danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky and Danivon (and all the other people who don't approve of Walmart), if you don't like how Walmart does things, why don't you start a retail company and follow practices with which you are comfortable?

Seriously, are you becoming a parody now?

You are as well. You don't like Walmart's employment practices; you don't like that the Walton family benefits from the company they built (that's why my nationalize comment was appropriate); and you don't like that they served horse meat at one of their companies unbeknownst to their customers. These all get lumped into your argument as if anyone here is in favor of companies violating regulations on food disclosure.

The reality is that creating a billion dollar business is hard. Through a series of voluntary transactions they have created tremendous wealth. Everyone of those transactions has benefited someone. Given the nature of Walmart's business, a high proportion have benefited low income people, either as employees or customers or suppliers. They've done more for low income people than President Obama.

Regarding minimum wage and unemployment, we've argued that before; there's certainly some level at which it causes unemployment. Economists can argue about that level, but I suspect it is different in Mississippi than it is in Connecticut.

P.S. And ricky blames Walmart for their employees being on food stamps as if they would not be on food stamps if they quit their Walmart jobs.

Freeman, thanks for your comments. The AARP thing is interesting. It suggests that obesity may be a cause of disability at all ages, which provides the first explanation (other than gaming the system) for the increase in disability claims for people in their 20's and 30's and 40's. It probably explains some of it, but not all of it.

ray

Regarding minimum wage and unemployment, we've argued that before; there's certainly some level at which it causes unemployment

What causes under employment at WalMArt is the goofy system of making companies responsible for providing health insurance to their full time employees. An exploitative company like Wal Mart avoids paying these benefits by carefully managing to keep many working fewer than full time hours...
That's "gaming the system" in a much more damaging way than a doctor stretching the truth on a disability claim....
Because it effects millions. Who, end up on food stamps.

ray

The reality is that creating a billion dollar business is hard.

Its just as hard for Ikea and Costco and Trader Joes who all pay employees more and provide full benefits...
BY their existence and success they prove that employees don't need to be exploited for the business to be built. Also means i don't don't have to go out and start a retail business to counter the claims that Ray seems to be making that the current conditions Wal Mart takes advantage of MUST exist...
Which does make this an issue of morality.....
so
Bbauska

Are you trying to convict them for legal activities? When you say that laws should be changed, then rally support for change.
When it comes questioning morality, I do not inflict my morality on others. I would respectfully ask you to do the same. That is why I use the law as a judge.

When one makes a case for the morality of the current situation, that person is making the case that the law must be changed. How is that "inflicting " one's morality on another? That only happens when the law is passed that allows slavery or restricts access to aspects of health care....
But to make the case for the law being changed the morality MUST be discussed.
All I've heard you do is insist that those who beak the law should be prosecuted. (disability claimants). But you dodge the issue of whether or not the law makes sense. Or that the morality of the system is appropriate.
A senseless law should not be prosecuted... A law that is held to be immoral by most, should not exist.
Unions and labour laws grew up as Industrialization took place because workers felt they were being exploited and taken advantage of..
You get angry because some older unemployed are exploiting a perceived weakness in the disability system. But you don't get angry because Walmart does the same.
Those who game the disability system gain Medicare and a small pension at the expense of tax payers...
Those who game the employment practices system in order to keep their labout costs to a minimum, make billions of dollars in profit at the expense to tax payers, because its tax payers footing the bill for the food stamps and health care required to bring Wlal mart employees up to subsistence level. .
They are both wrong. And both the result of a perverse system that rewards immoral acts. For the "disabled" the reward is a small and its debatable wheteher or not the provision of Medicare might actually save the system money in the grand scheme. . For Wal Mart, the reward is to help make the Walton family billionaires...
You defend the latter.... And discuss the morality of the first, but avoid the moralityof the second.
There is some indication that WalMarts employment and purchasing policies are reaching their inevitable dead end... Read the story in yesterdays Washington Post by Myerson and you'll see that their sales are down,.profits are down and they are suffering more and more from an inability to provide service and quality ....
Interestingly, service and quality are the cornerstones of retailers who do pay employees a living wage... .

