Maryland Senate votes to make WalMart PAY.

[David S]

Facts about Walmart in Maryland

http://www.walmartfacts.com/community/article.aspx?id=163
People
Employment Facts
•   In Maryland, the total number of Wal-Mart associates is 15,371 (as of 10/15/04).
•   The average wage for regular full-time hourly associates in Maryland is $9.60 per hour (Wal-Mart Discount Stores, Supercenters and Neighborhood Markets). Additionally, associates are eligible for performance-based bonuses.
•   In recent years, Wal-Mart has contributed four percent of an associate's eligible pay to their combined Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan.
Suppliers
•   During the past year, Wal-Mart spent $506,178,688 for merchandise and services with 779 suppliers in the state of Maryland. As a result of Wal-Mart's relationship with these suppliers, Wal-Mart supports 49,204 supplier jobs in the state of Maryland.
Supplier figures provided by Dun & Bradstreet
Taxes and Fees
•   Wal-Mart collected on behalf of the state of Maryland more than $107.5 million in sales taxes last year.
•   Wal-Mart paid more than $13.7 million in state and local taxes in the state of Maryland last year.
Community Involvement
•   During the past year, Wal-Mart Stores and SAM'S CLUBS contributed $2,294,884 to local causes and organizations in the communities they serve in the state of Maryland, and raised an additional $641,856, for a grand total of $2,936,740.
•   Examples of some of the efforts in Maryland that our company made to reach out to the community include:
•   Literacy Grants: $52,000
•   Safe Neighborhood Heroes Grants: $79,500
•   Teacher of the Year Grants: $56,500
•   Maryland's 2004 Teacher of the Year is John Nicodemus from Walkersville Middle School in Walkersville.

Seems like Maryland would lose quite a bit if Walmart leaves and tells them to go pound sand.

[Nym90]

I support the idea behind this, though I don't know if setting an arbitrary limit as a requirement is a good idea. There should be some allowance for variation on the exact numbers from one company to another.

But otherwise, I support it, though the government should perhaps pay a portion of the expenses for the company, or give extra tax incentives for those companies willing to provide health care in excess of the 8% expenditure.

[opebo]

Facts about Walmart in Maryland

•   In Maryland, the total number of Wal-Mart associates is 15,371 (as of 10/15/04).
•   The average wage for regular full-time hourly associates in Maryland is $9.60 per hour (Wal-Mart Discount Stores, Supercenters and Neighborhood Markets). Additionally, associates are eligible for performance-based bonuses.

It is offensive and patronizing to call anyone who makes less than $25 per hour an 'associate'.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Seems like Maryland would lose quite a bit if Walmart leaves and tells them to go pound sand.

Depends on how high the tax is.  It might induce them to pull non-retail jobs from Maryland, but the retail operations are likely to remain.  If Wal-Mart closes stores there will be other retailers who will open replacement stores.  Even in the worst case scenario has only a small economic impact once one includes the substituion effect of the other retailers that would take Wal-Mart’s place.

About those supplier jobs tho, according to Wal-Mart’s own data, even if every penny it spends on Maryland sourced supplies goes to wages, the per worker income of those suppliers is only $10,287, so either those 49,204 supplier jobs are not full time or they pay less than the minimum wage.  Wal-Mart is exagerating its data here to overstate their economic contribution.

The relevant data for employemnt is not the total number of workers, but the number of full-time equivalent jobs.

[Nym90]

Seems like Maryland would lose quite a bit if Walmart leaves and tells them to go pound sand.

Depends on how high the tax is. It might induce them to pull non-retail jobs from Maryland, but the retail operations are likely to remain. If Wal-Mart closes stores there will be other retailers who will open replacement stores. Even in the worst case scenario has only a small economic impact once one includes the substituion effect of the other retailers that would take Wal-Mart’s place.

About those supplier jobs tho, according to Wal-Mart’s own data, even if every penny it spends on Maryland sourced supplies goes to wages, the per worker income of those suppliers is only $10,287, so either those 49,204 supplier jobs are not full time or they pay less than the minimum wage. Wal-Mart is exagerating its data here to overstate their economic contribution.

The relevant data for employemnt is not the total number of workers, but the number of full-time equivalent jobs.

Good point. The question for the economy is not what the impact would be on WalMart, but rather whether it would be a sufficient disincentive to all companies such that not only would WalMart would be driven out, but there wouldn't be enough demand caused by WalMart's absence to make it worth the while of any other company to move in.

