It doesn't matter whther they are councilled, they fact is that they are.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconn ... fb4caf720b

FFS it's like arguing about what song the band played on the Titanic as it was sinking.

felltoearth wrote:It doesn't matter whther they are councilled, they fact is that they are.

It does matter, and until someone comes up with some support for the claim that big box stores such as Walmart teach their employees how to apply for food stamps it is not a fact.

felltoearth wrote:https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#19fb4caf720b

FFS it's like arguing about what song the band played on the Titanic as it was sinking.

From Mother Jones"

"Using data from Wisconsin, which has the most complete and recent state-level Medicaid data available, the Democrats’ report finds that 3,216 of Wisconsin’s 29,457 Walmart workers are enrolled in the state’s Medicaid program."

That's nice, but do the math and that means that 10.9% of Walmart's Wisconsin employees were on Medicaid at a time when the state percentage was 14% and the national percentage was around 15%. The same goes for food stamps, and the not so curious thing is that the percentages for medicaid, food stamps... is that they match the poverty rate. Which matches Big Box store percentages for employees on public assistance.

Does your link refute the 6.2$B. And who gives fuck about state percentages. These are supposed to be EMPLOYED people. The state is subsidizing Walmarts labour pool.

Keep up the apologist crap though OS.

We'd need one shitload more data to have any sort of meaningful discussion. Of the approximately 11% of Walmart employees on Medicaid, how many were part-time employees? What positions did they hold in the company? What were their family sizes? If they have children, were they single parents? What is their educational level? How long have they been with the company? What percentage of employees of other, similar companies are also on Medicaid and/or other public assistance? Were they receiving public assistance before they started at Walmart?

Without this sort of data you can't draw any general conclusions. It's easy to jump on the Walmart Is Horrible bandwagon, hell, it's a requirement for any self-respecting liberal these days, but correlation =/= causation.

According to Bloomberg:

The two biggest welfare queens in America today are Wal-Mart and McDonald's.

This issue has become more known as we learn just how far some companies have gone in putting their employees on public assistance. According to one study, American fast food workers receive more than $7 billion dollars in public assistance. As it turns out, McDonald's has a "McResource" line that helps employees and their families enroll in various state and local assistance programs. It exploded into the public when a recording of the McResource line advocated that full-time employees sign up for food stamps and welfare.

Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private sector employer, is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid. According to Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, in many states, Wal-Mart employees are the largest group of Medicaid recipients. They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients. Wal-mart's "associates" are paid so little, according to Grayson, that they receive $1,000 on average in public assistance. These amount to massive taxpayer subsidies for private companies.


https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... are-queens

I haven't found any confirmation that Wal-mart, for example, directed employees to public aid to make up for shit compensation offered to their employees.

It looks like McDonald's could be the culprit, and people might be mis-remembering this article linking Wal-mart and McDonald's.

felltoearth wrote:Does your link refute the 6.2$B.

You want a lazy sloppy extrapolation refuted? I did that already. If the percentage of US population using Medicaid and or food stamps was around 15% iun 2013 and Walmart, McDonald's... employees were at or below that percentage then there is no issue with Walmart, McDonald's....

felltoearth wrote: And who gives fuck about state percentages.

Anyone that wants an accurate picture. That Walmart, McDonald's, Kroeger, Taget, Kmart... have the largest numbers of employees on assistance is expected given that they are among the largest employers in the US.

What I find surprising is given the nature of a lot of the work involved at places like Walmart, McDonald's, Kroeger, Target, Kmart..., and the low level of experience or education required at entry level that the percentages and numbers aren't higher.

felltoearth wrote:These are supposed to be EMPLOYED people. The state is subsidizing Walmarts labour pool.

They are employed, employed in jobs that don't pay well do to the low levels of experience and education required. Something that should be understood and acknowledged is that after income the largest deciding factor in qualifying for medicaid and or food stamps is size of household; something Walmart, McDonald's, Kroeger, Target, Kmart... have no control over.

felltoearth wrote:Keep up the apologist crap though OS.

Well at least I'm not having to apologize for lazy-sloppy reasoning and relying on a single biased report done four years ago. A report that avoided using percentages and went with numbers because percentages didn't paint the properly bleak picture wanted.

laklak wrote:We'd need one shitload more data to have any sort of meaningful discussion. Of the approximately 11% of Walmart employees on Medicaid, how many were part-time employees? What positions did they hold in the company? What were their family sizes? If they have children, were they single parents? What is their educational level? How long have they been with the company? What percentage of employees of other, similar companies are also on Medicaid and/or other public assistance? Were they receiving public assistance before they started at Walmart?

All of that is much too difficult when you can just go with the Walmart and McDonald's suck and everyone knows they are evil strategy.

Oh I forgot. Poorly paying partime jobs and preditory and suppresive purchasing policies is an awesome corporate model and the backbone of an American economy firing on all cylinders.

Carry on.

felltoearth wrote:Oh I forgot. Poorly paying partime jobs and preditory and suppresive purchasing policies is an awesome corporate model and the backbone of an American economy firing on all cylinders.

Carry on.

Wow! Three misspelled words in a single sentence.


See, I can post non-responses too.

Now, maybe you'd like to address something I actually wrote.

I don't really see what the problem is. In Europe, Canada, and Oz everybody is getting public assistance, right? NHS or the equivalent, subsidies to people with children, all sorts of "free" shit. Why should it be any different here? Rather than slagging off Walmart they should be praised for bringing us more in line with the Enlightened World.

If Walmart was giving their associates excellent health care so they weren't at financial risk if they fell ill, or paying generous penalty rates to those who gave up family time on weekends to work, or "free shit" that's actually equivalent to what happens here, then they'd deserve the praise. But they're doing the exact opposite, and dumping the load on the government, who even in an America comparatively unenlightened when it comes to social safety nets, still pay for people's food rather than let them starve.

