NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label walton family. Show all posts
Showing posts with label walton family. Show all posts

08 February 2014

The senator from Walmart thinks a $10.10 minimum wage is 'too much, too fast' 7FEB14

SEN Mark Pryor D AR is one of those third way jellyfish democrats who has turned his back on 99% of the people of Arkansas and the nation because he had to vote according to walmart and the waltons, the corporation and wealthy family who bought and paid for his election and so his votes in the US Senate. They don't want the minimum wage raised so he is going to oppose it, disregarding the poverty of so many of his own constituents. It is time for the Bold Progressives of the Democratic Party to issue new marching orders to Sen Pryor, he either starts representing ALL the people who elect him, or he can check with the waltons and see if his position with walmart is available. From Daily Kos.....
Laura Clawson for Daily Kos Labor

U.S. Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas speaks at a media conference at a command center near the Albert Pike recreation area near Caddo Gap, Arkansas June 12, 2010.  Flash floods swept through the campground overnight Friday morning, with 17 confirmed dead a
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-WM)
Will conservative Democrats never learn? Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) is facing a tough re-election battle in Arkansas, which is both a low-income state and the home of Walmart. So what position is he taking when it comes to raising the minimum wage, which would pull many of his constituents out of poverty but require Walmart to pay higher wages? If you guessed "he'd find a way to be mealymouthed and spineless," give yourself a gold star.
On the one hand, Pryor kinda sorta supports a state ballot initiative that would raise the Arkansas minimum wage to a whopping $8.50 an hour over three years. (The state currently has a $6.25 minimum wage on the books, below the federal level, so that's the initiative's starting point.) On the other hand, Pryor opposes raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10:
“I know $10.10 still isn’t a whole lot of money, but I think it’s too much, too fast,” Pryor, who is seeking a third Senate term, said in an interview at the Capitol. “I’m not supportive of that.”
Seriously. It's not much, but it's too much for the poors, apparently. That's $21,000 a year for a full-time worker, enough to get a family of three out of poverty, but leaving them well within food stamp eligibility. Meanwhile, 52 percent of Arkansas voters support raising the minimum wage to $10 while just 38 percent are opposed, according to a Public Policy Polling poll, with 47 percent saying they'd be more likely to vote for a candidate who supported raising the minimum wage. Maybe that's why Pryor went way out on a limb to say raising the state minimum wage all the way to $8.50 over three years is "a pretty reasonable approach." But he should look at another question in that poll: 73 percent agreed with the statement that "Someone who works full-time should be paid enough to keep them out of poverty." That's your winning argument, and it points to a wage well above $8.50. Except that apparently Walmart's money (they're Pryor's sixth-largest campaign donor) speaks more loudly—and Pryor doesn't seem to get that being Walmart's lapdog won't make them go to bat for him over a Republican.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 09:05 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/07/1275814/-The-senator-from-Walmart-thinks-a-10-10-minimum-wage-is-too-much-too-fast?detail=email 

13 November 2013

Black Friday Walmart Protests, BOYCOTT WALMART ON BLACK FRIDAY 12NOV13

I don't shop at walmart. I find their exploitation of workers in the U.S. and overseas disgusting, and already subsidize their American employees with my tax dollars through the social welfare programs most of them qualify for and need because they are paid so little while the waltons become richer and richer. I  will not give the waltons my hard earned money on top of that. While I am also disgusted by the whole "black friday" hype and do not participate, I hope all that do will boycott walmart as an act of solidarity with the employees that may be outside picketing or who may call in sick, or who may be at the store but working at much slower pace. If enough people stay away from walmart on "black friday" the lack of sales might get the walton's attention and may prompt them to start negotiations with their employees and lead to better benefits and increased wages. Maybe it is a pipe dream, and nothing will happen overnight, but walmart's employees deserve to earn a living wage, and they will have a better chance of achieving that goal if more people would let their conscience guide their shopping. Check this out, and support their cause if you can....

