Walmart Targets The Poor With New Checking Accounts

Yes, that's a good deal, but I'm sure some left wing types think it's "the man" exploiting the poor.

- - - Updated - - -

Tne poor don't shop there. Too expensive.

 

No need to get your panties in a bunch.

I was just saying it was your helpers fault.

 

Yes I do know what a company store is but you clearly don't or you would not compare the federal government to a company store. You are working too hard to try and find ways to feed your biases.

 

So give us the number of hourly employees who have gotten rich working at Wal-Mart.

 

current CEO started as a an hourly employee

I know you will simply dismiss his success with a "one story doesn't show a trend" or some such nonsense.... but facts remain.... if you work hard enough, continue your education like he did.... there is plenty of upward mobility at Walmart.


What liberals don't like hearing is "work hard enough"

 

You are correct. Your examples do not prove your statement.

 

it absolutely does prove, that there is no upward ceiling at Walmart.... but that doesn't fit your agenda..... I understand

 

Give us the number of liberals who have been freed of the drudgery of work who got rich.

I don't know the number of WalMart hourly employees who got rich but since they're not required to remain WalMart hourly employees for life, there are probably some. Most of the WalMart employees I've talked to were in their first job. They were learning to work. That's something liberals don't have to do. They were learning to get up and get to the job on time. Something else liberals don't have to do. They were learning to accomplish their job and get their pay. Yet, another thing liberals don't have to do. One thing all the WalMart employees I talked to had in common was hope. Something liberals are desperate to make sure people don't have.

But, tell me, Joker, how many people on welfare get rich? The only guaranteed path to wealth is to be a liberal politician.

Of course, I know what a company store is, Joker, because I come from where there were company stores. You worked your ass off for the company and had to give most of what you made back to the company. Yep, that's the government and the company store. You work your ass off and give most of what you make back to the government so they can use it to buy votes. And, people think there's no such thing as a free lunch. For politicians, it's all free because it's all your money. Well, not liberals. The money all comes from people who work and earn.

 

Wal-Mart just wants to sell things. They see this as a way to get people with money into the store. Kind of like they do the free check cashing with income tax refunds.

 

LOL, hyperbole as usual. Of course the company who offers 1. the cheapest prices, and 2. the lowest banking fees, must simply equate to the presumed injustice of "company store" because... Walmart. Asinine and vapid.

 

It's not a matter of "rich" as in the top 1%, it's being able to amass wealth and have wealth to retire on, which an employee is certainly capable of doing working at Wal-Mart.

 

I'm actually not sure that's true.

 

"Walmart
Walmart has been one of the best performing stocks of the past 30 years, so let’s see where you would be today if you were had enough foresight to invest in 1980. If you had bought $10,000 worth of WMT in 1980, today you would own 74,472 shares worth $3.9 million dollars. Your yearly dividend check would be $108,729."
http://www.thedividendpig.com/if-you-only-invested-then-a-little-motivation-for-now/

So if you started in 1970 and through the employee stock option and amassed $10,000 worth, probably on less than have that being your investment it would now be worth almost $4 million dollars and that if you never invested another dime.

 

Minimum wage workers are offered employee stock options? And why are we going back to 1970? Yea, sure if I was a janitor at Google when it was still in someone's basement, I could have retired by now...

 

I traveled Arkansas throughout the 80's and 90's and watched it grow from a local to a regional to a national chain, the wealth that was built was amazing. And yes my daughter worked there for just a brief period in the 90's after she graduated HS and there was a employee stock plan and retire fund she didn't have to contribute. So actually your cost of the stock would be less than in the example.

 

Not really.

To have an account with no fees, you must have direct deposit set up of $500 a month.

Bounce a check, and they just take the balance out of your next direct deposit.

They may not charge fees, but I am sure enough bounced checks will result in account closure.

How is this "picking on the poor"?

 

Come on. Comparing Bernie Madoffs lies, to Walmarts desire to offer LEGAL free checking accounts to low income people.

Really?

Stretching.

 

capitalism in all forms is evil. /socialist rant

 

Walmarts desire "to make money" off of low income people by offering free checking accounts that are technically "LEGAL". There is a racket to it, a catch, we just haven't read the contract or the fine print, YET. We also don't know what kind of sweet deal they are getting from the government (AKA the tax payers) to cover their poor decision making asses, when it all goes south and ends bad. You can almost guarantee that they will not lose their money.

There is a reason why normal banks don't do this, because it is a poor business practice and in the long run, they will lose money doing it. Or maybe they have something up their sleeve to prevent the inevitable.

 

Capitalism isn't evil. Con artists on the other hand...

 

what, Walmart is supposed to risk their money "because it golly gee, sure be nice if they did" They are extending checking accounts to people who have had checking accounts closed by real banks.... that's a risky service, and the riskier you are, the higher the % rate you pay.... That's called risk 101. safe to say, anyone using a checking account from walmart, has made poor economic choices in the past (otherwise, their real bank would offer them a checking). There is no trap if you don't bounce a check. So any traps sprung, are from the individual's own continued poor economic choices... not walmart.

here we go again... let's try and justify individual poor economic decisions with corporate tax breaks. Walmart getting a tax break doesn't force you to bounce a walmart check....

 

Exorbitant fees? The first bank I look at online offers a checking account for $10 per month. The fee is waived if you have set up direct deposits, pay your bills though their online system or maintain a relatively low average balance. I would hardly call that exorbitant.

I have to assume you are a minimum wage worker to actually consider $10 to be exorbitant as your post suggests, as I have to assume you agree with the article you quoted (if you even bothered to read it). That certainly explains why you are so rabid about getting the minimum wage increased.

 

no, he's saying that Walmart has exorbitant fees. But that's because banks don't want to touch the high risk demographic that had checking accounts closed previously because of poor economic decisions.

 

These "are" supposedly free checking accounts with free over draft protection. What are you babbling about?

...and their (wallyworld or anybody else for that matter) poor economic decisions shouldn't be paid for by the tax payer when it all goes south either. That is the problem with the banking schemes that continue to be allowed and have been going on since the deregulation of the major banks took effect in the 1970's, and have continued with the same usual suspects no matter which party has the keys to the congress, the white house, or the courts.

Why are banks being bailed out for the "poor" choices (many criminal if we are actually being honest) they make?

Why does a bank give a welfare recipient several credit cards with thousands of dollars of credit on each of them, when there is no physical evidence they have the means to support such credit? Not even welfare recipients either. They seem to prey on and depend on the ignorance of the poor working class many of which can't even read the contracts they sign, much less comprehend the legal jargon nobody is supposed to understand fully, with fine print. What is fine print if it isn't blatant dishonesty and an attempt to pull the wool over somebody's eyes so they can be conned out of their money? Half of the people they are doing these things too have less than average intelligence and are touting around IQ's that don't exceed 80.

Why do people like you rationalize, and even justify such actions by blaming only the other half of the transaction, and hold the banks to a different level of responsibility when they make such ignorant poorly conceived individual economic decisions? Hmmm? There is a reason why they are called the deserving class, evidently since they deserve the benefit of any doubt at all costs.

 

Please don't answer for me especially if you are wrong.