Ricky;

What causes under employment at WalMArt is the goofy system of making companies responsible for providing health insurance to their full time employees. An exploitative company like Wal Mart avoids paying these benefits by carefully managing to keep many working fewer than full time hours...
That's "gaming the system" in a much more damaging way than a doctor stretching the truth on a disability claim....
Because it effects millions. Who, end up on food stamps.

You are confused. It's Walmart's job to save expenses and comply with the law. That's what they are doing, horse meat and some other stuff excepted. If they are breaking the law (and I admit they have on occassion) then they should be prosecuted.

As it relates to disability, it's the federal government's job to design intelligent laws and then enforce them. They are failing on the latter, and probably on the former.

Ricky:

Read the story in yesterdays Washington Post by Myerson and you'll see that their sales are down,.profits are down and they are suffering more and more from an inability to provide service and quality ....
Interestingly, service and quality are the cornerstones of retailers who do pay employees a living wage... .

That's exactly my point. If Walmart's policies are the disaster you say they are, then Trader Joes, Costco, and Ikea (sans horse meat) can eat their lunch (sans horse meat). That's what happened to JC Penney.

I hate walmart, everything about them and I cringe when I do shop there ...but I do because they are less than a mile away but we limit what we buy there for various reasons, one being the place is not as neat and clean, their prices are only sometimes better than others, produce sucks, most of their meats are horrible, selection is not always good, as well as the whole abusing employees (and vendors) angle. But they are not breaking the law and if someone agrees to work for a crappy wage, then that's their problem not mine and Walmart will end up spending more money in the long run retraining new employees and dealing with more people quitting on a whim, calling in sick more often, etc. That's Walmarts business. I also don't agree every job should be paid a "living wage" some jobs are not worth a living wage and teenage kids can work them for less... supply and demand.
This thread is not about big bad Walmart, it's not about minimum wage, it's about scamming disability and fraud is fraud is fraud, it doesn't matter if you make little money or not, Disability is not designed to be any sort of option, it is not designed to take care of the fools who do not take care of themselves by working hard (or hardly working), it's about FRAUD.

And I just LOVED Bbauska's take on what Rickyp seems to feel:

"Walmart bad for following the law
Employee not bad for breaking the law."

perfect, just perfect!

Well, what is it that Walmart does that makes them so competitive? Answer: they provide a wide variety of good at low prices compared to other retailers. How do they do that? (1) they have a non-union work force and they pay most workers close to minimum-wage with no benefits; (2) they purchase from suppliers (a lot of them in China) who can supply with very cheap products because of their low wages; (3) the huge buying power of Walmart allows them to negotiate favorable deals with suppliers and (4) buying and retailing in wholesale quantities. What Sam Walton figured out was that customers would like to do is get all of the things they need at one place (saving time) at the lowest possible price (saving money).Sam Walton has effectively met that desire of most customers for low-priced good that can be bought at one place.
But there is a huge cost. When a Wal-Mary comes in they take they the retail dollar that used to go to other businesses, many of which provided higher wages and benefits to their workers, particularly if they have unionized workers. Small retail owners also go out of business. I would suggest that there is also something lost when small businesses are lost with their wide range of goods, personal relationships with customers, and perhaps better made goods are replaced by one giant outlet.
Now Walmart provides cheaper goods so consumers benefits and workers in China certainly benefit. I doubt that the cashier who used to make 40K a year with benefits at a supermarket that closed after Walmart came in who now makes 16K a year without benefits is happy that she can buy cheap stuff at Walmart.
Since Walmart is in retail I don't see they really create wealth; wealth is reallocated,yes, but it's not like they they have developed an I-phone or tablet or other technological device that creates new ways of living or working or producing things. No, this is a zero sum game here. Sam Walton has taken the same amount of retail dollars and reduced the amount going to workers. All of his policies really come down to workers being squeezed to produce things at low prices (other retailers to compete have to pay their workers low wages, suppliers have to lower their labor costs to sell to Walmart, etc.)So how does that benefit low-income people when they are the workers being squeezed? But you might argue that they are not highly skilled and should not be paid much Well, there is nothing intrinsically valuable about one's skill set. A conservative acquaintance worked in a small computer firm and he was making a lot of money. He would say, well, the programmers in India can't write code properly so I am not worried at all by them. Well, his company was bought by an Indian firm, everyone was fired, and the company was moved to India. I kind of lost touch with him but I know he was out of work for a long time even though he was very highly skilled. The real point is that there is something out of whack when we see companies making huge profits and paying their employees low wages.

freeman2 wrote:But there is a huge cost. When a Wal-Mary comes in they take they the retail dollar that used to go to other businesses, many of which provided higher wages and benefits to their workers, particularly if they have unionized workers. Small retail owners also go out of business.