Black Friday Walmart Protests
“Most #Walmart workers make <$25K/yr. RT if you support #WalmartStrikers! http://thndr.it/1dy2mwe
Join Making Change @ WMT in sharing this message together at the same time - automaticaTTER FACEBOOK TUMBLR
You will allow Thunderclap to share this message once on your behalf, along with other supporters.
If the goal is not reached, no message will be shared.  About Support & Privacy
Supporters
199 of 250
79% of goal supported


Time Left
16 days
Ends Nov 29, 12:30 PM EST

Organizer

profile image
Making Change @ WMT
Making Change at Walmart is a campaign challenging Walmart to help rebuild our economy and strengthen working families. Anchored by the United Food & Commercial Workers, we are a coalition of Walmart associates, union members, small business owners, religious leaders, community organizations, women’s advocacy groups, multi-ethnic coalitions, elected officials and ordinary citizens who believe that changing Walmart is vital for the future of our country.
Black Friday Walmart Protests Walmart workers around the country are standing up. They are taking big risks by going on strike to protest Walmart's attempts to silence them firing and discipling those who stand up.

On Black Friday, they have asked community supporters like us to stand up with them. We'll be protesting the fact that most Walmart workers make less than $25,000 a year. Show your support for the workers by helping us call for change at Walmart.

01 December 2012

Organizing McDonald's and Walmart, and Why Austerity Economics Hurts Low-Wage Workers the Most 30NOV12

I don't eat fast food. I think the food is of poor quality and expensive and not good for me so I don't eat it. I have not shopped at walmart since the Tiananmen Square massacre of 4JUN1989 because I believe the evil walton family not only approved of the massacre they use their influence with the government of the prc to continue to repress workers rights and wages in the prc. The waltons would love to have the same repression available to them in the U.S.  But I have always been sympathetic for those who work at fast food chains and big box stores because I know they are not paid a living wage and have no benefits, they are modern American sweatshop workers. This piece from Robert Reich exposes the immorality and greed of the ceos and executives of fast food restaurants and the waltons. It is also an indictment of the rest of us whether you shop at these places or not. Shopping at these fast food restaurants or big box stores shows you approve of taking advantage of and abusing their employees and the the greed and immorality of their corporate leadership. To not shop at these places but willingly ignore the employees plight is just as bad. These people are our brothers and sisters (often literally) and we should be advocates for their welfare, meaning being paid a living wage, having benefits including health care and vacation, and the right to organize if they so choose. You empower these workers when you don't shop at fast food restaurants and walmart. You empower the greedy, immoral corporate boards and ceos when you do. Take a step to support these workers by signing the petition for a living wage for these workers at http://action.sumofus.org/a/fast-food-strike/68/172/?rd=1&sub=fwd&t=3&referring_akid=1071.216835.F8iHFW and check out my earlier post I'm not lovin' it...FAST FOOD WORKERS STRIKE IN NYC 29NOV12
This from Robert Reich.....
What does the drama in Washington over the "fiscal cliff" have to do with strikes and work stoppages among America's lowest-paid workers at Walmart, McDonald's, Burger King, and Domino's Pizza?
Everything.
Jobs are slowly returning to America, but most of them pay lousy wages and low if non-existent benefits. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that seven out of 10 growth occupations over the next decade will be low-wage -- like serving customers at big-box retailers and fast-food chains. That's why the median wage keeps dropping, especially for the 80 percent of the workforce that's paid by the hour.
It also part of the reason why the percent of Americans living below the poverty line has been increasing even as the economy has started to recover -- from 12.3 percent in 2006 to 15 percent in 2011. More than 46 million Americans now live below the poverty line.
Many of them have jobs. The problem is these jobs just don't pay enough to lift their families out of poverty.
So, encouraged by the economic recovery and perhaps also by the election returns, low-wage workers have started to organize.
Yesterday in New York hundreds of workers at dozens of fast-food chain stores went on strike, demanding a raise to $15-an-hour from their current pay of $8 to $10 an hour (the median hourly wage for food service and prep workers in New York is $8.90 an hour).
Last week, Walmart workers staged demonstrations and walkouts at thousands of Walmart stores, also demanding better pay. The average Walmart employee earns $8.81 an hour. A third of Walmart's employees work less than 28 hours per week and don't qualify for benefits.
These workers are not teenagers. Most have to support their families. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median age of fast-food workers is over 28; and women, who comprise two-thirds of the industry, are over 32. The median age of big-box retail workers is over 30.
Organizing makes economic sense.
Unlike industrial jobs, these can't be outsourced abroad. Nor are they likely to be replaced by automated machinery and computers. The service these workers provide is personal and direct: Someone has to be on hand to help customers and dole out the burgers.
And any wage gains they receive aren't likely to be passed on to consumers in higher prices because big-box retailers and fast-food chains have to compete intensely for consumers. They have no choice but to keep their prices low.
That means wage gains are likely to come out of profits -- which, in turn, would affect the return to shareholders and the total compensation of top executives.
That wouldn't be such a bad thing.
According to a recent report by the National Employment Law Project, most low-wage workers are employed by large corporations that have been enjoying healthy profits. Three-quarters of these employers (the fifty biggest employers of low-wage workers) are raking in higher revenues now than they did before the recession.
McDonald's -- bellwether for the fast-food industry -- posted strong results during the recession by attracting cash-strapped customers, and its sales have continued to rise.
Its CEO, Jim Skinner, got $8.8 million last year. In addition to annual bonuses, McDonald's also gives its executives a long-term bonus once every three years; Skinner received an $8.3 million long-term bonus in 2009 and is due for another this year. The value of Skinner's other perks -- including personal use of the company aircraft, physical exams and security -- rose 19 percent to $752,000.
Yum!Brands, which operates and licenses Taco Bell, KFC, and Pizza Hut, has also done wonderfully well. Its CEO, David Novak, received $29.67 million in total compensation last year, placing him number 23 on Forbes' list of highest paid chief executives.

