These Wake Up Wal-Mart people need to get a life... I just read about how a recent poll says a majority of Americans are now convinced that Wal-mart is bad for America. However, probably 85% of the country shops there. If Wal-mart started paying union wages, and buying all-american, then do you think those people will be happy with the soaring prices (as opposed to the currently "falling prices") If Wal-mart gave in to all of the demands from these groups, I am willing to be that it would single handedly cause a boom in inflation in this country. Then what did you achieve? A group of unskilled workers get a huge pay and benefits increase, and the whole country ends up trying to foot the bill when the cost of living increases...

Maybe instead of the CEOs of Wal-Mart pocketing what is probably around 600-700 times what the average employee makes in a year, they could do without the smaller yacht that takes them to where there big yacht is docked or maybe take a pass on that 4th vacation home in Mexico.
If your company is so big that paying your employees proper wages while selling items made with non-child labor would send the country in to an inflationary nightmare, I think we have other problems.
Keep voting libertarian and may we have "One Corporation under god... Maybe instead of the CEOs of Wal-Mart pocketing what is probably around 600-700 times what the average employee makes in a year, they could do without the smaller yacht that takes them to where there big yacht is docked or maybe take a pass on that 4th vacation home in Mexico.
If your company is so big that paying your employees proper wages while selling items made with non-child labor would send the country in to an inflationary nightmare, I think we have other problems.

But if we don't accept some inflation, we're bound to have a significant number of unemployed and uninsured American households. And then, fewer folks will be able to afford anything, even the cheapest of foreign-made goods.

Race-to-the-bottom consumerism is now so ingrained into our equity-tapping economy that it certainly won't change over night. But as growing distaste for Wal-Mart shows, there is increasing support for our political economy to be incrementally altered.

WalMart is the devil. The estimated total amount of federal assistance for which Wal-Mart employees were eligible in 2004 was $2.5 billion. One 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,750 per year. We're already paying the price for corporate greed.

Okay Lori, instead of spouting off stats from Walmartwatch.com, look at the raw data. I worked at Wal-mart for 5 years, from high school and into college. Now I may have made below the poverty line, but what kid doesn't. And considering that 1/4 to 1/2 of all the employees I worked with at those 200 person stores were minors or part-time students, which you will find at almost all 3500 Wal-mart stores in America, espeically those in small college towns.
Not to mention, I worked with some real turds at those stores. I started at Wal-mart back in 1996 making $6.00/hr and left after 5 summers making almost $12.00/hr. I found that they rewarded hard work and dedication with lots of merit raises and excellent reviews equaling up to a 5% annual raise. I was in no supervisory role, just a stockman/cashier. Frankly, lots of those people didn't deserve to make more... But hey if you unionize a store, you get rid of merit raises, and every body gets paid the same no matter how bad you are... Great system for lazy asses!!!
Oh, and "The Caped Jackass", do you think that Wal-mart is the only company to pay it's CEO's well, in fact, Wal-mart CEO is ranked 155th in the top paid CEO's, check it out for yourself.

http://www.forbes.com/2005/04/20/05ceoland.html

As for the update that talked about how Costco does just as good financially, while paying more to their employees. Read that whole article. They have a different business model than Wal-mart. They cater to different clientels. Not every person can afford to shop at Costco's prices, they are admittedly higher end than Sam's and Wal-mart. Where are the lower income people going to shop? What would higher prices at Wally World do to thier standard of living? Many more people shop at Wal-mart, than work there. So raising the wages for those 200 people per store, just raises prices for the thousands that shop there. I can't believe that the Republican (ME) is defending the right of the lower income to have descent things at lower prices...

And I can't beleive a Democrat needs to defend the right of private sector employees to afford private health care options.

But the GOP evidently loves all forms of corporate welfare, even indirect subsidies, such as corporations encouraging their employees to largely enroll in entitlement programs.

And I can't believe a Democrat needs to defend the right of private sector employees to afford private health care options.

But the GOP evidently loves all forms of corporate welfare, even indirect subsidies, such as corporations encouraging their employees to largely enroll in entitlement programs.

I referenced the Business Week noting that it was an analysis from an investor's perspective. Despite the different business models. the authors were highlighting the fact that Wall Street gives labor costs greater weight than some other measures.

The anti-Wal Mart movement focuses on the social impact of the business, but there is also an abstract business model to be considered as well, even more so because of Wal Mart's influential position in the business world. Are low labor costs really the magic bullet? As NoCo said, the wages they pay are not all that low for the retail world. how critical is low labor costs to their business. Certainly the prices they are able to demand from suppliers helps secure a healthy bottom line.

The authors of the Business Week piece think the focus on low labor costs may not be the critical element it is made out to be in this market. There is also the big picture to think of. Externalities if you will. Could the low-wage emphasis serve more to please the investor than protecting the business model?

NoCo Republican,
So your counter to my argument is that since there are a ton of greedy bastards in the world, it is ok as long as you are not the worst? Wow, I hope you don’t teach.
Looking at the point of your last paragraph makes me want to laugh and hurl at the same time, kind of like being drunk with out all of the blurry. How can people like you … and I may be going out on a limb here but I think I am safe … how can people who think “trickle-down” or “Voodoo” economics will help our economy NOT see that giving the working poor a decent income won’t have an immediate beneficial impact on the economy? If those 200 Wal-Mart employees can now afford to, lets say, feed their kids while also having the heat on. Thus more money is going to the companies to provide those services. Thus more money will go** to the employees of those companies in a cycle of goodness. So before you start believing “…that the Republican (YOU) is defending the right of the lower income to have descent (sic) things at lower prices...,” Realize that all you are defending is the shackles on the working poor that keep them struggling to survive.

** After typing this I realized that my scenario could never come into fruition, and the evidence is in your Forbes link. Even when one company grows a heart, there are plenty more Tyco executives and oil company barons waiting to rape consumers and employees elsewhere. On that note: Happy Holidays, I will be buying blue. (http://www.buyblue.org/)