3 ms·

And the employer with the largest amount of employees using SNAP benefits is… Walmart is subsidized by the government to the tune of $2,000 per employee due to

And the employer with the largest amount of employees using SNAP benefits is… Walmart is subsidized by the government to the tune of $2,000 per employee due to their low wages: https://rmfu.org/taxpayer-dollars-subsidize-wal-mart/ https://rmfu.org/taxpayer-dollars-subsidize-wal-mart/ [1] They then get to skim the other side of those subsidies, too, since they sell so many items that qualify for SNAP and WIC, as well as being one of the largest if not the largest prescription supplier in the country. (25% of Walmart employees qualify for Medicaid https://mafainsurance.com/how-many-walmart-employees-are-on-medicaid.html https://mafainsurance.com/how-many-walmart-employees-are-on-...) So their employees on SNAP and Medicaid turn right around and spend that money inside Walmart. > both at Walmart and their competition What competition? When Walmart comes to town, the competition closes. [1] Probably a lot higher since this article is about 20 years old

gruez 11d ago
>And the employer with the largest amount of employees using SNAP benefits is… >Walmart is subsidized by the government to the tune of $2,000 per employee due to their low wages: https://rmfu.org/taxpayer-dollars-subsidize-wal-mart/ https://rmfu.org/taxpayer-dollars-subsidize-wal-mart/ [1] And what happens if walmart closed up shop? Do those employees magically evaporate and not need benefits? Why are we putting the blame on the employee's best employment option? >What competition? When Walmart comes to town, the competition closes. Why? Because they're sending goon squads to trash all the existing businesses? If walmart replacing "the competition" because they're offering lower prices and consumers are switching, why is this bad?
- gadflyinyoureye 11d ago
  Walmart is able to offer lower prices because it does not pay its employees enough. The people being hurt is the society at large that has to allocate taxes towards SNAP and other social benefits so that Walmart can continue to underpay people. Those resources could go to other programs. That is why Walmart is bad.
  - alex43578 11d ago
    Walmart is paying what people are willing to work for. The "greeter" standing at the door is not creating $25 an hour in economic value. The biggest issue is we as a society have overextended SNAP and social benefits, trying to equalize outcomes, rather than recognize that entitlements should be a last resort and a safety net against things like starvation. Someone should not weigh 275 on SNAP.
    - notrustincloud 11d ago
      > Someone should not weigh 275 on SNAP. Does SNAP need a better system to provide healthy food? yes. Should employers be required to provide sufficient earnings such that employees do not require SNAP? Also, yes. Is blaming employees who are on SNAP due to Walmart overhiring and cutting hours of at the threshold where the earnings would cross into full time with federally regulated benefits in order to pass the cost of operations to the public acceptable via absurd reductive reasoning a bald case of blaming the victims? Yes. I'm not sure whether you are pretending that Walmart's practices are acceptable, due to a willful disregard for the complexity of the larger systemic failures that permit corporate abuse, or due to simple ignorance. I'm not sure which looks worse, but neither makes you seem compassionate. Though the fat shaming does make you look like an ass.
      - alex43578 11d ago
        >Does SNAP need a better system to provide healthy food? yes. Yes, SNAP absolutely should not enable unhealthy consumption, especially because the majority of those diseases of affluence just hit taxpayers again via Medicaid spending. >Should employers be required to provide sufficient earnings such that employees do not require SNAP? Also, yes. The thrifty food plan from the USDA puts weekly food costs at about $75 for a man and about $60 for a woman. Walmart's company wide minimum pay is $14 per hour. Minus a bit for taxes, add a bit back for EITC/other tax credits, and you are covering a week of food in less than 8 hours of work. They have sufficient earnings. They choose to spend the earnings elsewhere because taxpayers are subsidizing their food. >Is blaming employees who are on SNAP due to Walmart overhiring and cutting hours of at the threshold where the earnings would cross into full time with federally regulated