In the latest issue of US News and World Report, Michael Barone, comparing the "Wal-mart Model" to that of GM's business model, states that a main difference between the two is that most of Wal-mart's employees do not receive health care benefits whereas with GM in the 1970s, all full-time workers received such benefits. Ok, duh. He then comments, "That made sense when almost all workers were men supporting families. But it is a poor fit with a labor market in which many workers are women, teenagers, or retirees seeking extra income."

There are two problems here. One is whether or not he means that all three groups who work for Wal Mart are solely "seeking extra income." But the bigger problem that is, in any case, his comments overlook the fact that most women work just as hard as men to support their families. Also, has he not heard of single mothers? Or even of men who are single without children? Maybe he just is one of those people who likes to simplify and generalize. In any case, I remember when you could receive health benefits upon working 25 hours or more per week. Sure some places probably have this set up, but such businesses who do are surely dwindling more and more. To infer on any level that most people working at places like Wal-mart are doing so just for exta income or that they don't need or deserve any benefits due to their gender or age is discrimantory and frustrating.

I do realize that this magazine sides towards corportate and governmental interests, but its columnists are not usually so sexist and ageist. My guess is that this guy has a nice comfy house, relatively new model car, and his own health benefits. Fuck him!