Walmart subsidizes the U.S. government's welfare program to a tune of. $15,080 per employee a year

[Dragonlady]

Employees don't deserve any of the profit. They agreed to work for a wage. If the want part of the profit, then they can buy stock in the company. Feudalism is where the employees are property. They are virtual slaves. Capitalism is where you are free to contract your labor to whomever you want to sell it to.

You obviously don't know jack shit about economics, and your moral theories are obvious horseshit based purely on your hatred of rich people.

They deserve a fair wage since the stores cannot operate without them. Everyone deserves their fair share of the money earned. That their employees qualify for welfare should make every member of the Walton Family, ashamed of themselves. ALL of it should NOT be going to the shareholders. Walmart could have paid all of their employees $100 a week more, and they would still have made $15 billion dollars, which is a very healthy profit. Taxpayers should absolutely not be subsidizing Walmart's payroll.

Feudalism is not where the employees are property. Under feudal law, the lord provided protection to the peasants and a patch of land to work, and in return, the peasants gave a portion of their crops to the Lord. But the Lords didn't take it all and leave the peasants without enough to eat. Comparably speaking, this is what Walmart is doing - take almost all of the monies earned from the labour of their employees, and telling the government to make up the shortfall so they can eat.

I can't believe you're defending Walmart's dependence on middle class taxpayers' money to subsidize wages they should be paying themselves. Yet you rail against all of the free shit that the poor get, but corporate welfare is fine by you. Typical clueless conservative attitude - picking up the peanuts while being trampled by the elephants.

I know a whole lot more about economics than you do. You thought feudalism was slavery. Your other posts show a lack of knowledge of business, or economics - anything that approaches what life is like in the real world.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Most positions in department stores are entry level unskilled labor. Those are the lowest paid positions due to labor market forces.
Why would any employer pay over the market rate wage for entry level work? That's stupid.
Most of the workers at the Walmart and all the other big box stores near here are kids, middle aged, adults, semi retired people looking to pick up some walking around money.
This time of year, many college students take part time work at these retailers.
Where's the problem.

The market rate for labour is established by the minimum wage law. The federal minimum wage hasn't been raised since Clinton was in office. Low income workers are falling further and further behind.

You may think it's cool to see your tax dollars go to these mega-profitable corporations, but I'd rather let these assholes pay their own workers. I don't shop at Walmart and see no reason to give more money to the Walton Family. I worked all my life. These lazy jerks inherited their money. They don't need mine.

No..The market rate wage is simple supply and demand
Anyone can perform menial tasks. Therefore the wages are lower. Pretty simple. Low income workers are low income because they as of the current have not acquired the skills necessary to increase their earning potential.
Where this idea that our tax dollars are being used as a matter of course to fund people who are working, is a mystery.
This is simply because these people are working low wage jobs, because that is what the market dictates. Whether they work or not is immaterial. Most social safety net recipients prefer to be social safety net recipients. Who would not want to receive TWO pay checks.
Seattle Sees Unexpected Fallout from $15 Per Hour Min. Wage
But, you will go on weeping for the low wage worker....
Here's an idea. How about YOU open a business, hire a few people and pay them above the market rate wages. Let us know how that works out for you.

 

[bripat9643]

Employees don't deserve any of the profit. They agreed to work for a wage. If the want part of the profit, then they can buy stock in the company. Feudalism is where the employees are property. They are virtual slaves. Capitalism is where you are free to contract your labor to whomever you want to sell it to.

You obviously don't know jack shit about economics, and your moral theories are obvious horseshit based purely on your hatred of rich people.

They deserve a fair wage since the stores cannot operate without them.

They deserve what they agreed to, and not one cent more.

Feudalism is not where the employees are property. Under feudal law, the lord provided protection to the peasants and a patch of land to work, and in return, the peasants gave a portion of their crops to the Lord. But the Lords didn't take it all and leave the peasants without enough to eat. Comparably speaking, this is what Walmart is doing - doing almost all of the monies earned from the labour of their employees, and telling the government to make up the shortfall.

ROFL Just as you have a distorted view of capitalism, you have an erroneous understanding of Feudalism. There was no "in return." The serfs were the Lord's property. He took whatever he wanted. That usually meant he took everything above what was the minimum required to avoid starvation. That's why Europe experienced regular famines during the feudal period. The peasants had no choice in the matter. They couldn't go seek a better deal elsewhere.