Oldskeptic wrote:

felltoearth wrote:Oh I forgot. Poorly paying partime jobs and preditory and suppresive purchasing policies is an awesome corporate model and the backbone of an American economy firing on all cylinders.

Carry on.

Wow! Three misspelled words in a single sentence.


See, I can post non-responses too.

Now, maybe you'd like to address something I actually wrote.

When what you wrote is so out of step from the actual problem there is nothing to discuss.

Farcical.

laklak wrote:I don't really see what the problem is. In Europe, Canada, and Oz everybody is getting public assistance, right? NHS or the equivalent, subsidies to people with children, all sorts of "free" shit. Why should it be any different here? Rather than slagging off Walmart they should be praised for bringing us more in line with the Enlightened World.

If that is what OS is actually arguing then, yeah we can have a discussion about that. But that's now what he's saying here.

felltoearth wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

felltoearth wrote:Oh I forgot. Poorly paying partime jobs and preditory and suppresive purchasing policies is an awesome corporate model and the backbone of an American economy firing on all cylinders.

Carry on.

Wow! Three misspelled words in a single sentence.


See, I can post non-responses too.

Now, maybe you'd like to address something I actually wrote.

When what you wrote is so out of step from the actual problem there is nothing to discuss.

There's nothing to discuss until someone addresses the fact that Walmart, McDonald's, Target... employees are not over represented on food stamp and Medicaid roles. The nation averages around 15%, States average around 15%, large companies such as Walmart, McDonald's, Target... average around 10% to 13%. Something that stands to reason given that the nation and state numbers include those unemployed, and by definition the Walmart, McDonald's, Target... employees are not among that group.

felltoearth wrote:Farcical.

Yes it is. This Anything bad that anyone says about Walmart must true because they are so evil, way of thinking is quite a farce, yet not all that amusing.

What I'm out of step with is a lock step mentality where even questioning accepted doctrine/dogma/memes is met with little more than stale party line platitudes.

OlivierK wrote:If Walmart was giving their associates excellent health care so they weren't at financial risk if they fell ill, or paying generous penalty rates to those who gave up family time on weekends to work, or "free shit" that's actually equivalent to what happens here, then they'd deserve the praise. But they're doing the exact opposite, and dumping the load on the government, who even in an America comparatively unenlightened when it comes to social safety nets, still pay for people's food rather than let them starve.

It's nice that highly profitable businesses like McDonald's and Walmart can get all this 'free shit' from the taxpayers and not have to endure the humiliation of being considered 'greedy' like working people are.

Oldskeptic wrote:There's nothing to discuss until someone addresses the fact that Walmart, McDonald's, Target... employees are not over represented on food stamp and Medicaid roles.

Compared to the general population. Which has an official unemployment rate of around 5%*.

By contrast, the population of Walmart/McDonalds/etc employees have an unemployment rate of 0%.





* The official US figures don't count people whose unemployment benefits have run out. Factor that in, the rate is estimated at around 8-9%.

Oldskeptic wrote:

felltoearth wrote:Farcical.

Yes it is. This Anything bad that anyone says about Walmart must true because they are so evil, way of thinking is quite a farce, yet not all that amusing.

What I'm out of step with is a lock step mentality where even questioning accepted doctrine/dogma/memes is met with little more than stale party line platitudes.

No, the issue is demonizing the un- and underemployed as evil for wanting a living wage and wanting to decently feed and house themselves and their family with decent health and dental care and perhaps the ability to retire before age 80, much like their own parents.

Oh yeah. But those people are just entitled whiners.

The majority of minimum wage earners are paying 50%+ of their income to housing. That is not sustainable. Growing energy bills, transportation, etc. are also valid expenses, on top of food, clothing, and utilities.

The popular myth that conservatives like to throw around is how these people tend to have smartphones and tablets, etc. but they ignore the fact that a) smart phones are no longer expensive luxuries and can be bought cheaply and with really cheap plans, b) many electronic devices are also being made reliably and cheaply. I just bought my mother a laptop for $150. It works for her. Its nothing fancy, but she doesn't do anything fancy with it.

The reality is the cost of living is way too high for minimum wage earners to keep up with. Hell, I don't make minimum wage and I find the cost of living incredibly burdensome and I will find my entire two week paycheck gone to over a grand in bills.

So I support people who want to increase the minimum wage. That is not whining, but fighting for economic rights.

I wonder if when people were arguing to change the law in regards to child labour, conservatives called those children whiners?

felltoearth wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

felltoearth wrote:Farcical.

Yes it is. This Anything bad that anyone says about Walmart must true because they are so evil, way of thinking is quite a farce, yet not all that amusing.

What I'm out of step with is a lock step mentality where even questioning accepted doctrine/dogma/memes is met with little more than stale party line platitudes.

No, the issue is demonizing the un- and underemployed as evil for wanting a living wage and wanting to decently feed and house themselves and their family with decent health and dental care and perhaps the ability to retire before age 80, much like their own parents.

Oh yeah. But those people are just entitled whiners.

Strawman alert!

Oldskeptic wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

felltoearth wrote:Farcical.

Yes it is. This Anything bad that anyone says about Walmart must true because they are so evil, way of thinking is quite a farce, yet not all that amusing.

What I'm out of step with is a lock step mentality where even questioning accepted doctrine/dogma/memes is met with little more than stale party line platitudes.

No, the issue is demonizing the un- and underemployed as evil for wanting a living wage and wanting to decently feed and house themselves and their family with decent health and dental care and perhaps the ability to retire before age 80, much like their own parents.

Oh yeah. But those people are just entitled whiners.

Strawman alert!

Identify the stawman. These are the take aways from your arguments.