The Walton Family has as much wealth as lower 40% of Americans

Decent speculation but I wouldn't bet on it? Would you like to maybe list some facts first? A link perhaps?

 

You are failing to see the point. Yes, median wealth can be a misleading statistic because many Americans do have a net worth of 0. That is patently obvious to anyone who spends the time to post of this message board.

I'm curious, do you not see that many Americans having a net worth of 0 as a problem? Do you not see skyrocketing levels of inequality in the U.S. as a problem? Do you not see our steadily decreasing levels of inter-generational mobility as a problem? As I said before, I am not going to begrudge the Waltons their wealth, but I sure as hell won't applaud them.

Their stupendous wealth is indicative is indicative to me of an unhealthy system. So what is it to you? You seem to be caught up on the stat because you feel like it is misleading, that's fine. But what of the broader questions posed by that stat - do you feel like there is anything wrong with such staggering levels of wealth inequality, income inequality, and lack of upward mobility in this country? If no, why not and is there any point where you would be able to say this is too much? What if the Waltons had more wealth than the bottom 70% of Americans and someone with $1k to their name had more wealth than the bottom 50%, is that something that would make you pause at all? I presume you have some threshold, but maybe you don't, maybe you would be fine if one family had more wealth than the bottom 80%. Instead of just throwing out terms like class-warfare, be constructive and tell us what you think.

 

This isn't true.

 

not only that but it's straight scapegoating

stats can be made to say anything, to target anyone.

with 1930s mentality the exact same bigoted point could be made that "5 Jews who control Google and Facebook" has as much wealth as lower 40% of Americans."

Walmart is an easy target because it's this Middle America conglomerate out of Arkansas. the ironic thing, if walmart is successful it's because that lower 40% shop there because they can't afford to shop anywhere else.

 

They worked hard to get what is theirs... we live in a Capatalist society. If you don't like it, go to Russia.

Now, hopefully they do a great deal of charity work. People like Bill Gates who are donating the majority of their fortune are wonderful people.

 

1. They put all the local shops out of business. They essentially destroyed small business across the country.
2. They killed a lot of good manufacturing jobs because they put smaller and local shops out of business (who almost exclusively used goods manufactured in the U.S.), and then moved the manufacturing overseas or simply bought their stock from overseas
3. They don't pay their employees ****, and don't offer any substantial benefits.

People are too poor to shop at Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart (and many others) have helped make the nation poorer.

 

Yep, by saving customers more money than local shops. Really you should blame all of us cheap scumbags who shop at WalMart instead of the pricier local store. WalMart doesn't make me shop at their stores.

So they created manufacturing jobs overseas? The horror! People overseas need jobs too.

They pay them enough to operate their business, anything more would be waste and a dereliction of duty to shareholders and customers who demand low prices.

WalMart saves consumers thousands of dollars/yr in non-disposable income.

Why else would anyone shop there?

 

The Walton family is amazing. Can any of you fathom providing $90 billion in value to the rest of humanity?

Truly a remarkable achievement, (moreso by Sam than his children, but they still had to sustain it).

And notice how it's hands off for Zuckerberg and Jobs. Why aren't you demanding a pound of flesh from them?

 

Because mark and bill made that money. Sam Walton built that empire. It isn't like the Walton's are really involved in running the business.

 

They decide who runs it.

 

All very true, and nothing wrong with what they did. But what is best for an individual is not necessarily what is best for a company. And what is best for a company is not necessarily what is best for a country. A strong case could be made that Walmart as a whole has been a net negative for the country.

 

$90 Billion dollars worth of value - you have got to be kidding me. Do you actually believe this that money is indicative of value added? Do you think that they provide more value to America or to American society than 40% of Americans? You are either joking or you have completely lost perspective due to your fetishization of wealth.

 

Talk about Wealth Transfer!

From the Lower Forty (%) to the Walton Empire!

 

Rich people need to pay for Obama's drone bombing of children too!

 

I'm only 26.

It doesn't really matter to me. This topic to me really goes back to:

Tax rates on capital gains/dividends, and whether you want an estate tax or abolish the stepup in basis at death.

 

Rob Walton was a big part of growing Wal-Mart.

Jim was also involved to a lesser extent.

 

38 hours is considered full-time (IIRC, anything over 32 hours are not considered part-timers). Pay isn't bad for the work performed. Prices in the store are nice.

Don't shop at Wal-Mart. Go shop at one of those other huge multi-billion dollar corporations.

 

It was value added to the free people that willingly gave the Waltons their money.

Otherwise they wouldn't have given it to them.

A better way to put it would be that the Waltons have provided more value to society than 40% of Americans.

 

Well, this is clearly stupid. If I make $1 million and spend it all, thus having a net worth of $0, does it mean I provided no value to society? If I cure cancer but release the solution for free and thus gain $0, does it mean I provided no value to society?

A measure of current wealth is not a measure of value to society. To suggest it is is totally ridiculous.

 

No, you would have to speculate what the cure would be worth if you had sold it. Value would be what others are willing to give to you, not what you asked of them.

Not current wealth. Just cumulative earned wealth.