Also, keep in mind that health care costs that are not paid by the company are often ultimately paid by either the government or by the consumer instead. So the costs of that have to be balanced against the cost to the corporations. (And don't forget to calculate the non-monetary costs of those who don't have health care, both to them and to society as a whole; those are obviously difficult to quantify, but every attempt must me made to do so, if we really want to study this issue carefully to determine what is the best overall course of action.)

[opebo]

but there wouldn't be enough demand caused by WalMart's absence to make it worth the while of any other company to move in.

We are talking about Maryland, a state of five and a half million people, with one of the highest median incomes of any state: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html
I think WalMart will do just as the state legislature says rather than run away.  Just as it and other corporations would do if we made nationwide requirements upon them.
Of course come to think of it a high median income actually makes a state a worse market for WalMart.

[Nym90]

but there wouldn't be enough demand caused by WalMart's absence to make it worth the while of any other company to move in.

We are talking about Maryland, a state of five and a half million people, with one of the highest median incomes of any state: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html
I think WalMart will do just as the state legislature says rather than run away. Just as it and other corporations would do if we made nationwide requirements upon them.
Of course come to think of it a high median income actually makes a state a worse market for WalMart.

I agree that would be the likely result of any comprehensive analysis. The demand is pretty clearly still sufficiently high, even with this, that corporations won't be moving out. It's just something that has to be looked at when you study these issues, if you are actually going to look at it in terms of "what's best for the economy" rather than merely from a moral perspective.

[David S]

I hope Walmart tells them to get lost and leaves and puts the blame squarely on the Maryland legislature. Then the leislature can explain why they destroyed 15,000 jobs, $100 million worth of sales tax, $2 million worth of community good will, and probably over $1 billion of economic activity in the state.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I hope Walmart tells them to get lost and leaves and puts the blame squarely on the Maryland legislature. Then the leislature can explain why they destroyed 15,000 jobs, $100 million worth of sales tax, $2 million worth of community good will, and probably over $1 billion of economic activity in the state.

Studies have shown that for every 2 WalMart jobs created, 3 others are lost.

[opebo]

I hope Walmart tells them to get lost and leaves and puts the blame squarely on the Maryland legislature. Then the leislature can explain why they destroyed 15,000 jobs, $100 million worth of sales tax, $2 million worth of community good will, and probably over $1 billion of economic activity in the state.

Hah, what great jobs - Marylanders should demand more than starvation level wages.

And it won't 'destroy' any economic activity, even in the unlikely event WalMart left, another cheap house of gimcrackery would move in and fullfill the function.

[Nym90]

I hope Walmart tells them to get lost and leaves and puts the blame squarely on the Maryland legislature. Then the leislature can explain why they destroyed 15,000 jobs, $100 million worth of sales tax, $2 million worth of community good will, and probably over $1 billion of economic activity in the state.

My point (and that expressed by others, as well) was that even if Walmart did move, someone else would move in to take their place. The demand for products is still there, so unless this proposal is so expensive that companies find it not in their best interests to do business in Maryland anymore, it won't hurt the economy.

Of course, Walmart has to consider whether the amount of money they'd lose in profits by moving out of the state is more or less than the amount they'd lose due to this proposal, as well. Presumably that's more important to them than any particular moral convictions that they may hold.

Now you can certainly make a moral argument against this proposal, but that's a completely different philosophical discussion.

[David S]

I hope Walmart tells them to get lost and leaves and puts the blame squarely on the Maryland legislature. Then the leislature can explain why they destroyed 15,000 jobs, $100 million worth of sales tax, $2 million worth of community good will, and probably over $1 billion of economic activity in the state.

Studies have shown that for every 2 WalMart jobs created, 3 others are lost.

What studies?

[A18]

I hope Walmart tells them to get lost and leaves and puts the blame squarely on the Maryland legislature. Then the leislature can explain why they destroyed 15,000 jobs, $100 million worth of sales tax, $2 million worth of community good will, and probably over $1 billion of economic activity in the state.

Agreed. I shop at Wal-Mart from time to time, and I'd be pretty ticked off if they had to pull out just because of a government power grab, and a violation of natural rights.

[David S]

I hope Walmart tells them to get lost and leaves and puts the blame squarely on the Maryland legislature. Then the leislature can explain why they destroyed 15,000 jobs, $100 million worth of sales tax, $2 million worth of community good will, and probably over $1 billion of economic activity in the state.