I live in an area where Wal-Mart is akin to Satan. Communities band together to stop Wal-Mart.

What's the reality?

Low income folks flock to Wal-Mart because they save money. If not for Wal-Mart, they would make do with less.

It's not as simple as you would have it.

I would suggest that there is also something lost when small businesses are lost with their wide range of goods, personal relationships with customers, and perhaps better made goods are replaced by one giant outlet.

Hmm, again, welcome to New England. It sounds incredible, but often the attitude of owners/employees of small stores here is, "What do you want?" It's as if you are intruding on a perfect day.

Want to make money? Open a good business in New England and behave politely. We have some places like that and they are unfailingly the most popular spots in town--and Wal-Mart will never threaten them.

Now Walmart provides cheaper goods so consumers benefits and workers in China certainly benefit. I doubt that the cashier who used to make 40K a year with benefits at a supermarket that closed after Walmart came in who now makes 16K a year without benefits is happy that she can buy cheap stuff at Walmart.

Again, having worked in Supermarkets and been in Wal-Mart, I don't see this. I know the people who work in grocery stores. It's a different caliber in Wal-Mart: limited English skills, etc. You can say whatever you want, but Wal-Mart is not destroying the grocery business. It is probably damaging overpriced department stores like Sears, Penneys, etc.

And, actually, Satan would be welcome in most MA towns. In fact, he'd be a rock star.

I guess the angle of debating the disability fraud issue was too difficult, and we had to go to the "Corporations are scamming too!" Pretty soon it will be because the economy was bad because of George Bush! Yeah, Yeah, dat's da ticket! It is George Bush's fault!

I do not know what to add to Tom's reply to RickyP. It is perfect.

Freeman2, I would have to say that if the consumer is making the choice. I do not like Walmart that much. I try to shop elsewhere (including an hour drive to Costco). People are making the choice. When enough people choose to shop elsewhere, Walmart will suffer, change or go out of business. RickyP's link shows that some of that may be occurring already. I feel the same way about the chain restaurants. I would rather eat at a local owned establishment than Applebee's. I have that choice to make, and I make it. Let people choose.

Now, the comment will come back that not all people have a choice. A business is making a choice to serve the needs of it's niche market (i.e. Trader Joe's). Another is meeting the need of low prices for those who need that. I say that Walmart is meeting the needs of those who need lower prices and lower quality. Are you sure you want to take away that option?

Ray Jay wrote:Freeman, thanks for your comments. The AARP thing is interesting. It suggests that obesity may be a cause of disability at all ages, which provides the first explanation (other than gaming the system) for the increase in disability claims for people in their 20's and 30's and 40's. It probably explains some of it, but not all of it.

Indeed. A shame no-one brought it up before, or even on the first page or so along with other potential factors.

Oh, wait, I did, and was first ignored, then sneeringly dismissed, and then accused of trying to use it to account for all of the rise. And then hit with "stands to reason" arguments about heart problems.

Good job you conservatives are entering into this in good faith, huh.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Freeman, thanks for your comments. The AARP thing is interesting. It suggests that obesity may be a cause of disability at all ages, which provides the first explanation (other than gaming the system) for the increase in disability claims for people in their 20's and 30's and 40's. It probably explains some of it, but not all of it.

Indeed. A shame no-one brought it up before, or even on the first page or so along with other potential factors.

Oh, wait, I did, and was first ignored, then sneeringly dismissed, and then accused of trying to use it to account for all of the rise. And then hit with "stands to reason" arguments about heart problems.

Good job you conservatives are entering into this in good faith, huh.

As opposed to the liberals, who managed to sneer about the lack of solutions presented, even after the MIT paper I posted which had many of them. And then, naturally, the liberals attack Wal-Mart, as if that has anything to do with Disability.