I know a whole lot more about economics than you do. You thought feudalism was slavery. Your other posts show a lack of anything that approaches what life is like in the real world.

You don't know jack shit about economics.. You regurgitate Marxist propaganda, not economics. You embarrass yourself on regular basis in this forum.

Feudalism was indistinguishable from slavery. Why do you think they call Russians "slavs?" It literally means "slave" and it refers to the serfs who were treated like property by their Russian lords.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So if they make any profit above zero they are immoral? What do you think a "just" level of profit is, 10%? 5%? 0%?

since everyone who works at Walmart is there voluntarily, how are they doing anything immoral? What is your definition of "moral?" What is the arbitrary number that makes one rate of pay moral and another immoral? What is the basis for drawing this line?

Because libs believe that company owners, CEO's, and investors should all share the wealth they've made with the company with the employees.

For a lib, forget about what the job is worth. That's meaningless. Forget about the fact they can pay wages and still attract willing workers. Again, meaningless to a lib. Forget the fact that companies heavily rely on investors, and investors put their money where the best growth is. Meaningless to a liberal.

What matters is that owners, CEO's and investors live the same lifestyle as the workers.....or perhaps just slightly better. To live much better is immoral as far as liberals are concerned.

"Just how much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

The Walmart employees worked for that money. Walmart was, at the time, the second most profitable company in America. That profit was made on the labour of Walmart Employees. To suggest that the employees don't deserve their fair share of such profit, is to promote feudalism.

Employees don't deserve any of the profit. They agreed to work for a wage. If the want part of the profit, then they can buy stock in the company. Feudalism is where the employees are property. They are virtual slaves. Capitalism is where you are free to contract your labor to whomever you want to sell it to.

You obviously don't know jack shit about economics, and your moral theories are obvious horseshit based purely on your hatred of rich people.

Up until oh 30 years ago, some employers, large ones, offered profit sharing programs to their workers. Those along with pensions and platinum medical benefits were the fringe perks employers offered.
The prfit sharing and pensions gave way to 401ks mainly because defined benefit pensions became unsustainable. GM"s pension program almost buried the company.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Taxpayers should absolutely not be subsidizing Walmart's payroll.

The only thing you posted that makes any sense.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Full time walmart workers should receive govt assistance. I have zero problem with that. Cant live on 10 dollars per hour. If one does it is not really living. But some anti life folk will disagree.

. As wealthy as Walmart is, it has to have the government subsidize it's employees ? How wrong is that ? The government needs to get out of the business of feeling sorry for these corporations, and require them to have a proper pay grade system that is suitable to the minimum cost of living standards in which are a part of the communities in which it serves & prospers from.

Thank you for your input Comrade!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Walmart employees worked for that money. Walmart was, at the time, the second most profitable company in America. That profit was made on the labour of Walmart Employees. To suggest that the employees don't deserve their fair share of such profit, is to promote feudalism.

So where was it written that employees should share in profit? If that's the way any employee feels, then they should only accept jobs that offer profit sharing.

I have no idea how much my employer has or is worth. It's not my business. My business is I agreed to do a job for X amount of money and benefits. To me, it doesn't matter whether my employer is a millionaire or living check to check. He offered me a job for X amount of money, I agreed to do the job for X amount of money, and that's the end of the agreement.

Now if I believe my employer should give me more money than promised based on what he makes from HIS company and he doesn't, then it's my option to find a company that will give me some of their profits. Or as Pat stated, invest in the company I work for.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

$7;25×40×52=15,080

According to MSNBC the US government then kicks in another $5,800
None


So if walmart didn't exists the us welfare system would be paying 20 grand per person instead of 6 grand per person.

Your thread title is ass backwards. Taxpayers subsidize Walmart because they're too cheap to pay a living wage.

No aga

$7;25×40×52=15,080

According to MSNBC the US government then kicks in another $5,800
None


So if walmart didn't exists the us welfare system would be paying 20 grand per person instead of 6 grand per person.

Your thread title is ass backwards. Taxpayers subsidize Walmart because they're too cheap to pay a living wage.

