Behold!! The cancerous growth of Wal Mart!!!

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://projects.flowingdata.com/walmart/?a=b

[SteamWake]

Behold the amazing growth of a sucessful buisness model.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Behold the amazing growth of a sucessful buisness model.

Depends on what you define as successful:

A Substantial Number of Wal-Mart Associates earn below the federal poverty line

• In 2008, the average full time Associate (34 hours per week) earns $10.84 hourly for an annual income of $19,165. That’s $2,000 below the Federal Poverty Line for a family of four. [http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/08poverty.shtml]

• Last year, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott earned $29.7 million in total compensation, or 1,551 times the annual income of the average full time Wal-Mart Associate. [http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr...fi-briefs20.6]

[SteamWake]

Going by those numbers I live below the poverty line as well.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Going by those numbers I live below the poverty line as well.

Me too!

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Me too!

So...why do you guys seem to go to bat to defend the wealthy? Do you think they became that way by being nice? On balance, do you think they care about you?

[August]

Originally Posted by reallydedpoet

Depends on what you define as successful:

Well they're a little more successful than is implied in the article you quoted. Full time is 40 hours a week, not 34. That brings an associates annual salary up to about $2500 above the poverty line.

Also a Walmart Associates job was never intended to support a family of four.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Originally Posted by August

Well they're a little more successful than is implied in the article you quoted. Full time is 40 hours a week, not 34. That brings an associates annual salary up to about $2500 above the poverty line.

Nothing to write home about considering the profits that Walmart makes. Anyway 40 hours is debatable. From wikipedia:

Definitions by country

The most common full-time workweek in the U.S. is between 32–40 hours. In France it is a government-mandated 35 hours per week. In Germany it is between 35–40 hours per week, and in Denmark it is 37 hours per week. In Australia it is around 38-40 hours per week, and in the U.K., whilst there is no formal definition, it is generally considered to be 35 hours a week or more. A person working more than full-time is working overtime, and is entitled to extra per-hour wages (but not salary).

Originally Posted by August

Also a Walmart Associates job was never intended to support a family of four.

Whatever their intentions, and it is difficult to tell at times with them, their wages are a joke.

[Sailor Steve]

Don't forget that Wal-Mart associates also get discounts there, and that includes everything from groceries to power drills. I worked there for awhile. If it had been more than seasonal I'd still be there. It's not bad, as jobs go, and if no one else will hire you it could be a lot worse.

[August]

Originally Posted by reallydedpoet

Anyway 40 hours is debatable.

I've been in the American work force since the early 1970's and it's been my experience that any job less than 40 hours is considered a part time job.

Whatever their intentions, and it is difficult to tell at times with them, their wages are a joke.

That is very true, but again, jobs like that are not intended to be careers that you raise a family on.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by reallydedpoet

Nothing to write home about considering the profits that Walmart makes. Anyway 40 hours is debatable.

In my company, full time is also defined by when you receive full benefits. In my company full time is 38 hours. Anyone less than 38 is a part-timer and get reduced/no benefits.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by August

Well they're a little more successful than is implied in the article you quoted. Full time is 40 hours a week, not 34. That brings an associates annual salary up to about $2500 above the poverty line.

Also a Walmart Associates job was never intended to support a family of four.

Except, of course, Wal Mart makes a point of never making anyone full time if they can avoid it so they don't have to give them benefits.

[August]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

Except, of course, Wal Mart makes a point of never making anyone full time if they can avoid it so they don't have to give them benefits.

Yeah so? Sounds like good business sense to me. Again, stock boy isn't intended to be a career.

[tater]

Originally Posted by reallydedpoet

Depends on what you define as successful:

You seem to be unclear on the concept.

One, what employees make doesn't matter in the least.

Two, assuming that anyone employed by WalMart has to be the sole support for a family of 4 is absurd. Most PROFESSIONALS I know have both spouses working. Why would someone making 10-60 times less per hour not also have a working spouse? Two such average WM employees would make around 40k a year. You'd do quite well on that in the interior of the US, actually. A single parent... should not have churned out so many kids to need to support 3 with an unskilled job (parenthood is a CHOICE, period).

[ReallyDedPoet]

Originally Posted by tater

You seem to be unclear on the concept.

You get that from my two brief posts in the thread