Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (403621)	8/1/2008 3:29:49 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572472

Correct. But that begs the question, why do people working full time need public assistance if they are making a living wage? Many of Walmart's 1.3 million workers are part-time -- in addition, nearly half do have coverage under Walmart's plan. And many simply choose to spend their money in other ways. When these people take jobs at Walmart, they know, with absolute certainty, what their benefits will be. If they don't like them, they should go get a job at McDonalds. This idea that an "employee" is "entitled" to health insurance is just dumb. And Walmart certainly cannot be held responsible for the way its employees choose to spend their earnings. It is not surprising that the largest employer of the unskilled in the country would also have the large numbers of uninsured workers drawing benefits from various states. The nature of these jobs is such that many are kids who are reliant on the Walmart incomes for pocket change. Dumb argument. If employees stay with Walmart, full time, for a reasonable period (6 months or whatever) they receive excellent benefits. It is stupid to insist that the company cover employees who are part-time.