benefits in order to pass the cost of operations to the public acceptable via absurd reductive reasoning a bald case of blaming the victims? Yes. Walmart is under no obligation to hire them as full time employees. They are free to accept a different job, negotiate a contract for full time employment, etc. They aren't a "victim" because the job they accepted doesn't meet every one of your standards. They are assumably mentally competent adults who made their own decisions and are free to make different decisions at any time. >I'm not sure whether you are pretending that Walmart's practices are acceptable, due to a willful disregard for the complexity of the larger systemic failures that permit corporate abuse, or due to simple ignorance. Walmart's practices are acceptable. It's incredible to think that a job offering double the federal minimum wage (or more), in a reasonably safe, air conditioned environment, along with retirement matching, employee discounts, and even paid tuition/books is somehow corporate abuse. How much do you think stocking a shelf is worth? >I'm not sure which looks worse, but neither makes you seem compassionate. Though the fat shaming does make you look like an ass. Oh no, will they have to eat their hurt feelings?
- pixl97 11d ago
  As another poster stated, Walmart and other large companies are already violating federal law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson%E2%80%93Patman_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson%E2%80%93Patman_Act >And what happens if walmart closed up shop Everything explodes and people die in the streets.... No, other businesses move in to fill the economic needs because there is a profit to be made and provide jobs in doing so. >Because they're sending goon squads to trash You have a horrifically simplistic world view and can't imagine where goon squads actually are. There was an article around 2 decades ago on how Walmart manipulates prices at an unimaginable scale via their suppliers. If you supply Walmart they automatically become your biggest customer. Walmart knows this, and has you by the proverbial balls. If you don't meet their demands they drop you in a heartbeat which is a death sentence for any business who's capitalization is not in the 10s of billions. There was a saying in this article I can no longer find but to summarize. "To compete against Walmart is to invite death. To work with Walmart is to embrace it". Simply put they are so large they have near monopoly power over a good chunk of manufacturing.
  - gruez 11d ago
    >There was an article around 2 decades ago on how Walmart manipulates prices at an unimaginable scale via their suppliers. If you supply Walmart they automatically become your biggest customer. Walmart knows this, and has you by the proverbial balls. If you don't meet their demands they drop you in a heartbeat which is a death sentence for any business who's capitalization is not in the 10s of billions. There was a saying in this article I can no longer find but to summarize. So what's the complaint here, that walmart negotiates aggressively, passing those better prices to buyers, and that's... bad? Given we're in a thread complaining about healthcare, should walmart do the opposite, instead using the insurance company strategy of encouraging their suppliers to pad their margins, so they can offer "modest" (in % terms, high in absolute terms) markups?
    - pixl97 11d ago
      Way to miss the point. VC is bad because of the concentration of power, same reason Walmart is.
    - 11d ago
refurb 11d ago
It’s wild to blame Walmart for government subsidies when it’s the government not Walmart who decides who gets benefits. Is Walmart to blame they hired a single mother of 3 for $20/hr? Would this women be better off if Walmart never existed and she was unemployed? And then turn around and blame Walmart for selling essential food items for low prices because SNAP can be used to pay for them. Would you rather SNAP beneficiaries pay more for groceries so they have less to eat?
- vannevar 11d ago
  > Would this women be better off if Walmart never existed and she was unemployed? If you think about this a bit, I'll bet you can spot the flaw in your own argument.
- Grombobulous 10d ago
  Your argument would be a sound one if corporations weren’t granted unlimited financial power in making political donations and campaign ads. 67% of Americans support raising the federal minimum wage to $15/hour. Why hasn’t it happened yet if it’s so popular?

