Just as Sam Walton did, I started my own business with a small investment, and then operated it on a shoestring budget to contain costs. Over a decade it grew into a small chain of six stores operating in three states. During that time I was not offered, nor did I expect, any subsidies from local, county or state governments for bringing my business to the area. Growth of the company was funded by reinvestment of profits generated by the business. All the while, income taxes were paid on those profits. There was no assistance offered for the construction of facilities, nor were there tax breaks for doing business that brought in additional tax revenues. The company paid property taxes on all of its equipment, furnishings and leasehold improvements, thereby generating additional revenue for local governments. As an employer, it paid fair wages commensurate to the level of responsibility held. The company also provided a comprehensive benefits package that included healthcare, dental care, vacation pay, personal holidays and more. The economy in which we participate is a capitalistic one. This means entrepreneurs who succeed should make it on the strength of their own talents and merits, and the ones that fail should do so as well. My stores didn't cost the communities in which they operated one dime - in fact they contributed to all of them financially by producing tax revenues and good jobs with excellent benefits. This is all quite contrary to what Wal-Mart does, and claims to do.
Wal-Mart representatives claim that the company provides good paying jobs. When Michael Duke, CEO of the Wal-Mart Stores division was interviewed in 2004, he stated, "People who write about the quality of jobs at Wal-Mart don't understand or know anything about our associates." Continuing on to say "When you get to know our people, their dedication and loyalty, and you see firsthand their level of commitment, you realize these are quality jobs" (Dicker 30). But is a good job defined by how loyal an employee is? Typically, the better the pay, the better the job. "According to Forbes, the average Wal-Mart in-store employee makes roughly $7.50 an hour" (Dicker 80). With full time being classified as thirty-two hours per week the gross earnings of a full time employee would be under $12,500 per year. This is several thousand dollars below the federally established poverty line for a family of four. With earnings numbers like these, few people would define the jobs at Wal-Mart as good. Yet Mona Williams, a Wal-Mart spokesperson, declared to Forbes in 2004 that it "is equal to what many union grocers pay and higher than at most other nonunion retailers." This is contradictory to a workforces wage report in 2004 from the U.S. House of Representatives that showed the average grocery store employee made $10.35 per hour (Dicker 80). Because their earnings are so low, Wal-Mart staff make up a disproportionate number of users of welfare systems throughout the country. As such, it is now estimated that for every two-hundred-person Wal-Mart, it cost federal taxpayers $2103 per employee (Karjanen 155). We taxpayers pay for those systems with our hard earned money. Why should we pay for Wal-Mart's employees to live above the poverty line? It is Wal-Mart's responsibility to pay a living wage like other companies do.
To be continued...
Think About It
No comments:
Post a Comment