My point (and that expressed by others, as well) was that even if Walmart did move, someone else would move in to take their place. The demand for products is still there, so unless this proposal is so expensive that companies find it not in their best interests to do business in Maryland anymore, it won't hurt the economy.

Of course, Walmart has to consider whether the amount of money they'd lose in profits by moving out of the state is more or less than the amount they'd lose due to this proposal, as well. Presumably that's more important to them than any particular moral convictions that they may hold.

Now you can certainly make a moral argument against this proposal, but that's a completely different philosophical discussion.

Walmart will not leave. No CEO in his right mind would close up shop over that. Its just what I would like to see happen.

This particular incident by itself won't make much diffence in anything. But it is one more step in the direction of government control of business. You have people in government who couldn't run a lemonaide stand who are dictating how business' must operate.

[opebo]

Walmart will not leave. No CEO in his right mind would close up shop over that. Its just what I would like to see happen.

This particular incident by itself won't make much diffence in anything. But it is one more step in the direction of government control of business. You have people in government who couldn't run a lemonaide stand who are dictating how business' must operate.

They are dictating that the company may no longer pay workers so little that the State must provide them with catastrophic health coverage.  Instead the company will now have to pay for that.

The only alternative would be allowing these poor impoverished WalMart workers to simply die whenever they had medical crisis.

[A18]

That last option sounds good.

[opebo]

That last option sounds good.

Apparently they and their ilk voted in representatives willing to protect and provide for them, before they died.

[A18]

An unfortunate travesty. One more reason we need to raise voter requirements.

[Nym90]

I hope Walmart tells them to get lost and leaves and puts the blame squarely on the Maryland legislature. Then the leislature can explain why they destroyed 15,000 jobs, $100 million worth of sales tax, $2 million worth of community good will, and probably over $1 billion of economic activity in the state.

My point (and that expressed by others, as well) was that even if Walmart did move, someone else would move in to take their place. The demand for products is still there, so unless this proposal is so expensive that companies find it not in their best interests to do business in Maryland anymore, it won't hurt the economy.

Of course, Walmart has to consider whether the amount of money they'd lose in profits by moving out of the state is more or less than the amount they'd lose due to this proposal, as well. Presumably that's more important to them than any particular moral convictions that they may hold.

Now you can certainly make a moral argument against this proposal, but that's a completely different philosophical discussion.

Walmart will not leave. No CEO in his right mind would close up shop over that. Its just what I would like to see happen.

This particular incident by itself won't make much diffence in anything. But it is one more step in the direction of government control of business. You have people in government who couldn't run a lemonaide stand who are dictating how business' must operate.

Well, actually they are being pretty sharp. If you think about it, from a purely cynical point of view, leaving aside all moral considerations, the best way to run a business is to piss off your customers enough that they almost (almost of course being the key word) leave to take their business elsewhere. Likewise, the best way for government to operate from an efficiency standpoint is to screw over corporations enough so that they almost decide to pack it up and move elsewhere.

So if what you say is true, that even with this rule, Walmart won't leave, then the government might as well dump off as much of the expenses of health care on them as possible. As I said, I don't advocate such an amoral way of running a corporation or a government entity, but to say they don't know what they are doing is a bit short-sighted, I think.

[A18]

Walmart will not leave. No CEO in his right mind would close up shop over that.

I would. Teach big government a lesson.

[Moooooo]

"As a practical matter, four large Maryland employers would be covered by the bill: Wal-Mart; Giant Food Inc.; Hopkins; and defense contractor Northrop Grumman. But only Wal-Mart would be required to pay the tax because it does not reach the 8 percent threshold."

Does that quote imply that WalMart is the only company not meeting the requirements set by the state legislature?  Therefore, they will be the only one effected by the new tax?

[cwelsch]

Wonderful idea: make it more expensive to pay the employees.  Wal-Mart will have to raise prices, cut employees or both.

I wouldn't object so vociferously to this legislation if they instead did a more common sense move of reducing taxes dollar for dollar by every increase spent on health care under this bill.  In that way, we'd be cutting down the government's direct role in health care and it wouldn't force Wal-Mart to raise prices or fire people.  Of course, either way it's an unjustified intrusion into Wal-Mart's business and a violation of the 14th Amendment.

I have an additional prediction of what happens: Wal-Mart cuts back on other benefits and training, in addition to halting any new pay raises.

I'm sort of surprised they didn't just raise the minimum wage, like they usually do.