Then, of course, there's one liberal who turns a discussion about tuna casserole into the need for nationalized healthcare . . .

And, I for one, reject any linkage of obesity to the necessity of the government to pay for those who can work but won't and doctors who feel sorry for the under-skilled.

Doctor Fate wrote:And, I for one, reject any linkage of obesity to the necessity of the government to pay for those who can work but won't and doctors who feel sorry for the under-skilled.

Indeed. But do you get the point that increased obesity is a factor in increased genuine disability claims? Or do you have any substantial response to the link to the AARP paper that freeman2 provided?

DF - I was looking for your actual proposals, not a link to a paper that seems to really be more about how bad the problem is, and cribbing off them. And let's be fair, I only mentioned your lack of original proposals after you'd done the whole ignore/sneer/pretend thing. And after I had discussed with RJ and bbauska their proposals.

bbauska - disability fraud is really a small issue, if you want to just go down the legalistic route. I don't actually think that DF and Tom want to confine it to that, judging by what they've said. And the problem is that if someone believes they are disabled and make a claim, they are not guilty of fraud (on account of intent being a major factor in determining guilt). The problem that they highlight is that certain categories of disability are not 'easy' to judge - particularly for laymen who are annoyed at layabouts claiming, but sometimes also for qualified medical experts. It's easy to spot someone with no legs, they clearly are physically limited. It's not so easy to spot someone with PTSD, or crippling back pain.

So this was not just about enforcement of the rules as they stand, but whether the rules themselves were right. Because there is the claim that mental problems and musculoskeletal problems (the two that DF and Tom seemed most exercised about) are grey areas, and so there must be loads of people using that to game the system. I do see that argument, and I do accept there are two groups of people who 'shouldn't' be claiming but are: those who deliberately game the system (although just reading a bunch of symptoms won't always cut it), and those who are in some way disabled by their condition but perhaps not enough to justify full benefits, but do have a legitimate claim to be limited in some way. The former is fraud, but very hard to prove. The latter is not, but if there's little between 'disability' and 'fully able to look for work', people in those grey areas will either be unfairly getting benefits, or unfairly not.

However, the corollary of all that is that there will be genuine claimants in those same medical categories who are also not 'easy' to definitively categorise, but are 'fully disabled'. In a system where false-positives are accepted as claims, they are fine and you get het up about the gamers. However, in a system where false-negatives are rejected, those people are left out and I will get het up about them.

And there is actually still the wider debate if people are gaming the system, and that is why they are. You could simplify it to just laziness and greed, and those will be factors to an extent. But are there other issues here, like few alternatives in terms of work that pays (and here comes the minimum wage, zero-hour contract, insecure job argument) or other welfare/out of work benefits to subsist on.

Because as much as it is interesting to see the fact of people doing things we don't approve of, it is also often of interest to figure out the motive. Why? Well, we all know that prevention is better than cure, right. Sure let's do the 'cure' and improve the means of finding and dealing with fraud, but let's also consider whether there are also any things we can do to make it less likely that people would even consider the fraud. Why bother if you can get decent paying work?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:And, I for one, reject any linkage of obesity to the necessity of the government to pay for those who can work but won't and doctors who feel sorry for the under-skilled.

Indeed. But do you get the point that increased obesity is a factor in increased genuine disability claims? Or do you have any substantial response to the link to the AARP paper that freeman2 provided?

Fine, let's start with the paper.

It was written in 2001. So, it's applicability to the explosion of Disability claims in the last 4-5 years is?

Not too high.

From the article:

A recent study by the Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) lends support to this observation (Tattrie, Gotz, and Liu 2000). This eight-state study concludes that the aging of the baby boomers should not have a dramatic impact on workers' compensation costs, in part because older workers are often in or shift to safer, less strenuous jobs that make them less prone to injury. Moreover, the investigators argue that while the costs per claim for middle-aged
workers are substantially higher than they are for younger workers, the per-claim costs for
older workers are only slightly higher than those of the middle-aged. Lower claim frequencies tend to offset the higher costs.