gruez 11d ago

>And the employer with the largest amount of employees using SNAP benefits is… >Walmart is subsidized by the government to the tune of $2,000 per employee due to their low wages: https://rmfu.org/taxpayer-dollars-subsidize-wal-mart/ https://rmfu.org/taxpayer-dollars-subsidize-wal-mart/ [1] And what happens if walmart closed up shop? Do those employees magically evaporate and not need benefits? Why are we putting the blame on the employee's best employment option? >What competition? When Walmart comes to town, the competition closes. Why? Because they're sending goon squads to trash all the existing businesses? If walmart replacing "the competition" because they're offering lower prices and consumers are switching, why is this bad?

gadflyinyoureye 11d ago
Walmart is able to offer lower prices because it does not pay its employees enough. The people being hurt is the society at large that has to allocate taxes towards SNAP and other social benefits so that Walmart can continue to underpay people. Those resources could go to other programs. That is why Walmart is bad.
- alex43578 11d ago
  Walmart is paying what people are willing to work for. The "greeter" standing at the door is not creating $25 an hour in economic value. The biggest issue is we as a society have overextended SNAP and social benefits, trying to equalize outcomes, rather than recognize that entitlements should be a last resort and a safety net against things like starvation. Someone should not weigh 275 on SNAP.
  - notrustincloud 11d ago
    > Someone should not weigh 275 on SNAP. Does SNAP need a better system to provide healthy food? yes. Should employers be required to provide sufficient earnings such that employees do not require SNAP? Also, yes. Is blaming employees who are on SNAP due to Walmart overhiring and cutting hours of at the threshold where the earnings would cross into full time with federally regulated benefits in order to pass the cost of operations to the public acceptable via absurd reductive reasoning a bald case of blaming the victims? Yes. I'm not sure whether you are pretending that Walmart's practices are acceptable, due to a willful disregard for the complexity of the larger systemic failures that permit corporate abuse, or due to simple ignorance. I'm not sure which looks worse, but neither makes you seem compassionate. Though the fat shaming does make you look like an ass.
    - alex43578 11d ago
      >Does SNAP need a better system to provide healthy food? yes. Yes, SNAP absolutely should not enable unhealthy consumption, especially because the majority of those diseases of affluence just hit taxpayers again via Medicaid spending. >Should employers be required to provide sufficient earnings such that employees do not require SNAP? Also, yes. The thrifty food plan from the USDA puts weekly food costs at about $75 for a man and about $60 for a woman. Walmart's company wide minimum pay is $14 per hour. Minus a bit for taxes, add a bit back for EITC/other tax credits, and you are covering a week of food in less than 8 hours of work. They have sufficient earnings. They choose to spend the earnings elsewhere because taxpayers are subsidizing their food. >Is blaming employees who are on SNAP due to Walmart overhiring and cutting hours of at the threshold where the earnings would cross into full time with federally regulated benefits in order to pass the cost of operations to the public acceptable via absurd reductive reasoning a bald case of blaming the victims? Yes. Walmart is under no obligation to hire them as full time employees. They are free to accept a different job, negotiate a contract for full time employment, etc. They aren't a "victim" because the job they accepted doesn't meet every one of your standards. They are assumably mentally competent adults who made their own decisions and are free to make different decisions at any time. >I'm not sure whether you are pretending that Walmart's practices are acceptable, due to a willful disregard for the complexity of the larger systemic failures that permit corporate abuse, or due to simple ignorance. Walmart's practices are acceptable. It's incredible to think that a job offering double the federal minimum wage (or more), in a reasonably safe, air conditioned environment, along with retirement matching, employee discounts, and even paid tuition/books is somehow corporate abuse. How much do you think stocking a shelf is worth? >I'm not sure which looks worse, but neither makes you seem compassionate. Though the fat shaming does make you look like an ass. Oh no, will they have to eat their hurt feelings?
pixl97 11d ago
As another poster stated, Walmart and other large companies are already violating federal law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson%E2%80%93Patman_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson%E2%80%93Patman_Act >And what happens if walmart closed up shop Everything explodes and people die in the streets.... No, other businesses move in to fill the economic needs because there is a profit to be made and provide jobs in doing so. >Because they're sending goon squads to trash You have a horrifically simplistic world view and can't imagine where goon squads actually are. There was an article around 2 decades ago on how Walmart manipulates prices at an unimaginable scale via their suppliers. If you supply Walmart they automatically become your biggest customer. Walmart knows this, and has you by the proverbial balls. If you don't meet their demands they drop you in a heartbeat which is a death sentence for any business who's capitalization is not in the 10s of billions. There was a saying in this article I can no longer find but to summarize. "To compete against Walmart is to invite death. To work with Walmart is to embrace it". Simply put they are so large they have near monopoly power over a good chunk of manufacturing.
- gruez 11d ago
  >There was an article around 2 decades ago on how Walmart manipulates prices at an unimaginable scale via their suppliers. If you supply Walmart they automatically become your biggest customer. Walmart knows this, and has you by the proverbial balls. If you don't meet their demands they drop you in a heartbeat which is a death sentence for any business who's capitalization is not in the 10s of billions. There was a saying in this article I can no longer find but to summarize. So what's the complaint here, that walmart negotiates aggressively, passing those better prices to buyers, and that's... bad? Given we're in a thread complaining about healthcare, should walmart do the opposite, instead using the insurance company strategy of encouraging their suppliers to pad their margins, so they can offer "modest" (in % terms, high in absolute terms) markups?
  - pixl97 11d ago
    Way to miss the point. VC is bad because of the concentration of power, same reason Walmart is.
  - 11d ago

refurb 11d ago

It’s wild to blame Walmart for government subsidies when it’s the government not Walmart who decides who gets benefits. Is Walmart to blame they hired a single mother of 3 for $20/hr? Would this women be better off if Walmart never existed and she was unemployed? And then turn around and blame Walmart for selling essential food items for low prices because SNAP can be used to pay for them. Would you rather SNAP beneficiaries pay more for groceries so they have less to eat?

vannevar 11d ago
> Would this women be better off if Walmart never existed and she was unemployed? If you think about this a bit, I'll bet you can spot the flaw in your own argument.
Grombobulous 10d ago
Your argument would be a sound one if corporations weren’t granted unlimited financial power in making political donations and campaign ads. 67% of Americans support raising the federal minimum wage to $15/hour. Why hasn’t it happened yet if it’s so popular?