Walmart -- the trendsetter for big-box retailers -- is also doing well. And it pays its executives handsomely. The total compensation for Walmart's CEO, Michael Duke, was $18.7 million last year -- putting him number 82 on Forbes' list.

The wealth of the Walton family -- which still owns the lion's share of Walmart stock -- now exceeds the wealth of the bottom 40 percent of American families combined, according to ananalysis by the Economic Policy Institute.
Last week, Walmart announced that the next Wal-Mart dividend will be issued December 27 instead of January 2, after the Bush tax cut for dividends expires -- thereby saving the Walmart family as much as $180 million. (According to the online weekly "Too Much," this $180 million would be enough to give 72,000 Wal-Mart workers now making $8 an hour a 20 percent annual pay hike. That hike would still leave those workers making under the poverty line for a family of three.)
America is becoming more unequal by the day. So wouldn't it be sensible to encourage unionization at fast-food and big-box retailers?
Yes, but here's the problem.
The unemployment rate among people with just a high school degree or less -- which describes most (but not all) fast-food and big-box retail workers -- is still in the stratosphere. The Bureau of Labor Statistics puts it at 12.2 percent, and that's a conservative estimate. It was 7.7 percent at the start of 2008.
High unemployment makes it much harder to organize a union because workers are even more fearful than usual of losing their jobs. Eight dollars an hour is better than no dollars an hour. And employers at big-box and fast-food chains have not been reluctant to give the boot to employees associated with attempts to organize for higher wages.
Meanwhile, only half of the people who lose their jobs qualify for unemployment insurance these days. Retail workers in big-boxes and fast-food chains rarely qualify because they haven't been on the job long enough or are there only part-time. This makes the risk of job loss even greater.
Which brings us back to what's happening in Washington.
Washington's obsession with deficit reduction makes it all the more likely these workers will face continuing high unemployment -- even higher if the nation succumbs to deficit hysteria. That's because cutting government spending reduces overall demand, which hits low-wage workers hardest. They and their families are the biggest casualties of austerity economics.
And if the spending cuts Washington is contemplating fall on low-wage workers whose families are under the poverty line -- reducing not only the availability of unemployment insurance but also food stamps, housing assistance, infant and child nutrition, child health care, and Medicaid -- it will be even worse. (It's worth recalling, in this regard, that 62 percent of the cuts in the Republican budget engineered by Paul Ryan fell on America's poor.)
By contrast, low levels of unemployment invite wage gains and make it easier to organize unions. The last time America's low-wage workers got a real raise (apart from the last hike in the minimum wage) was the late 1990s when unemployment dropped to 4 percent nationally - compelling employers to raise wages in order to recruit and retain them, and prompting a round of labor organizing.
That's one reason why job growth must be the nation's number one priority. Not deficit reduction.
Yet neither side in the current "fiscal cliff" negotiations is talking about America's low-wage workers. They're invisible in official Washington.
Not only are they unorganized for the purpose of getting a larger share of the profits at Walmart, McDonald's, and other giant firms, they're also unorganized for the purpose of being heard in our nation's capital. There's no national association of low-wage workers. They don't contribute much to political campaigns. They have no Super PAC. They don't have Washington lobbyists.
But if this nation is to reverse the scourge of widening inequality, Washington needs to start paying attention to them. And the rest of us should do everything we can to pressure Washington andbig-box retailers and fast-food chains to raise their pay.
ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage," now available in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.
 
Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/walmart-workers_b_2219849.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications 


03 August 2012

Charts: America Has the World's Luckiest Billionaires 30JUL12 & "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America." 31JUL12

MORE proof the uber rich don't need more tax cuts and that taxing the rich doesn't stifle economic growth, blowing a big hole in repiglican / tea-bagger argument that it does. As an example of the uber rich there is the article on the wealthy waltons of walmart fame. Just another reason not to shop at walmart, in my opinion, and I haven't for over a decade. See my post on the July 2012 employment report at 163,000 Jobs Added In July; Unemployment Rate Rose To 8.3 Percent & US economy added 163,000 jobs in July, most in 5 months; unemployment rate rose to 8.3 pct. 3AUG12 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/163000-jobs-added-in-july-unemployment.html
From Mother Jones and PolitiFact....

None of our main global competitors give the ultrarich such a sweet deal.

Ultra-high-net-worth individuals by country, 2011

James Davies, Rodrigo Lluberas and Anthony Shomocks, Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databok, 2011
James Davies, Rodrigo Lluberas and Anthony Shomocks, Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook, 2011 The tax plan passed by Senate Democrats on Wednesday isn't really about taxing the rich; it's about taxing the megarich. As Timothy Noah has explained in The New Republic, the plan would actually reduce taxes on a lot of fairly rich people by renewing the (supposedly temporary) Bush-era tax cuts for everyone except those who make more than $250,000 a year. Even then, Democrats are only proposing a higher marginal tax rate, which means that even people raking in far more than $250,000 will still pay lower taxes on their first quarter million in annual earnings. Crunch the numbers, and it turns out that the biggest losers under the Senate plan are couples who earn more than $1 million a year—mostly multimillionaires and billionaires.
While the Senate tax plan could certainly go further in taxing the rich, focusing on the megawealthy makes sense considering how much of our economy is now controlled by them. According to the Internal Revenue Service, there are 66,000 taxpayers who individually control $20 million or more in assets, and all these people put together are worth $4 trillion—more than the net worth of the majority of the US population.
The investment bank Credit Suisse, for its part, classifies "ultra high net worth individuals" as people with at least $50 million in assets—and according to the bank's 2011 Global Wealth Databook, more of these UNHWIs live in the United States than anywhere else in the world (see chart above).
So perhaps America has lots of multimillionaires because it's a prosperous country? That's certainly a factor—but not the only one. Compared to the superrich in the six other countries with the most multimillionaires, American tycoons grab a disproportionately large share of the economic pie:

Percent of Income Earned by Top 0.1% of Taxpayers


The Paris School of Economics World Top Incomes DatabaseSource: The Paris School of Economics World Top Incomes Database (missing years reflect lack of current data)
Yet despite raking in such a large share of the national income, our nation's über-wealthy pay very little in taxes by global standards:

Top Income Tax Rates in the 6 Countries With the Most Ultra-High-Net-Worth Citizens


Global Finance Magazine, 2009Global Finance Magazine, 2009
But don't higher tax rates at the top slow economic growth? Apparently not, considering the growth rates of our tax-happy competitors.

Change in Gross Domestic Product, 2011

CIA World FactbookCIA World Factbook
So why hasn't Congress already raised taxes on the rich? Perhaps because the superwealthy have raised a lot more political money than the rest of us.
  • Percent of donations to super-PACs this year that come from just 196 Americans: 80
  • Amount the Koch brothers and their foundations plan to spend to defeat Obama: $395 million
  • Total money raised by John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign: $384 million
  • Number of billionaires who've made donations to Mitt Romney's super-PAC, Restore Our Future: 32
  • Percentage of Americans who give more than $10,000 in any election cycle: 0.01
READ MORE: 4 Ways That Democrats Want to Cut Taxes on The Rich
Front page image: Alex E. Proimos/Flickr
 http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/charts-how-americas-billionaires-get-off-tax-rich-congress

"Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America." 31JUL12



Sanders

"Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

Bernie Sanders on Sunday, July 22nd, 2012 in a message on Twitter

Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted a startling statistic to his followers on July 22, 2012: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

Sanders speaks and writes frequently about wealth distribution in the U.S., a hot-button issue among liberals and a rallying cry of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

The Waltons, of course, are members of the proverbial 1 percent. But are they really sitting on that much wealth? We decided to check it out.