No you are not listening it is walmart who subsidize the US government welfare program.with out them us tax payers would have to shell out another 15 grand per employee

Talk about being ass-backward. American taxpayers have been subsidizing the wages of some of America's most profitable companies, and Walmart has been the WORST offender. It is to be noted that Walmart has changed direction and is now paying higher wages, as of this year. In large part, this change is due to the negative publicity they have received over the years and the public's outrage over their practices.

In 2012 or 13, while Walmart was bragging about being the second most profitable company in America, every American taxpayer contributed $2500 to Walmart's bottom line, even if they never set foot in a store. In total, Walmart employees received $9B in benefits. Had the corporation paid its workers just $100 a week, it's profits would have been reduced from $26B to $15B, and instead of Walmart's employees being part of the 47% who pay no taxes, they wouldn't qualify for social assistance, and would be part of the taxpaying public. The corporation would still be very profitable, just not the second most profitable in the USA.

The workers would be better off because they have more money to spend. And the government wouldn't need as many employees to process applications for social assistance and payments to the Walmart, McDonald's and other workers who are underpaid for their efforts, thereby reducing government, and taxes. The taxpayers would see their tax burden reduced by the amount currently used to subsidize minimum wage workers, and the amount paid to the government workers who deal with such assistance.

You people obviously never learned to think or your parents dribbled your little heads like basketballs!

 

[Dragonlady]

So where was it written that employees should share in profit? If that's the way any employee feels, then they should only accept jobs that offer profit sharing.

I have no idea how much my employer has or is worth. It's not my business. My business is I agreed to do a job for X amount of money and benefits. To me, it doesn't matter whether my employer is a millionaire or living check to check. He offered me a job for X amount of money, I agreed to do the job for X amount of money, and that's the end of the agreement.

Now if I believe my employer should give me more money than promised based on what he makes from HIS company and he doesn't, then it's my option to find a company that will give me some of their profits. Or as Pat stated, invest in the company I work for.

I'm not talking about profit sharing, as in a percentage of profits. I'm talking about a fair living wage. The percentage of the gross profit that goes to wages has been declining in the US for 30 years. All of other costs of doing business during that time have increased, except wages.

During the 30 years that wages have remained stagnant, executive incomes have increase by over 200%. It should be noted that executive wages have been the fastest growing expense. Are you saying the executives, deserve these generous raises, but the hardworking middle class doesn't?

And Obama and Hillary didn't offshore the jobs. Bush did that. That's why he had such weak job growth throughout his Presidency.

 

[bripat9643]

So where was it written that employees should share in profit? If that's the way any employee feels, then they should only accept jobs that offer profit sharing.

I have no idea how much my employer has or is worth. It's not my business. My business is I agreed to do a job for X amount of money and benefits. To me, it doesn't matter whether my employer is a millionaire or living check to check. He offered me a job for X amount of money, I agreed to do the job for X amount of money, and that's the end of the agreement.

Now if I believe my employer should give me more money than promised based on what he makes from HIS company and he doesn't, then it's my option to find a company that will give me some of their profits. Or as Pat stated, invest in the company I work for.

I'm not talking about profit sharing, as in a percentage of profits. I'm talking about a fair living wage. The percentage of the gross profit that goes to wages has been declining in the US for 30 years. All of other costs of doing business during that time have increased, except wages.

During the 30 years that wages have remained stagnant, executive incomes have increase by over 200%. It should be noted that executive wages have been the fastest growing expense.

And Obama and Hillary didn't offshore the jobs. Bush did that. That's why he had such weak job growth throughout his Presidency.

Gross profit doesn't go to wages. The later are deducted from gross revenue to calculate gross profit. Once again, you only demonstrate your complete ignorance of capitalism. Before you go condemning it, don't you think you should learn a thing or two about it?

Wages have remained static because Democrats have been importing millions and millions of low wage workers from third world countries to take American jobs.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Compassion is providing a free K-12 education. To bad so many people waste that opportunity. Not to mention the trillions of dollars a year in handouts. Add up of the State and Federal programs to assist the poor. We spend more than any country on the poor.

The US is the only First World country to spend LESS money on educating the poor children than the children of the rich. Poor kids go to school in poorly equipped classrooms, in crumbling buildings, often have to share textbooks, and because the pay is so low, they tend not to have the best teachers.

