Wal-Mart gives bounty to taxpayer by closing 154 stores. Taxpayers will no longer have to subsidize those low wage workers

[Axulus]

Anyone have any guesses on how much the taxpayers will save by not having to subsidize the wages of these workers any more at these 154 stores? About 10,000 US employees will be impacted.

 

[Ford]

I could have sworn that Wal-Mart was the invincible paragon of capitalism. The US economy is going well. Why are they closing so many stores? Could it be that their business model is not so fool-proof?

 

[Axulus]

I could have sworn that Wal-Mart was the invincible paragon of capitalism. The US economy is going well. Why are they closing so many stores? Could it be that their business model is not so fool-proof?

Competition wears down old business models. Wal-Mart is becoming an old concept at this point.

 

[Ford]

I could have sworn that Wal-Mart was the invincible paragon of capitalism. The US economy is going well. Why are they closing so many stores? Could it be that their business model is not so fool-proof?

Competition wears down old business models. Wal-Mart is becoming an old concept at this point.

So what's the bigger, cheaper, paying-employees-less store that's putting them down?

 

[Nexus]

Amazon.com

 

[maxparrish]

Anyone have any guesses on how much the taxpayers will save by not having to subsidize the wages of these workers any more at these 154 stores? About 10,000 US employees will be impacted.

Well, those laid off will likely have Medicaid or heavily subisided insurance, totally paid by the US Government. They will draw state unemployment. And perhaps food stamps. And the taxpayers will no longer have income tax, sales and local property tax revenue from those stores.

Say...it looks like it will cost government a whole lot MORE. Damn Wallmart, screwing us again.

 

[Juma]

Ah. But question is why?was the numbers red or just not giant enough?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Anyone have any guesses on how much the taxpayers will save by not having to subsidize the wages of these workers any more at these 154 stores? About 10,000 US employees will be impacted.

The US has spent hundreds of billions of dollars for Wars in the Middle East, so subsidies for lower paid workers including Medical care etc seems hardly significant.

 

[JonA]

I thought closing stores was always the Wal-Mart game plan: Open stores where it makes no business sense to have a retail supercenter; drive all the other businesses out of town; close the Wal-Mart and force everyone to drive miles and miles to the nearest town with a grocery store (which just happens to be a Wal-Mart).

All the small town customers without the costs of maintaining all the small town stores.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Anyone have any guesses on how much the taxpayers will save by not having to subsidize the wages of these workers any more at these 154 stores? About 10,000 US employees will be impacted.

From Walmart: The store closures affect approximately 16,000 employees, but more than 95 percent of the closed stores in the U.S. are within an average of 10 miles from another Walmart. The company will try to place affected workers in nearby locations, or provide 60 days of severance.

http://www.fox9.com/news/business/74883405-story

________________


Should have went into the apartment rental speculation business like Target:

The Minneapolis-based retailer is building its smallest-format store in one of the city's hippest neighborhoods, which is a magnet for young professionals. The new store, to open in October 2017, will occupy the ground floor of a new office and apartment building on the site of the former Cheapo music store along Lake Street...

CPM Development, a Minneapolis real estate developer that specializes in the Uptown and University of Minnesota areas, is putting together the $40 million, six-story project. It will have one floor of office space and 125 apartment units.

http://www.startribune.com/target-will-open-store-in-uptown-on-cheapo-s-spot/365447611/

I live 5 blocks away.

 

[SimpleDon]

Anyone have any guesses on how much the taxpayers will save by not having to subsidize the wages of these workers any more at these 154 stores? About 10,000 US employees will be impacted.

In Forbes, here,

Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.

Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.

“The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs,” reads the report, available in full here.

“It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.”

Government won't see any decrease in the expense of subsidizing low wages, though. It is about the same cost for these programs for the unemployed workers*. It is estimated that State and Federal governments' annual bill for subsidizing low wages is about 150 billion dollars a year. It is justified in some people's minds because the subsidies increase profits.

* Unemployment compensation is privately financed, of course.

 

[SimpleDon]

From Walmart: The store closures affect approximately 16,000 employees, but more than 95 percent of the closed stores in the U.S. are within an average of 10 miles from another Walmart. The company will try to place affected workers in nearby locations, or provide 60 days of severance.

http://www.fox9.com/news/business/74883405-story

________________


Should have went into the apartment rental speculation business like Target:

The Minneapolis-based retailer is building its smallest-format store in one of the city's hippest neighborhoods, which is a magnet for young professionals. The new store, to open in October 2017, will occupy the ground floor of a new office and apartment building on the site of the former Cheapo music store along Lake Street...

