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

[ksen]

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.

How does the government going from subsidizing part of the wages to subsidizing all the wages equal no longer having to subsidize?

Axulnomics is weird.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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.

How does the government going from subsidizing part of the wages to subsidizing all the wages equal no longer having to subsidize?

Axulnomics is weird.

He left off the sarcasm tag.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Which misses the whole point--the left wants Wal-Mart gone, but we see the result of Wal-Mart leaving--people going on the dole.

In a fantasy land there would be better jobs. That's not accomplished by destroying bad jobs, though--the market will do that fine if enough good jobs exist.

Your approach is like the supposed computer that said to remove the top and bottom stair to reduce accidents.

- - - Updated - - -

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?

The left is willing to sacrifice a gazillion workers on the altar of sending a message that there should only be good jobs. Just like the right being willing to sacrifice a gazillion women on the altar of sending a message about non-biblical sex.

Both sides care more about their message than about reality.

 

[laughing dog]

Which misses the whole point--the left wants Wal-Mart gone, but we see the result of Wal-Mart leaving--people going on the dole.

In a fantasy land there would be better jobs. That's not accomplished by destroying bad jobs, though--the market will do that fine if enough good jobs exist.

Your approach is like the supposed computer that said to remove the top and bottom stair to reduce accidents.

I have no idea why you think any of that babble is relevant to what I actually wrote.

 

[Ford]

The left is willing to sacrifice a gazillion workers on the altar of sending a message that there should only be good jobs.

As opposed to the right, which continues to insist that jobs which pay poverty wages are "good jobs."

 

[Bronzeage]

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?

As far as I can tell, the stores to be closed are in smaller towns. Wal-mart's business model is based on high volume and high population density in the surrounding area. They don't want to be the general store which does all it's business on Saturday, but has to keep the doors open all week long.

Of course, the general store went out of business six months after the Wal-mart opened. Now customers will have to drive 65 miles to get those low low prices.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Walmart opened up a lot of small stores and this experimental approach has proven to not be exactly a big money maker. Much of this is these small "Walmart Express" stores that are being shut down. They wer supposed to compete with "dollar stores".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

According to the articles, they are closing down the small test stores they opened, not the large box retail stores... which would imply the old model is still working.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How much is the savings to taxpayers?

How much less taxes do we pay for every worker laid off by Wal-Mart?

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.”

So the facts are in. Can't argue with the data.

Wow! This means we could create added billions of $$$$ savings to taxpayers by just increasing government benefits to low-paid workers, and the result will be that every time low-paid workers are laid off, the taxpayers will save all that much more.

So if only we had doubled the benefits to low-paid workers, then the savings now would be twice as much as we're getting.

Why not double those benefits and then put pressure on Wal-Mart to close all its stores and taxpayers will save $12.4 billion. Or better, TRIPLE the benefits, force all Wal-Marts to close, and taxpayers will gain a whopping windfall of $18.6 billion.

Actually, the dirty capitalist pigs are ALREADY SAVING US Trillions of $$$$ because of all the low-paid workers they are NOT employing. There are probably MILLIONS of these non-employed people who could be paid low wages, but because they are not being employed at low wages, taxpayers are already saving trillions of $$$.

Let's go a step farther: Let's define "low-paid" as anything under $20/hour, or $30/hour, and double the current benefit level (paid by employers) that's defined as "low" -- so most of the labor force will be "low-paid" and get tax-subsidized, so then most worker layoffs will result in these great savings to taxpayers. The more "low-paid" workers there are to be tax-subsidized, the greater the tax savings we enjoy when the companies lay off workers. But more important -- the greater the trillions of savings from all the UNemployed that companies are not employing at low wages.

All those chronically-unemployed, e.g. Imagine how much we're already saving because they aren't working at WalMart, and how much even more we'd be saving from their not being employed by WalMart if only "low-paid" was defined as $20/ or $30/hour!

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Whatever benefits consumers is best for the economy.

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.

This is why a better solution to "poverty" is for companies to hire illegal aliens who are not eligible for the tax-subsidies.

That way everyone wins: the illegal aliens are better off to have that job, the companies are better off (making higher profit), consumers are better off with the lower prices, taxpayers are better off not having to pay the subsidies to low-paid workers, and the laid-off workers are better off no longer being exploited by the dirty capitalist pigs and thus no longer needing the government assistance to low-paid workers that their employment at WalMart forces them to apply for.

So the obvious solution to all of this: HIRE ILLEGAL ALIENS instead.

 

[Jayjay]

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.

This is why a better solution to "poverty" is for companies to hire illegal aliens who are not eligible for the tax-subsidies.