The kids are often poorly nourished, don't have a lot of supports or resources at home, and have to try to make it out of their neighbourhoods to have a chance in life. It's like tying rocks to their feet and telling them to sink or swim. Only the strongest will make it.

In some schools, that might be true. However, in urban districts like where I taught in Florida, the inner city minority kids have the same dollars as the rich kids who live at the beach. Your blanket statement is an exaggeration at best and and a lie at worst.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yes but nobody can live working at walmart full time. Cant buy a house and car etc.

That's not Walmart's responsibility.

Yes it is. If you need the government to subsidize your workers' pay in order to survive, you shouldn't be in business.

It is not the government's place to provide aid to people with full time jobs.

I can see government breaks for new startups in their first two years of operation, but after that, companies should be paying their own way.

Under no circumstances should large profitable corporations' employees be receiving government assistance on any sort of regular or permanent basis.

Thank you, comrade! Maybe if you learned how capitalism works, you wouldn't be a communist.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So if they make any profit above zero they are immoral? What do you think a "just" level of profit is, 10%? 5%? 0%?

since everyone who works at Walmart is there voluntarily, how are they doing anything immoral? What is your definition of "moral?" What is the arbitrary number that makes one rate of pay moral and another immoral? What is the basis for drawing this line?

Because libs believe that company owners, CEO's, and investors should all share the wealth they've made with the company with the employees.

For a lib, forget about what the job is worth. That's meaningless. Forget about the fact they can pay wages and still attract willing workers. Again, meaningless to a lib. Forget the fact that companies heavily rely on investors, and investors put their money where the best growth is. Meaningless to a liberal.

What matters is that owners, CEO's and investors live the same lifestyle as the workers.....or perhaps just slightly better. To live much better is immoral as far as liberals are concerned.

"Just how much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

The Walmart employees worked for that money. Walmart was, at the time, the second most profitable company in America. That profit was made on the labour of Walmart Employees. To suggest that the employees don't deserve their fair share of such profit, is to promote feudalism.

They can leave if they don't like the pay and go to work somewhere else, except for the little fact that they don't have the skills to work anywhere paying any more.

 

[JBond]

So if they make any profit above zero they are immoral? What do you think a "just" level of profit is, 10%? 5%? 0%?

since everyone who works at Walmart is there voluntarily, how are they doing anything immoral? What is your definition of "moral?" What is the arbitrary number that makes one rate of pay moral and another immoral? What is the basis for drawing this line?

Because libs believe that company owners, CEO's, and investors should all share the wealth they've made with the company with the employees.

For a lib, forget about what the job is worth. That's meaningless. Forget about the fact they can pay wages and still attract willing workers. Again, meaningless to a lib. Forget the fact that companies heavily rely on investors, and investors put their money where the best growth is. Meaningless to a liberal.

What matters is that owners, CEO's and investors live the same lifestyle as the workers.....or perhaps just slightly better. To live much better is immoral as far as liberals are concerned.

"Just how much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

The Walmart employees worked for that money. Walmart was, at the time, the second most profitable company in America. That profit was made on the labour of Walmart Employees. To suggest that the employees don't deserve their fair share of such profit, is to promote feudalism.

Employees don't deserve any of the profit. They agreed to work for a wage. If the want part of the profit, then they can buy stock in the company. Feudalism is where the employees are property. They are virtual slaves. Capitalism is where you are free to contract your labor to whomever you want to sell it to.

You obviously don't know jack shit about economics, and your moral theories are obvious horseshit based purely on your hatred of rich people.

Up until oh 30 years ago, some employers, large ones, offered profit sharing programs to their workers. Those along with pensions and platinum medical benefits were the fringe perks employers offered.
The prfit sharing and pensions gave way to 401ks mainly because defined benefit pensions became unsustainable. GM"s pension program almost buried the company.

It buried Chrysler several times and almost killed GM. The government will continue to bail out unsustainable business models. Bad business practices will continue to be rewarded at the tax payers expense as long as the union dollars flow into the hands of liberals.

 

[Dekster]

Employees don't deserve any of the profit. They agreed to work for a wage. If the want part of the profit, then they can buy stock in the company. Feudalism is where the employees are property. They are virtual slaves. Capitalism is where you are free to contract your labor to whomever you want to sell it to.

