Welcome to the 69th installment of The Wal-Mart Weekly, a column dedicated to bringing you insight, wit, facts, results, opinions, and just a bit of everything else when it comes to a very hot topic these days: Wal-Mart.

This week, I'll be taking a look labor relations inside Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT). Specifically, reports that the world's largest retailer has recent given its general employees in its Chinese locations raises while not doing the same for its American employees.

Now, all of this is not out of the goodness of the retailer's heart, but more because of the negotiations with the union representation of Wal-Mart's China workers. Can we compare Wal-Mart's stance on living wage increases to another country's workers?

More green for being red

Although I take many things on the internet for what they're worth (sometimes, not much), an article from the Huffington Post -- which is tilted very far left in most cases -- brought up the point of Wal-Mart giving an annual 8% raise to its Chinese employees. Not only that, but the labor union representing Wal-Mart employees in China is not the labor union representing employees in the U.S. In fact, U.S. Wal-Mart employees do not have union representation.

Surprised? Shouldn't be -- labor unions are different in every country. In China, that country's economy continues to rise and the Chinese government is pushing for higher wages and benefits for employees. Wal-Mart, being a decently sized employer in that country (but not even close to being the largest), is complying. The only problem with this, as seen from the other side of the pond, is that gas prices and credit problems are haunting many U.S. households, including those of U.S. Wal-Mart employees.

A standard 3% wage increase in 2008 won't do much to help those making less than $12/hour overcome the effects of raised prices in almost every area of their lives. The Huffington Post calls this a wage "rollback." Is it Wal-Mart's job to arbitrarily give raises to employees in a country where the economy has slowed and prices have gone up? That's the theory. Is it the right attitude: That's your decision to make.

Inflation - the unspoken horror

In times of inflation, annual raises can't even keep up with the cost of living adjustment (COLA) that keeps a worker just above the water line. If inflation is 3.4% (just for argument's sake) and you receive a raise at your job at the 3.2% level, you have actually lost money in the most general sense. Most of what you consume (gas, food, etc.) has risen by a higher level than your new raise will pay for. In effect, you really did not receive a "raise" at all. It's true that Wal-Mart's wage rate, while $10.86 in 2008, has risen from $9.55 in 2004 (four years ago).

Seeing as though your dollar will not buy the same amount of goods that it did four years ago, the average Wal-Mart employee has actually seen wages decrease in the last four years while consumer product prices have risen at the same time. this is the quandary Wal-Mart always faces, and it's one that pushes forward this question: not a single employee is "forced" to work at Wal-Mart. The reality is, though, that for many employees, there is little to no other choice in employment.

An average Wal-Mart worker making $10.86 per hour working 34 hours per week makes $19,200 per year. Ever try to support a family of four on that? Good luck. You probably could, if you ate $1 Ramen packages for every meal and drove 70MPH scooters to work every day. But then again, the other side of the fence comes out: if you do have a family of four to support, is it Wal-Mart's fault that you can't making the wage that you make? In a capitalist society, not at all. In a socialist one, well -- you get the idea.

All things not being equal

This type of argument comes up regularly, and it's a debate worth having. Wal-Mart's fortunes have continued to increase this year due to a larger score of American consumers taking solace in the retailer's low prices. Instead of escaping on vacations and into movie theaters, many consumers are finding refuge inside Wal-Mart stores. This, in turn, has given the retailer increasing sales and profits this year at a time when the American consumer is finding it harder to put gas in the tank and food on the table. Hence, those same customers line up single-file to get everything they need from the local Wal-Mart. Sounds like some future-esque socio-political, made-for-TV movie, yes?

Now, with the Walton Family's stake in the company that Sam Walton founded, that sizable fortune rests quite a bit on the stock price of the company (WMT shares closed at $57.92 last Friday). While billions of dollars have been added to the bottom line of the retailer's controlling family, the average worker in one of its stores has gotten poorer. To add insult to injury, Chinese employees are seeing raises and other perks that, at some point, could rival the pay and benefits U.S. Wal-Mart workers see. Is the American worker just being dumped on here? It could certainly be seen that way, but I digress.

If Wal-Mart could ever succeed in silencing its critics, it would be to become a leader in the retail space insofar as worker pay, benefits and other perks. Compared to competitor Costco Wholesale Corp. (NASDAQ: COST), which seems to be the anti-Wal-Mart in terms of a big-box retailer which apparently knows the true value of treating employees fairly (which is above legally), Wal-Mart is abysmal. That doesn't mean it couldn't be way better in terms of labor relations -- something that would actually make employees be happy when coming to work.

Stay tuned right here this time next week for another edition of The Wal-Mart Weekly. Until then, have a safe week!