made me raise an eyebrow, and I’ll admit, I kept reading to see if the author addresses this further because at that point I felt biased against this article but didn’t want to pass judgement and stop reading prematurely. >It is the most successful social welfare system ever implemented, saving billions and billions of dollars for everyday Americans without costing taxpayers a dime. I stopped reading half way through. I fundamentally disagree with that statement. A good chunk of Walmart’s workforce were scheduled to work part time hours to avoid receiving any benefits, and of course they were subsidized by the tax payer. I would know - in the mid 90s, I was one of them! Tencare provided my health coverage, my 6 year old received free lunch, I had reduced rent, and I had assistance for groceries.

noobiemcfoob 8y ago
The article doesn't seem to be referring to Walmart's employees as the beneficiaries of its welfare system. The argument to me says that customers of Walmart benefited from the reduced costs brought about by the innovations as if it were a welfare system built outside of government. That said...yeah, that's a bit too pro-capitalistic monstrosities for my tastes.
Aloha 8y ago
The meat of the article is past that point.
loukrazy 8y ago
I just skipped the Walmart section. The Amazon section is pretty solid and mostly unrelated. I feel like this would be better in 3 parts, the the discussion of Ads as a 3rd part.
Veelox 8y ago
The author's claim is that Walmart is "most successful social welfare system ever implemented" because it saves Americans billions of dollars every year due to the cost savings it provides. Your claim is that this is wrong because Walmart intentionally structures their employees hours so that they do not need to pay for certain benefits. I don't think the two claims are mutually exclusive. While I might not go as far as to say that Walmart is the most successful social welfare system every, I have not problem saying that Walmart has meaningfully improved the lives of medium and low income Americans over the last 40 years.
- aidenn0 8y ago
  You left off "without costing taxpayers a dime" in your quote. It may have been a net positive, but they specifically structured their compensation plan for their employees to extract a maximum value from the social welfare system. Even if Walmart employed more people than the smaller stores they replaced, if even 1 employee of Walmart would have otherwise had a job that provided healthcare, then "not a dime" is overstating things.
  - Veelox 8y ago
    The author implied "without costing taxpayers a dime" to mean "without directly receiving tax dollars" which is true. Taking "without costing taxpayers a dime" to mean "ensuring their employee's received no government benefits" is quite a stretch. > they specifically structured their compensation plan for their employees to extract a maximum value from the social welfare system While the outcome of Walmart's actions might have been this, I think it much closer to Walmart's goal to say that they worked to minimize the total cost of labor. The two are very different ideas of what Walmart's obligations are. >Even if Walmart employed more people than the smaller stores they replaced, if even 1 employee of Walmart would have otherwise had a job that provided healthcare, then "not a dime" is overstating things. This is a really tricky standard. By this standard. Imagine if Walmart employed 50 people, 40 at minimum wage, 10 with full benefits, and drove out of two smaller stores that provided 25 full benefit jobs. There is a net loss of 15 full benefit jobs, you say this is really bad. But, 25 more people have jobs. This very well could net decrease government welfare to the area. The details get really tricky and the truth could be one way or another. I personally have no data to inform an opinion one way or another.
    - ewzimm 8y ago
      Costs to taxpayers also go beyond their employee policies. Walmart was a leader in moving shopping centres outside city limits to avoid paying expensive taxes. By moving tax revenue from retail business away from cities, the tax burden on residents near them has increased. There are many other ways in which they've managed to minimize their taxes, like getting cities to pay for extra roads and infrastructure or receiving special deals, which is arguably how any profit-maximizing business should be expected to act. Ideally, governments should use this data to continually analyze the effectiveness of tax laws and make adjustments to avoid any potential exploitation.
