Study: Low Wal-Mart Wages Cost Calif. $86 Million

[quaoar]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=5862518

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California paid an estimated $86 million in pubic assistance in 2001 because workers at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. earn such low wages, researchers said on Tuesday.
"Wal-Mart workers' reliance on public assistance due to substandard wages and benefits has become a form of indirect public subsidy to the company," said the report issued by the University of California, Berkeley Labor Center.

"Reliance by Wal-Mart workers on public assistance programs in California comes at a cost to the taxpayers of an estimated $86 million annually; this is comprised of $32 million in health related expenses and $54 million in other assistance."

The report said many of Wal-Mart's 44,000 California employees in 2001 relied on food stamps, Medicare and subsidized housing to make ends meet and also need more public health care than typical retail workers.

Report co-author Ken Jacobs said he obtained data on Wal-Mart wages from a lawsuit that revealed information for 2001. The study said that 54 percent of Wal-Mart workers earned less than $9 an hour in 2001, 21 percent made from $9 to $9.99, and 16 percent from $10 to $10.99.

[PeaceProgProsp]

1. What's that sucking sound you hear?

It's your money going into the pockets of Sam Walton's descendants.

[SoCalDem]

2. 91% under $11 an hour, when rents out here are sky-high..

yep.. THAT'S the ticket.:(

Towns with walmarts should storm the city council meetings and DEMAND that walmart pay additional money to them for the "services" they must provide..

[RodneyCK2]

3. Now you are getting me worked up over Wal-Mart...

Do they mention that the cities and towns do not see a single cent of the consumer money spent at Wal-Mart, ie no trickling back into the local economy? Instead, the money is wired from each store into the main headquarters account in Arkansas, I believe.

This is why mom and pops dry up, and cities/towns lose money, not to mention their unfair and unjust treatment of their employees. Gawd, how I hate that chain.

[quaoar]

4. This is from a House report

Earlier this year:

http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/releases/rel21604.html

The report estimates the costs borne by taxpayers for things like medical insurance and housing assistance for Wal-Mart employees that can’t afford them because of their low wages and benefits. The report shows that taxpayers would have to pick up $420,750 per year for a hypothetical Wal-Mart store employing 200 people. These costs (which will vary based on the number of people employed in any one store) include:

$36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families;

$42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming three percent of the store’s employees qualify for such assistance;

$125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children;

$100,000 a year for additional Title I education funds, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families, each with an average of two children, qualify;

$108,000 a year for children’s health insurance costs, assuming 30 employees, each with an average of two children, qualify for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); and

$9,750 a year for subsidies for energy assistance for low-income families.

[indepat]

5. Makes one wonder if the Walton heirs supported W's regressive tax

scheme in which tax cuts disproportionately benefit the most affluent. Naw, they would want to pay their fair share of taxes and their employees living wages.