CPM Development, a Minneapolis real estate developer that specializes in the Uptown and University of Minnesota areas, is putting together the $40 million, six-story project. It will have one floor of office space and 125 apartment units.

http://www.startribune.com/target-will-open-store-in-uptown-on-cheapo-s-spot/365447611/

I live 5 blocks away.

Target is doing the samething in Atlanta.

I didn't suspect that you are a hipster.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I didn't suspect that you are a hipster.

No just one of the old guard.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I could have sworn that Wal-Mart was the invincible paragon of capitalism. The US economy is going well. Why are they closing so many stores? Could it be that their business model is not so fool-proof?

Competition wears down old business models. Wal-Mart is becoming an old concept at this point.

Yea, I've always hated Walmart. It's too big, busy, loud, and has cheap products. I've always shopped at more expensive stores that offer better service and a better environment.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Competition wears down old business models. Wal-Mart is becoming an old concept at this point.

Yea, I've always hated Walmart. It's too big, busy, loud, and has cheap products. I've always shopped at more expensive stores that offer better service and a better environment.

I've always shopped at K-Mart.

Wish they were still in business.

 

[Toni]

Anyone have any guesses on how much the taxpayers will save by not having to subsidize the wages of these workers any more at these 154 stores? About 10,000 US employees will be impacted.

Well, those laid off will likely have Medicaid or heavily subisided insurance, totally paid by the US Government. They will draw state unemployment. And perhaps food stamps. And the taxpayers will no longer have income tax, sales and local property tax revenue from those stores.

Say...it looks like it will cost government a whole lot MORE. Damn Wallmart, screwing us again.

Walmart employees were already on medicaid or heavily subsidized insurance, housing and SNAP.

Closing Walmarts will have the benefit of eliminating the costs of detailing police to Walmarts to prevent shoplifting and other criminal activities on store premises. I'm not being sly: this is actually not insignificant.

It will also end some tax subsidies and perhaps return some space to the roles of property tax payers. Unfortunately, it will take a generation or more to regenerate locally owned and controlled businesses where the money generated largely stays in the community.

Say what you will about hipsters, but as a group, they do favor smaller scale, not mass market production of goods. And will spend for it.

 

[laughing dog]

Anyone have any guesses on how much the taxpayers will save by not having to subsidize the wages of these workers any more at these 154 stores? About 10,000 US employees will be impacted.

Well, if those unemployed workers go on the dole, taxpayers will be subsidizing them. Now, I suppose you are implying that subsidizing employees is less expensive than supporting the unemployed, but that misses the entire point that supposedly free marketeers should not have their employees subsidized at all.

 

[Bomb#20]

Anyone have any guesses on how much the taxpayers will save by not having to subsidize the wages of these workers any more at these 154 stores? About 10,000 US employees will be impacted.

In Forbes, here,

“The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs,” reads the report, available in full here.

“It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.”

Government won't see any decrease in the expense of subsidizing low wages, though. It is about the same cost for these programs for the unemployed workers*.

So Walmart’s low wages and benefits cost government $6.2 billion, and getting rid of them won't save government any money, and you don't see any consistency problem in your statements? So the workers rely on various public assistance programs, regardless of whether they're employed at Walmart or not, and Walmart "forces" them to rely on those programs, and you don't see in your statements a failure to grok the fundamental nature of causality?

Your coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups are begging the question.

It is estimated that State and Federal governments' annual bill for subsidizing low wages is about 150 billion dollars a year. It is justified in some people's minds because the subsidies increase profits.

It is estimated that abortion kills a million babies a year in America. It is justified in some people's minds because abortion is five times more likely to kill a black baby than a white baby. Have you considered the merits of debating topics by addressing your opponents' actual arguments, instead of by searching your own ideology for whatever motivation it considers the most vile and imputing that to your opponents?

 

[fast]

Effect doesn't entail fault. If members of government enact legislation for others to abide by (and subsidies eventually result), then I find it a bit disconcerting that such is not considered when the blame game begins.

If I pay her $8 instead of $10 and therefore you must pay $2, then you wouldn't have had to pay $2 had I paid $10 instead, but take a closer look at why you must pay before blaming me.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Competition wears down old business models. Wal-Mart is becoming an old concept at this point.

Yea, I've always hated Walmart. It's too big, busy, loud, and has cheap products. I've always shopped at more expensive stores that offer better service and a better environment.

According to what I've read on this board, that's not possible. Every store is either all racing to the bottom by cutting service and quality in order to offer the lowest price, or racing to the top by raising prices in order to offer the best quality and service. That one could have an option to shop at a lower end store and also have the option to shop at a higher end store, that only makes sense from a free market point of view.