josefresco 8y ago
> Tencare provided my health coverage, my 6 year old received free lunch, I had reduced rent, and I had assistance for groceries. What does that have to do with Walmart? Was anyone else offering you a job? Walmart didn't make you poor, they offered you and other people like you a lifeline. > A good chunk of Walmart’s workforce were scheduled to work part time hours to avoid receiving any benefits Not great but not terrible - how many competing offers do Walmart employees have exactly? And again, how is this Walmart's fault? I lived in a town in the 90's that was host to a new Walmart that everyone thought would decimate the town. 25 years later and the town is larger and more robust than it ever was when I lived there. The only businesses it seemingly hurt, was the struggling and very lame department store across the street.
- mAEStro-paNDa 8y ago
  I don't understand. It's not about what is or isn't "Walmart's fault", it is about Walmart structuring their employment in such a way as to funnel labor costs onto taxpayers.
  - josefresco 8y ago
    My comment was specifically about the last line of his post. His economic situation was not caused by Walmart. Walmart is a lifeline to many, many Americans. Both consumers and their employees. While I don't agree with them using "part time workers" to avoid paying benefits, no one is forcing these people to work at Walmart. Furthermore, the author of the article is claiming that Walmart has helped Americans by saving them billions on the goods they purchase. The user I"m replying to is claiming they've cost Americans billions in taxes because of how they structure their employee compensation. Both are right but I'd tilt the balance of "good" towards Walmart. In a world without Walmart, these people would have LESS employment opportunities and we'd all pay more for the goods we purchase from traditional regional/local stores. Walmart is a creator, it's easy to criticize creators while we all sit on the sidelines doing nothing.
    - Spivak 8y ago
      > no one is forcing these people to work at Walmart. Except for, you know, starvation and homelessness. We need to get past the idea that people on the low-end of income choose their jobs. You take whatever happens to be open at the time. If we took the billions in taxes that Walmart causes and put it toward those higher prices at other grocery stores and welfare would we have a net-benefit or loss?
1123581321 8y ago
I encourage you to commit to reading things you disagree with instead of abandoning them.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  There's nothing wrong with nope-ing out once it becomes clear something's arguing in bad faith or is fundamentally flawed in a way that undermines its point. There's basically unlimited material to read and very limited time to do so in this world.
  - 1123581321 8y ago
    It’s true that it’s not wrong to stop reading anything. However, it’s not possible to determine bad faith or fundamental flaws in one sentence. And it’s not an axiom that limited time means we should stick to what makes us nod our heads.
otikik 8y ago
Following the same reasoning, it could be argued that slavery was also a very efficient way to save money "for everyday Americans". Similarly the land grabbing from native Americans when the colonists arrived could be defined as "very efficient for everyday Americans". You just need a very narrow definition of "everyday Americans". That, and not giving a damn about anyone else. I was also very disgusted by this and could not continue reading.
zby 8y ago
"A good chunk of Walmart’s workforce were scheduled to work part time hours to avoid receiving any benefits, and of course they were subsidized by the tax payer. I would know - in the mid 90s, I was one of them! Tencare provided my health coverage, my 6 year old received free lunch, I had reduced rent, and I had assistance for groceries. " There must be a typo - apparently Walmart did not stop you from receiving benefits.
- obastani 8y ago
  The GP is saying that Walmart avoided providing these benefits, instead paying it's employees so little money that they qualified for welfare, which is paid by th taxpayer, not Walmart. Since you are anyway subsidizing Walmart, might as well shop there.