That way everyone wins: the illegal aliens are better off to have that job, the companies are better off (making higher profit), consumers are better off with the lower prices, taxpayers are better off not having to pay the subsidies to low-paid workers, and the laid-off workers are better off no longer being exploited by the dirty capitalist pigs and thus no longer needing the government assistance to low-paid workers that their employment at WalMart forces them to apply for.

So the obvious solution to all of this: HIRE ILLEGAL ALIENS instead.

Or you could legalize those aliens. But wait... that would mean they would be eligible for the same benefits. So I guess the best solution is to illegalize the current Walmart employees. Strip away their citizenship. Everybody wins, right?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The best solution would have been (1) do not put Walmarts 5 miles away from each other and (2) move slow cashiers to different jobs.

 

[lpetrich]

This is why a better solution to "poverty" is for companies to hire illegal aliens who are not eligible for the tax-subsidies.

So you want to enable illegal immigration? I'm opposed to it. I think that illegal immigrants are gate crashers.

I note that you titled that post "Whatever benefits consumers is best for the economy." -- which seems to justify forcing down wages, as if workers are never consumers and as if consumers get their money by picking money trees.

I think that if antebellum-South plantation owners wanted to get capitalism apologists on their side, they could easily have done so. They would have whined about how hard they work, much harder than their slaves, who live in great luxury by comparison. They would have presented slavery as a way of getting Low Prices For The Consumer, as opposed to trying to hire lazy selfish greedy ingrates who will only raise prices for consumers. Etc.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The best solution is the one which best serves the consumers, not crybaby employees who have to be paid more than they're worth.

This is why a better solution to "poverty" is for companies to hire illegal aliens who are not eligible for the tax-subsidies.

That way everyone wins: the illegal aliens are better off to have that job, the companies are better off (making higher profit), consumers are better off with the lower prices, taxpayers are better off not having to pay the subsidies to low-paid workers, and the laid-off workers are better off no longer being exploited by the dirty capitalist pigs and thus no longer needing the government assistance to low-paid workers that their employment at WalMart forces them to apply for.

So the obvious solution to all of this: HIRE ILLEGAL ALIENS instead.

Or you could legalize those aliens.

But why do that? Allow them to be here and work, but don't "legalize" them to make them eligible for benefits they don't need. They are able to make it without any tax subsidies, so just let them remain in a category that makes them ineligible for the benefits.

But wait... that would mean they would be eligible for the same benefits.

Right, so that's NOT a good solution. Just let them work, so they're better off and everyone else is better off. But don't "legalize" them to make them eligible for those benefits which then makes all taxpayers worse off. Why is it a good "solution" if it makes someone worse off? Choose the solution that makes everyone better off and no one worse off.

So I guess the best solution is to illegalize the current Walmart employees.

No, that's much more complicated, and requires legal steps. Just let Walmart do them the favor of laying them off, so they won't be exploited any more, and let companies hire illegal aliens. So no legal steps have to be taken and everyone's better off. This is partly going on already.

So just let this current practice of hiring illegals increase, and otherwise don't change anything. Don't do any raids or crackdowns on employers, etc., ease up the enforcement of laws, which partly is happening anyway.

This is a case where the status quo is best, except that it just needs to increase somewhat.

Strip away their citizenship. Everybody wins, right?

No, the cost of taking away someone's citizenship is too high. Just do them the favor of having them be laid off so they will no longer suffer from being low-paid workers which forces them to seek low-paid worker public assistance.

In other words, put an end to the harm WalMart inflicts by hiring these low-value workers who necessarily suffer if they're paid only what they're worth, and with this suffering being brought to an end -- by laying them off -- and replacing them with someone who doesn't suffer from being paid only what they're worth, we put an end to the evil and make everyone better off, especially the consumers, which is all of us and who should take priority over any other interest group, especially whining crybaby employees whose only contribution to society is to drive up the labor cost and force consumers to pay higher prices.

 

[Jayjay]

Or you could legalize those aliens.

But why do that? Allow them to be here and work, but don't "legalize" them to make them eligible for benefits they don't need. They are able to make it without any tax subsidies, so just let them remain in a category that makes them ineligible for the benefits.

But wait... that would mean they would be eligible for the same benefits.

Right, so that's NOT a good solution. Just let them work, so they're better off and everyone else is better off. But don't "legalize" them to make them eligible for those benefits which then makes all taxpayers worse off. Why is it a good "solution" if it makes someone worse off? Choose the solution that makes everyone better off and no one worse off.

So I guess the best solution is to illegalize the current Walmart employees.

No, that's much more complicated, and requires legal steps. Just let Walmart do them the favor of laying them off, so they won't be exploited any more, and let companies hire illegal aliens. So no legal steps have to be taken and everyone's better off. This is partly going on already.