The WCRI report suggests caution in generalizing to other states, some of which may have higher age effects on claims than those studied. In addition, this study assumes a relatively modest increase in the proportion of workers aged 55 and over, "an increase too small to yield large age effects" (Tattrie, Gotz, and Liu 2000: 41). Whether a more substantial increase would yield more significant age effects is not known.

Hmm, this seems to throw cold water on your "older people are the reason these claims are going up" argument.

Second, is AARP an unbiased source?

Not in my book. Statistics can be used in a variety of ways and AARP invariably leans heavily Left.

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) is the second most important disability benefit covering workers (with sufficient quarters of coverage, which most older workers will typically have). The average age of SSDI award has been falling and hovered about 49 years in 1999, down from 57 years for men and 59 years for women in 1957 (Social Security Administration 1999: Table 6.C2). Nonetheless, over one-third of the awards in the past decade have gone to
workers aged 55 and above (Table 8)—a share disproportionate to their representation in the
workforce. The declining age of SSDI awards in the 1980s and 1990s may be due, in part, to
the fact that a smaller share of the labor force was in the older age group, as can be seen in
Figure 1.

So, the age is falling, not rising. So, it has nothing to do with an aging workforce.

Also, older workers are disproportionately represented. I suspect there may be many reasons to examine the fraud issue there: Disability might be a nice "nest egg" for those who have not planned and suddenly realize Social Security is not enough.

DF - I was looking for your actual proposals, not a link to a paper that seems to really be more about how bad the problem is, and cribbing off them. And let's be fair, I only mentioned your lack of original proposals after you'd done the whole ignore/sneer/pretend thing. And after I had discussed with RJ and bbauska their proposals.

(And, that paper was more substantive than anything you, rickyp, or Freeman have posted).

Okay, fine, let's be fair. Fraud is a problem, you want to minimize or ignore it, the "conservatives" believe it is something that ought to be looked at in a serious way--as evidenced by:

bbauska - disability fraud is really a small issue . . .

The problem that they highlight is that certain categories of disability are not 'easy' to judge - particularly for laymen who are annoyed at layabouts claiming, but sometimes also for qualified medical experts. It's easy to spot someone with no legs, they clearly are physically limited. It's not so easy to spot someone with PTSD, or crippling back pain.

Maybe. However, no one has mentioned PTSD that I recall. "Depression" is of another stripe.

Is injury easy to fake? Some are. I know of two people who faked it. One was pregnant and developed "back pain" and was given "injured on the job" status. My response: "Not unless she was impregnated at work." The second was under investigation and went off "stress." How did she get away with it? There is a double standard when it comes to males/females in some jobs.

So this was not just about enforcement of the rules as they stand, but whether the rules themselves were right. Because there is the claim that mental problems and musculoskeletal problems (the two that DF and Tom seemed most exercised about) are grey areas, and so there must be loads of people using that to game the system. I do see that argument, and I do accept there are two groups of people who 'shouldn't' be claiming but are: those who deliberately game the system (although just reading a bunch of symptoms won't always cut it), and those who are in some way disabled by their condition but perhaps not enough to justify full benefits, but do have a legitimate claim to be limited in some way. The former is fraud, but very hard to prove. The latter is not, but if there's little between 'disability' and 'fully able to look for work', people in those grey areas will either be unfairly getting benefits, or unfairly not.

It's not that hard to prove. I know one person who went off "disabled," retired, moved, and joined a softball league. These days people are stupid enough to put such things on FB. With far less effort than the IRS uses, the government could reduce fraudulent claims substantially.

And there is actually still the wider debate if people are gaming the system, and that is why they are. You could simplify it to just laziness and greed, and those will be factors to an extent. But are there other issues here, like few alternatives in terms of work that pays (and here comes the minimum wage, zero-hour contract, insecure job argument) or other welfare/out of work benefits to subsist on.

Mooching off other people is laziness and greed. Spin it however you'd like.

uhhh, obesity was indeed brought up but so was the dismissal. The biggest growing sectors of disability claims is mental problems and back problems. Obesity would certainly play some role in back problems, that too was admitted but it plays none in mental and only a small factor in back problems, not to mention the studies showing 25% problematic claims and the many anecdotal stories from those here as well as those mentioned in the article. Sorry, the obesity angle isn't going to work here at all!