Waging War Of Insanity On Wages

I don’t know why I bother reading the NY Times, other than every time I click my mouse and dive into their liberal, leftist drivel spewing pages I find something to write about here in my blog.

For instance, take a look at this story about the organized assault by “community groups, lawmaker weasels, and labor unions” designed to increase wages at Wal-Mart.

“BENTONVILLE, Ark. - With most of Wal-Mart's workers earning less than $19,000 a year, a number of community groups and lawmakers have recently teamed up with labor unions in mounting an intensive campaign aimed at prodding Wal-Mart into paying its 1.3 million employees higher wages.

A new group of Wal-Mart critics ran a full-page advertisement on April 20 contending that the company's low pay had forced tens of thousands of its workers to resort to food stamps and Medicaid, costing taxpayers billions of dollars. On April 26, as part of a campaign called "Love Mom, Not Wal-Mart," five members of Congress joined women's advocates and labor leaders to assail the company for not paying its female employees more.

And in a book to be published this fall, a group of scholars will argue that Wal-Mart Stores, having replaced General Motors as the nation's largest company, has an obligation to treat its employees better.”

Allow me to assist you in dissecting this situation in my normally calloused, insensitive, yet imminently accurate manner.

First I have to ask this little question: WHO THE HECK OWNS WAL-MART—“Community groups, lawmaker weasels, and labor unions”, or the company’s stockholders?

How many of these “community groups, lawmaker weasels, and labor unions” have the physical and financial means to start a company providing 1.3 million jobs—jobs that manage to even pay minimum wage? Can you say ZERO?

And how about this gem—“the company's low pay had forced tens of thousands of its workers to resort to food stamps and Medicaid, costing taxpayers billions of dollars.”

So are we to believe that Wal-Mart managers in the store employment offices are forcing Americans to be employed and accept horribly low wages at gunpoint? I’d like to point out that if these people didn’t have these so-called “underpaid crappy” jobs forcing them to resort to food stamps and Medicaid, they could be out enjoying the good life living in public housing or residing in homeless shelters.

OH THE HUMANITY!

Finally, who says that “as the nation's largest company, (Wal-Mart) has an obligation to treat its employees better.”

I’ve got some news for the “community groups, lawmaker weasels, and labor unions”—there is no such “obligation” in our society or in published law. In fact, the Federal Government has become the nation’s largest company (employer) and is already doing a damn fine job of overpaying a lot of its employees.

Finally, the article lets the cat out of the bag as to the real reason that the “community groups, lawmaker weasels, and labor unions” have their boxers in a wad in the first place:

“Labor groups and their allies are focusing on Wal-Mart because they say that the campaign will not just benefit its workers but also reduce the existing pressure on unionized competitors to reduce their own wages and benefits.

"Wal-Mart should pay people at a minimum enough to go above the U.S. poverty line," said Andrew Grossman, executive director of Wal-Mart Watch, the coalition of community, environmental and labor groups running the series of ads criticizing Wal-Mart. "A company this big and this wealthy has the ability to pay higher wages."”

So the real problem here is that the labor unions are feeling the pressure of not being able to unionize Wal-mart and they can't justify their influence on wages elsewhere in the market.

Yes the Wal-Mart is big--$206.2 billion worth. But there are a little over 4.2 billion shares of stock outstanding. That means if you are a little investor like me and only own one share of stock, Wal-Mart is only worth $49.10.

I’m sorry, but I can’t afford to give my employees a raise.

CAN YOU?