So just let this current practice of hiring illegals increase, and otherwise don't change anything. Don't do any raids or crackdowns on employers, etc., ease up the enforcement of laws, which partly is happening anyway.

This is a case where the status quo is best, except that it just needs to increase somewhat.

Strip away their citizenship. Everybody wins, right?

No, the cost of taking away someone's citizenship is too high.

You're contradicting yourself. Your whole argument is that illegals cost less than citizens. And you also said that citizens are "eligible for benefits they don't need", so it stands to reason we'd be better off to have more people in that category, and less people in the citizenship category. If granting a person citizenship increases total costs, then by corollary, depriving citizenship from citizens and relegating them to the same class as illegal immigrants should decrease costs.

Besides, you're solution is basically that we should stop enforcing laws. That's technically the same as "legalizing" the illegals... but making them second-class workforce without equal rights.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

We need to force consumers to pay higher prices in order to perform their moral obligation to serve the uncompetitive producers.

This is why a better solution to "poverty" is for companies to hire illegal aliens who are not eligible for the tax-subsidies.

So you want to enable illegal immigration? I'm opposed to it. I think that illegal immigrants are gate crashers.

If "gate crashers" make consumers better off, I say "Bring 'em on!"

I note that you titled that post "Whatever benefits consumers is best for the economy." -- which seems to justify forcing down wages, . . .

Right, like competition drives down prices and makes consumers better off. And like automation drives down costs and prices but drives up unemployment. Whatever makes consumers better off is what's best. There's no need for any workers who make consumers worse off.

. . . as if workers are never consumers and as if consumers get their money by picking money trees.

Overall we are better off by driving down the labor cost through competition, such as through automation, even if some producers lose out in the competition. It's not the duty of consumers to subsidize uncompetitive producers, including uncompetitive wage-earners.

If you don't agree, I assume you're out there with the Luddites smashing those machines, those computers, those robots that are stealing people's jobs and driving down the labor costs.

Don't worry, there's lots of brain-dead idiots out there who agree with you and will join you in your machine-smashing frenzy. You've got Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders stampeding the idiots on and passing out the sledge-hammers. You'll mostly get your way, so don't worry -- there's plenty of crybaby screaming employer-bashing fanatics in your crusade to drive up prices that we all have to pay.

I think that if antebellum-South plantation owners wanted to get capitalism apologists on their side, they could easily have done so.

Those plantation owners today would by far prefer to hire low-cost migrant workers (legal or illegal) rather than have to bear the expense of maintaining and policing slaves.

They would have whined about how hard they work, much harder than their slaves, who live in great luxury by comparison.

You're right. That's why we must require Walmart to "Let my people go" -- i.e., lay them off and replace them with someone who will freely work for them at the price they're worth instead of having to be paid more than their value. Rather than letting Walmart continue to force these present workers to do this "low-paid" labor against their will.

Obviously the Walmart workers don't want those jobs and are just being forced against their will, as you are saying, and so the state should order Walmart to end this slavery, lay off those suffering "low-paid" workers and then do whatever they have to do to get the work done, which will be to hire whatever illegals who will work voluntarily and be paid what they're worth.

They would have presented slavery as a way of getting Low Prices For The Consumer, . . .

You're right -- it's "slavery" for consumers to benefit from competition and new technology and more efficiency and anything else that saves on cost. All uncompetitive producers have to be protected by the state so they won't be slaves, because it's "slavery" for producers to have to perform better. You're right that the economic system has to be designed to promote the uncompetitive producers and the ones who perform the most poorly, because otherwise we are making "slaves" of them. You've nailed it!

. . . as opposed to trying to hire lazy selfish greedy ingrates who will only raise prices for consumers. Etc.

You've converted me. Any cost saving by companies that might benefit consumers or anything that improves performance by producers is "slavery." We must do everything to make consumers worse off, drive up the prices they pay, discourage competition and better performance. It's "slavery" to expect producers to improve their service to consumers.

And those plantation owners should have been ordered to pay $20/hour to those workers and provide family leave and paid vacation and pension and health insurance and other necessities, based on today's standards and in today's dollars adjusted for inflation, and guaranteed protection from being replaced by machines, so that today we'd still have 50% of the workforce in agriculture where they belong and being paid today's "living wage" at the expense of consumers who need to stop their whining and support our peasants, who should be half the population, and who are entitled to the same American Dream that the wealthy class enjoys.

In sum: Don't allow them the free choice of choosing their own terms and trying to compete and undersell the other guy. You're right -- Keep them on the plantation and dictate to them what the terms are, so no one's livelihood is threatened by any free person out there trying to outperform someone else.

 

[ZiprHead]

You do realize that consumers and workers are usually the same people, don't you?

 

[lpetrich]

So you want to enable illegal immigration? I'm opposed to it. I think that illegal immigrants are gate crashers.

