Several years ago, Wal-Mart decided to try and placate its liberal bashers, apparently in the hope that they would redirect their energies elsewhere.
Mission failed.
The House Democrats’ Committee on Education and the Workforce has released a paper trying to demonstrate how Wal-Mart’s low-wage model costs taxpayers nearly $1 million per store.
The paper asserts that Wal-Mart’s average wage of $8.81 an hour for a sales associate, about 28 percent less than other large retailers, and anti-union organizing efforts have locked employees into a financial dead-end job with little opportunity for advancement.
Estimating the cost of Wal-Mart employees who sign up for Medicaid, food stamps and other programs, Democrats suggest taxpayers are spending at least $904,452 per just one Wisconsin Supercenter.
Where to start!?
While the paper claims it focuses on Wisconsin because it has the most complete and up-to-date data, you can bet that attacking rising GOP star Gov. Scott Walker had a lot to do with it.
Second, Wal-Mart’s average hourly wage of $8.81 is only 19 cents an hour less than President Obama’s proposed minimum wage increase of $9.00. Is 19 cents an hour really the only difference between the man Democrats portray as the champion of the middle class and Wal-Mart’s “sweatshop wages”? Nearly everyone who qualifies for welfare benefits under Wal-Mart’s average wage would also qualify under Obama’s minimum wage.
Third, Democrats’ outrage is disingenuous because they never miss an opportunity to move the goalposts by increasing the eligibility-threshold for welfare benefits. For example, under ObamaCare a family of four will qualify for taxpayer subsidies up to about $92,000. Will Democrats then release a paper claiming that companies paying up to $91,000 a year are paying slave wages?
Finally—and why you know this is a political hit job rather than a serious economic study—the paper says nothing about how Wal-Mart’s employing about 1.4 million Americans reduces government dependence.
Employee benefits do not come free. If Wal-Mart chose, or was forced by government, to pay higher wages, it might cost fewer tax dollars, but consumers would likely pay higher prices. And the company’s effort to be the low-price leader could become a thing of the past.
June 4, 2013