You obviously don't know jack shit about economics, and your moral theories are obvious horseshit based purely on your hatred of rich people.

They deserve a fair wage since the stores cannot operate without them. Everyone deserves their fair share of the money earned. That their employees qualify for welfare should make every member of the Walton Family, ashamed of themselves. ALL of it should NOT be going to the shareholders. Walmart could have paid all of their employees $100 a week more, and they would still have made $15 billion dollars, which is a very healthy profit. Taxpayers should absolutely not be subsidizing Walmart's payroll.

Feudalism is not where the employees are property. Under feudal law, the lord provided protection to the peasants and a patch of land to work, and in return, the peasants gave a portion of their crops to the Lord. But the Lords didn't take it all and leave the peasants without enough to eat. Comparably speaking, this is what Walmart is doing - take almost all of the monies earned from the labour of their employees, and telling the government to make up the shortfall so they can eat.

I can't believe you're defending Walmart's dependence on middle class taxpayers' money to subsidize wages they should be paying themselves. Yet you rail against all of the free shit that the poor get, but corporate welfare is fine by you. Typical clueless conservative attitude - picking up the peanuts while being trampled by the elephants.

I know a whole lot more about economics than you do. You thought feudalism was slavery. Your other posts show a lack of knowledge of business, or economics - anything that approaches what life is like in the real world.

Walmart does not have a high profit margin. They make their aggregate revenue because of the massive volume of products they sell and the number of locations combined with their innovative inventory control/delivery system. All employees are allowed to buy decent insurance if they want regardless if they are full or part-time. Their wages are comparable to places like Kmart. There is no slavery or feudalism or oppression or anything else other than good strategic planning and reinvestment over decades. The are able to keep their prices lower not by oppressing the shopping cart pusher. They do it by demanding and getting large-volume discounts from their suppliers.

 

[Dragonlady]

Walmart does not have a high profit margin. They make their aggregate revenue because of the massive volume of products they sell and the number of locations combined with their innovative inventory control/delivery system. All employees are allowed to buy decent insurance if they want regardless if they are full or part-time. Their wages are comparable to places like Kmart. There is no slavery or feudalism or oppression or anything else other than good strategic planning and reinvestment over decades. The are able to keep their prices lower not by oppressing the shopping cart pusher. They do it by demanding and getting large-volume discounts from their suppliers.

Walmart is the largest employer in the US. Because of their sheer size, WALMART determines what retail workers are paid. Because of their sheer size, other companies had to adopt similar wage strategies as Walmart to remain competitive.

Yes, their practices with suppliers are well known too. Because of the size of Walmart, getting them to carry your product is virtually a guarantee your business will succeed. So when Walmart tells its suppliers to cut their wholesale price, they do it. Conservative estimates say that Walmart forced suppliers to off-shore 400,000 American jobs, in order to cut costs.

These are in addition to the jobs lost when Walmart stores were "cratering" small towns, undercutting downtown retailers, until they closed and Walmart was the only game in town.

 

[beagle9]

Full time walmart workers should receive govt assistance. I have zero problem with that. Cant live on 10 dollars per hour. If one does it is not really living. But some anti life folk will disagree.

. As wealthy as Walmart is, it has to have the government subsidize it's employees ? How wrong is that ? The government needs to get out of the business of feeling sorry for these corporations, and require them to have a proper pay grade system that is suitable to the minimum cost of living standards in which are a part of the communities in which it serves & prospers from.

How is Walmart obligated to pay anymore than the market price for labor? Can you explain that?

. So your claim is that Walmart is in some kind of labor pool market that is controlled by who ? Is it that they are subjected to the rules of the labor pool in which multiple corporations use or control ? Isn't Walmart a stand alone company in which has total control of it's entire company, and therefore it does what it wants until it gets scared that it is about to be told what to do by government rambling around inside of it's business model ? Does Walmart rush in quickly to defend itself in order to try and counter any crazy ideas that the government has for it ? Or is Walmart some how beholding to the feds for some reason ? Does the feds figure they have or can control large corporations sort of like it uses eminent domain on landowners when it wants to build pipelines or whatever ? Does it figure that if it orders things to be done, then it should be done for the betterment of the people and nation, and that these large corporations like Walmart etc. must comply ? I don't know how all of it works, so just asking questions is all.

