WalMart Admits Profits Depend Heavily On Corporate Welfare

Submitted by Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

It appears that Walmart has admitted the potentially severe adverse impact a reduction in food stamp payments could have on its bottom line. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who reads this site, as I have written about this many, many times. Most notably in the very popular post: McDonald’s Math: You Can’t Survive Working for Us.

Well now we have further evidence of this disturbing economic trend straight from the horse’s mouth: Walmart.

The LA Times reports that:

Wal-Mart’s annual report, issued late last week, puts a different spin on things. Buried within the long list of risk factors disclosed to its shareholders–that is, factors “outside our control” that could materially affect financial performance–are these: “changes in the amount of payments made under the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Plan and other public assistance plans, (and) changes in the eligibility requirements of public assistance plans.”

Yes, that says “materially impact.”

Wal-Mart followers say this is the first time the company has made a disclosure like that. 

I’m not sure if that is the case, I think they have mentioned it before, but I’m not sure. Either way…

Wal-Mart says it gets more than half its sales from its grocery departments. Since low-income shoppers are a big part of its clientele, it’s unsurprising that that squealing you hear is coming from its annual report. There’s no indication that Wal-Mart executives stepped up to the plate during the debate in Washington to warn Congress off these cuts in assistance to its customers.

One interesting sidelight of Wal-Mart’s disclosure is that it doesn’t actually discuss how the company benefits from public assistance programs by sticking the U.S. taxpayer with the bill for keeping its workforce fed and clothed.

Who’s paying for Wal-Mart’s addiction to paying its employees less than a living wage? You are.

Having fun yet serfs?

Full article here.

Comments

[johnvallo]

Republicans with all of the low ratings...

[Royal Wulff]

So maybe WalMart should just close and let their customers shop at Whole Foods.

[Rhino]

We are not subsidizing Walmart's employees. The whole "living wage" line is bull crap. We are subsidizing Walmart's customers much the same way we subsidize contracters by giving people tax breaks for energy saving home improvements. If SNAP payments decrease, Walmart will not have to pay it's employees more. In fact, if they lose enough business because they're customers cannot afford to buy as much groceries, they'll have to pay their employees less or lay employees off.

You could argue that Walmart's success is a bubble propped up by central planning redistribution programs like SNAP. But the idea that welfare for the poor allows Walmart to pay it's employees less just doesn't make sense.