20-03-2024, 01:14 PM
(17-03-2024, 02:28 PM)Lilith7 Wrote:(17-03-2024, 01:46 PM)SueDonim Wrote: ... So each employee has earned the company $5500. Doesn't seem like much to me. ...
Using 'bunch of bastards', I was referring more to politicians.
...
"Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published by Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups."
The link was about Walmart, not about politicians.
I don't know enough about how the welfare systems work in the US, but if a company's employees aren't actually earning a significant profit per employee for the company shareholders, then that would seem to show that there is a degree of community good going into the employment of those people. The Walton family is probably happy to have it that way because they don't need the extra profit they could make, but the smaller shareholders might find it a problem. Or maybe they are all philanthropists too. The other way to do it would be to make all the excess staff redundant. The company could possibly make a more realistic profit margin but large numbers of people would need more assistance than just the subsidies they receive now. Just because actual numbers are huge doesn't mean the basic principles can be overlooked. A company is either earning a decent profit, or its failing, or it chooses to allow smaller profit margins for an overall benefit to society. It looks like Walmart is doing this.