 

[bripat9643]

Full time walmart workers should receive govt assistance. I have zero problem with that. Cant live on 10 dollars per hour. If one does it is not really living. But some anti life folk will disagree.

. As wealthy as Walmart is, it has to have the government subsidize it's employees ? How wrong is that ? The government needs to get out of the business of feeling sorry for these corporations, and require them to have a proper pay grade system that is suitable to the minimum cost of living standards in which are a part of the communities in which it serves & prospers from.

How is Walmart obligated to pay anymore than the market price for labor? Can you explain that?

. So your claim is that Walmart is in some kind of labor pool market that is controlled by who ? Is it that they are subjected to the rules of the labor pool in which multiple corporations use or control ? Isn't Walmart a stand alone company in which has total control of it's entire company, and therefore it does what it wants until it gets scared that it is about to be told what to do by government rambling around inside of it's business model ? Does Walmart rush in quickly to defend itself in order to try and counter any crazy ideas that the government has for it ? Or is Walmart some how beholding to the feds for some reason ? Does the feds figure they have or can control large corporations sort of like it uses eminent domain on landowners when it wants to build pipelines or whatever ? Does it figure that if it orders things to be done, then it should be done for the betterment of the people and nation, and that these large corporations like Walmart etc. must comply ? I don't know how all of it works, so just asking questions is all.

There's no such thing as a "labor pool market." There's the market price of labor, period. Corporations don't control the price of labor. The market does. Walmart doesn't control the price of labor. The market does.

 

[beagle9]

So if they make any profit above zero they are immoral? What do you think a "just" level of profit is, 10%? 5%? 0%?

since everyone who works at Walmart is there voluntarily, how are they doing anything immoral? What is your definition of "moral?" What is the arbitrary number that makes one rate of pay moral and another immoral? What is the basis for drawing this line?

Because libs believe that company owners, CEO's, and investors should all share the wealth they've made with the company with the employees.

For a lib, forget about what the job is worth. That's meaningless. Forget about the fact they can pay wages and still attract willing workers. Again, meaningless to a lib. Forget the fact that companies heavily rely on investors, and investors put their money where the best growth is. Meaningless to a liberal.

What matters is that owners, CEO's and investors live the same lifestyle as the workers.....or perhaps just slightly better. To live much better is immoral as far as liberals are concerned.

"Just how much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

The Walmart employees worked for that money. Walmart was, at the time, the second most profitable company in America. That profit was made on the labour of Walmart Employees. To suggest that the employees don't deserve their fair share of such profit, is to promote feudalism.

They can leave if they don't like the pay and go to work somewhere else, except for the little fact that they don't have the skills to work anywhere paying any more.

. Couldn't they aqquire the skills if had plenty more options, instead of finding themselves working for the giant that gobbled everyone else up ? Like some else said here, other retailers had to adjust their labor rates against the giant to stay in business against it, but that drove everyone to the bottom eventually. Large corporations like Walmart should be broken up, and the individual areas that exist on the floor of Walmart (I.e sporting goods, hardware, pet supplies, etc.) should be sold to independent operators who will then own the small businesses they would operate under the Walmart platform. It would be like selling franchises, only that you would walk into your business when the Walmart doors open up each day, instead of having your own brick & mortar operation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

. Couldn't they aqquire the skills if had plenty more options, instead of finding themselves working for the giant that gobbled everyone else up ? Like some else said here, other retailers had to adjust their labor rates against the giant to stay in business against it, but that drove everyone to the bottom eventually. Large corporations like Walmart should be broken up, and the individual areas that exist on the floor of Walmart (I.e sporting goods, hardware, pet supplies, etc.) should be sold to independent operators who will then own the small businesses they would operate under the Walmart platform. It would be like selling franchises, only that you would walk into your business when the Walmart doors open up each day, instead of having your own brick & mortar operation.

And then you will pay much more for items you would have otherwise bought at Walmart and have to buy less if you live on a fixed income like many Americans.

Thus far, nobody has been able to post evidence of this myth that Walmart drives other stores out of business all over the country. And I posted a personal local story of how Walmart brought customers to smaller businesses. Anchor stores are not an uncommon business practice. They are used all over the country. Walmart is one of the largest anchor stores in the US.