First, what is wealth?

In economics, wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth, and it’s defined as the value of assets minus liabilities. For someone in the middle class, that could encompass the value of their 401(k) or other retirement accounts, bank savings and personal assets such as jewelry or cars, minus what they owe on a home mortgage, credit cards and a car note.

It does not include income -- what people earn in wages. For that reason, someone who earns a good salary but has little savings and owes a lot of money on their house would have a negative net worth.

In fact, because so many Americans invest in real estate to buy a home, middle-class wealth has been one of the biggest casualties of the housing-driven recession.

From 2007 to 2010, typical families lost 39 percent of their wealth, according to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, done every three years. In 2007, the median family net worth was $126,400. In 2010, it was $77,300, according to the survey.

Where the Waltons fit in

Six members of the Walton family appear on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. Christy Walton, widow of the late John Walton, leads the clan at No. 6 with a net worth of $25.3 billion as of March 2012. She is also the richest woman in the world for the seventh year in a row, according to Forbes. Here are the other five:

No. 9: Jim Walton, $23.7 billion
No. 10: Alice Walton, $23.3 billion
No. 11: S. Robson Walton, oldest son of Sam Walton, $23.1 billion
No. 103: Ann Walton Kroenke, $3.9 billion
No. 139: Nancy Walton Laurie, $3.4 billion

That’s a grand total of $102.7 billion for the whole family.

Sylvia Allegretto, a labor economist at the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the University of California-Berkeley, compared the Waltons’ cumulative net worth with that of the overall population, as cited in the Survey of Consumer Finances. (She used the Waltons’ wealth from 2010, which was valued at $89.5 billion.)

Allegretto found that in 2007, the wealth held by the six Waltons was equal to that of the bottom 30.5 percent of families in the U.S. In 2010, the Waltons’ share equaled the entire bottom 41.5 percent of families.

That 41.5 percent represents nearly 49 million families, notes Josh Bivens at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. While median family wealth fell by 38.8 percent, Bivens wrote, the wealth of the Walton family members rose from $73.3 billion in 2007 to $89.5 billion in 2010, or about 22 percent growth.

Other analysis

At Forbes, source of the richest 400 list, Tim Worstall wrote a response to the Waltons wealth claim. He did not dispute the accuracy of the statistic but offered some broader perspective.

"Wealth is always more unequally distributed than income," Worstall wrote. "By the way, it isn’t even true that all of those households with zero or negative wealth are what we would call poor, either. It’s entirely possible to have no net assets while having a good income, even a high income. All you need to have is debts higher than your assets: something that will almost certainly be true of anyone with student debt and fresh out of college, for example."

He added: "If you’ve no debts and have $10 in your pocket you have more wealth than 25 percent of Americans."

Bivens, for good measure, calculated the comparison of the Waltons vs. all Americans after removing households with a negative net worth -- those that drag down the overall average and make the Waltons’ advantage look greater. He found that the Walmart heirs’ $89.5 billion "is still equal to the combined net worth of the bottom 33.2 million families (about 28.2 percent of the total)."

Our ruling

Sanders tweeted that "the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

The statistic correctly compares the combined net worth of the bottom 41.5 percent of American families with the six Walton family members. We think the additional points -- that many people with a negative net worth are not necessarily poor and that percentages about wealth distribution can be deceiving -- are important and interesting. Nevertheless, Sanders’ claim is solid. We rate it True.
About this statement:
Published: Tuesday, July 31st, 2012 at 3:57 p.m.
Subjects: Economy
Sources:
RawStory.com, "Sen. Sanders warns of ‘frightening trend’ towards oligarchy," July 17, 2012

Email interview with Michael Briggs, Sanders spokesman, July 24, 2012

Forbes.com, The Forbes 400, updated March 2012

Federal Reserve Bulletin, "Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2007 to 2010: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances," June 2012

Economic Policy Institute, "Inequality, exhibit A: Walmart and the wealth of American families," July 17, 2012

Forbes.com, "Six Waltons Have More Wealth Than the Bottom 30% of Americans," Dec. 14, 2011

Berkeley Blog, "The wrecking ball," July 16, 2012
Written by: Molly Moorhead
Researched by: Molly Moorhead
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/31/bernie-s/sanders-says-walmart-heirs-own-more-wealth-bottom-/