If "gate crashers" make consumers better off, I say "Bring 'em on!"

(similar blather snipped ...)

I have an idea. Get into the illegal-immigrant-smuggling business. When caught and put on trial, make long rants about how you've done it for the good of consumers and how everybody who objects wants to help overpaid ingrate "workers" steal from consumers. Do so even if the judge cuts you off and threatens you with contempt of court if you continue. Then when sentenced to some years in jail, write a book about why you did what you did. You might initially want to call it something like "Four and a half years of struggle against lies, stupidity, and cowardice", but its publisher might recommend a more snappy title, like "My Struggle".

I was being satirical here, because I wouldn't want to advocate illegal activity. To see who I modeled this scenario on, translate "My Struggle" into German. It's a certain famous book title.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Do whatever it takes to circumvent the employer-bashing laws that drive up prices to consumers.

But why do that? Allow them to be here and work, but don't "legalize" them to make them eligible for benefits they don't need. They are able to make it without any tax subsidies, so just let them remain in a category that makes them ineligible for the benefits.

But wait... that would mean they would be eligible for the same benefits.

Right, so that's NOT a good solution. Just let them work, so they're better off and everyone else is better off. But don't "legalize" them to make them eligible for those benefits which then makes all taxpayers worse off. Why is it a good "solution" if it makes someone worse off? Choose the solution that makes everyone better off and no one worse off.

So I guess the best solution is to illegalize the current Walmart employees.

No, that's much more complicated, and requires legal steps. Just let Walmart do them the favor of laying them off, so they won't be exploited any more, and let companies hire illegal aliens. So no legal steps have to be taken and everyone's better off. This is partly going on already.

So just let this current practice of hiring illegals increase, and otherwise don't change anything. Don't do any raids or crackdowns on employers, etc., ease up the enforcement of laws, which partly is happening anyway.

This is a case where the status quo is best, except that it just needs to increase somewhat.

Strip away their citizenship. Everybody wins, right?

No, the cost of taking away someone's citizenship is too high.

You're contradicting yourself. Your whole argument is that illegals cost less than citizens. And you also said that citizens are "eligible for benefits they don't need", so it stands to reason we'd be better off to have more people in that category, and less people in the citizenship category.

Maybe, theoretically. But I'm limiting this to only what's practically possible. It's practical to have low-paid non-citizen workers (we already have them). And even increase them, while hiring fewer citizens who demand tax-benefits because they're low-paid workers. So instead just hire the ones who will impose less cost onto our economy. And we partly do this already, so just do it even more.

If granting a person citizenship increases total costs, then by corollary, depriving citizenship from citizens and relegating them to the same class as illegal immigrants should decrease costs.

And this is your left-hook argument for granting citizenship to all the immigrant workers. But by this logic, U.S. citizenship should be granted to ALL humans on the planet.

Whatever immigrants are working here, legal or illegal, there's no more need to "legalize" them, or grant them citizenship, than there is to grant citizenship to all humans on the planet.

So, returning to what's practical, Walmart would do best for the country to hire fewer citizens and hire more immigrants/illegals. Ideally it might be better to hire official guest workers, with the condition that these would be ineligible for any tax-paid benefits, as immigrants/non-citizens are usually ineligible for such benefits.

But realistically, just let the status quo continue, and meanwhile Walmart would do best for the country by just increasing their hiring of illegals and reducing their hiring of citizens. That's do-able and realistic and would produce the best outcome for everyone.

Besides, your solution is basically that we should stop enforcing laws.

Only in the sense that the speed laws are largely not enforced. Most speeders are not cited. There's no need to enforce all laws 100%. Enforce them only as demanded by practical necessity.

That's technically the same as "legalizing" the illegals... but making them second-class workforce without equal rights.

Sort of. We do have some laws or conditions disallowing immigrants or certain new arrivals or guest workers to receive welfare benefits.

They are better off being here and having that job, even if they are "second-class" workers.

We should do whatever it takes to escape the damage to the economy imposed by some bad laws that impose unnecessary costs onto employers and drive up prices to consumers. If we cannot unshackle the economy and consumers from these bad laws, then the next-best course is to do whatever we can to circumvent them in order to reduce the damage they inflict.

It's mostly up to the employers to do it, while the government should ease the restrictions on hiring immigrants (while maybe giving employers the "wink-and-a-nod").

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

You do realize that consumers and workers are usually the same people, don't you?

And therefore what? It's not true that workers are supposed to perform better for the benefit of consumers? they shouldn't have to compete? they're entitled to a minimum income?

Also consumers and RIGHT-HANDERS are usually the same people. So then right-handers are entitled to some special benefit at the expense of left-handers? they're entitled to higher incomes in order to boost their spending power?