noobiemcfoob 8y ago

The article doesn't seem to be referring to Walmart's employees as the beneficiaries of its welfare system. The argument to me says that customers of Walmart benefited from the reduced costs brought about by the innovations as if it were a welfare system built outside of government. That said...yeah, that's a bit too pro-capitalistic monstrosities for my tastes.

Aloha 8y ago

The meat of the article is past that point.

loukrazy 8y ago

I just skipped the Walmart section. The Amazon section is pretty solid and mostly unrelated. I feel like this would be better in 3 parts, the the discussion of Ads as a 3rd part.

Veelox 8y ago

The author's claim is that Walmart is "most successful social welfare system ever implemented" because it saves Americans billions of dollars every year due to the cost savings it provides. Your claim is that this is wrong because Walmart intentionally structures their employees hours so that they do not need to pay for certain benefits. I don't think the two claims are mutually exclusive. While I might not go as far as to say that Walmart is the most successful social welfare system every, I have not problem saying that Walmart has meaningfully improved the lives of medium and low income Americans over the last 40 years.

aidenn0 8y ago
You left off "without costing taxpayers a dime" in your quote. It may have been a net positive, but they specifically structured their compensation plan for their employees to extract a maximum value from the social welfare system. Even if Walmart employed more people than the smaller stores they replaced, if even 1 employee of Walmart would have otherwise had a job that provided healthcare, then "not a dime" is overstating things.
- Veelox 8y ago
  The author implied "without costing taxpayers a dime" to mean "without directly receiving tax dollars" which is true. Taking "without costing taxpayers a dime" to mean "ensuring their employee's received no government benefits" is quite a stretch. > they specifically structured their compensation plan for their employees to extract a maximum value from the social welfare system While the outcome of Walmart's actions might have been this, I think it much closer to Walmart's goal to say that they worked to minimize the total cost of labor. The two are very different ideas of what Walmart's obligations are. >Even if Walmart employed more people than the smaller stores they replaced, if even 1 employee of Walmart would have otherwise had a job that provided healthcare, then "not a dime" is overstating things. This is a really tricky standard. By this standard. Imagine if Walmart employed 50 people, 40 at minimum wage, 10 with full benefits, and drove out of two smaller stores that provided 25 full benefit jobs. There is a net loss of 15 full benefit jobs, you say this is really bad. But, 25 more people have jobs. This very well could net decrease government welfare to the area. The details get really tricky and the truth could be one way or another. I personally have no data to inform an opinion one way or another.
  - ewzimm 8y ago
    Costs to taxpayers also go beyond their employee policies. Walmart was a leader in moving shopping centres outside city limits to avoid paying expensive taxes. By moving tax revenue from retail business away from cities, the tax burden on residents near them has increased. There are many other ways in which they've managed to minimize their taxes, like getting cities to pay for extra roads and infrastructure or receiving special deals, which is arguably how any profit-maximizing business should be expected to act. Ideally, governments should use this data to continually analyze the effectiveness of tax laws and make adjustments to avoid any potential exploitation.

josefresco 8y ago

> Tencare provided my health coverage, my 6 year old received free lunch, I had reduced rent, and I had assistance for groceries. What does that have to do with Walmart? Was anyone else offering you a job? Walmart didn't make you poor, they offered you and other people like you a lifeline. > A good chunk of Walmart’s workforce were scheduled to work part time hours to avoid receiving any benefits Not great but not terrible - how many competing offers do Walmart employees have exactly? And again, how is this Walmart's fault? I lived in a town in the 90's that was host to a new Walmart that everyone thought would decimate the town. 25 years later and the town is larger and more robust than it ever was when I lived there. The only businesses it seemingly hurt, was the struggling and very lame department store across the street.

mAEStro-paNDa 8y ago
I don't understand. It's not about what is or isn't "Walmart's fault", it is about Walmart structuring their employment in such a way as to funnel labor costs onto taxpayers.
- josefresco 8y ago
  My comment was specifically about the last line of his post. His economic situation was not caused by Walmart. Walmart is a lifeline to many, many Americans. Both consumers and their employees. While I don't agree with them using "part time workers" to avoid paying benefits, no one is forcing these people to work at Walmart. Furthermore, the author of the article is claiming that Walmart has helped Americans by saving them billions on the goods they purchase. The user I"m replying to is claiming they've cost Americans billions in taxes because of how they structure their employee compensation. Both are right but I'd tilt the balance of "good" towards Walmart. In a world without Walmart, these people would have LESS employment opportunities and we'd all pay more for the goods we purchase from traditional regional/local stores. Walmart is a creator, it's easy to criticize creators while we all sit on the sidelines doing nothing.
  - Spivak 8y ago
    > no one is forcing these people to work at Walmart. Except for, you know, starvation and homelessness. We need to get past the idea that people on the low-end of income choose their jobs. You take whatever happens to be open at the time. If we took the billions in taxes that Walmart causes and put it toward those higher prices at other grocery stores and welfare would we have a net-benefit or loss?

1123581321 8y ago

I encourage you to commit to reading things you disagree with instead of abandoning them.

ceejayoz 8y ago
There's nothing wrong with nope-ing out once it becomes clear something's arguing in bad faith or is fundamentally flawed in a way that undermines its point. There's basically unlimited material to read and very limited time to do so in this world.
- 1123581321 8y ago
  It’s true that it’s not wrong to stop reading anything. However, it’s not possible to determine bad faith or fundamental flaws in one sentence. And it’s not an axiom that limited time means we should stick to what makes us nod our heads.

otikik 8y ago

Following the same reasoning, it could be argued that slavery was also a very efficient way to save money "for everyday Americans". Similarly the land grabbing from native Americans when the colonists arrived could be defined as "very efficient for everyday Americans". You just need a very narrow definition of "everyday Americans". That, and not giving a damn about anyone else. I was also very disgusted by this and could not continue reading.

zby 8y ago

"A good chunk of Walmart’s workforce were scheduled to work part time hours to avoid receiving any benefits, and of course they were subsidized by the tax payer. I would know - in the mid 90s, I was one of them! Tencare provided my health coverage, my 6 year old received free lunch, I had reduced rent, and I had assistance for groceries. " There must be a typo - apparently Walmart did not stop you from receiving benefits.

obastani 8y ago
The GP is saying that Walmart avoided providing these benefits, instead paying it's employees so little money that they qualified for welfare, which is paid by th taxpayer, not Walmart. Since you are anyway subsidizing Walmart, might as well shop there.