Walmart thread - a serious walmart thread on sw is priceless!
I don't think wm is necessarily a villain or victim, it's just freakin WALMART. It is what it is, and it will probably be here until the end of time.


Walmart thread - a serious walmart thread on sw is priceless!
I don't think wm is necessarily a villain or victim, it's just freakin WALMART. It is what it is, and it will probably be here until the end of time.










OK suppose we look at the flip side. Suppose that WalMart, due to insanity throughout the board room, elects to increase pay for all employees to $15 an hour ... which eliminates those employees' eligibility for social welfare benefits but also requires that WalMart raise prices by 10% in order to 'break even'.Hmmm,- So, if its costing me $2104 in taxes to support Walmart wages, Walmart would have to save me $2104/yr. Applying the 20% figure that 1 poster mentioned was his experience, I'd have to "transfer" $10520 in purchases that I'd otherwise be making at other stores for the lower price of $8416 at Walmart. I doubt that I spend more than $2k/yr at WM, so benefit doesn't add up.
However, this also means that 40 odd million WalMart non-employee shoppers must pay 10% more for their food and other essentials out of a fixed sized Food Stamp or SSI 'check'. So the next thing that happens is they stir up Washington to implement a 10% benefit increase for Food Stamps and SSI. As a high bracket taxpayer, you get to save ~$2k by the elimination of social welfare benefit costs for higher paid WalMart employees ... but you also potentially face a tax increase of at least DOUBLE that amount in order to fund 10% higher benefits for the 40+ million Food Stamp, low income SSI and other social welfare program ... i.e. a far larger number of 'poor' Americans who don't work at WalMart ( or at another $15 an hour menial labor job ) but who do shop there as the lowest available cost alternative.
And for the now $15 an hour WalMart employees, they quickly find that they must pay $2 an hour for medical benefits to replace their lost Medicaid coverage. They also discover that they must pay an additional $1 an hour towards SSI and medicare taxes plus unemployment insurance and worker's comp. And they also discover that the equivalent of yet another $1 an hour remains with the IRS as opposed to being refunded to them by the EITC and other low income tax credits. And when the end of the month rolls around, they further discover that their rent subsidy and utility bill subsidy are reduced or eliminated ... requiring them to spend the equivalent of yet another $3 an hour paying rent and utility bills out of their own pocket.
So who gains from this theoretical transition ? Not the high bracket taxpayer who must fund 10% higher levels of social welfare benefits. And not the WalMart employee, despite the doubling of hourly pay rate, because essentially all of the additional pay must be redirected towards taxes or insurance or rent or utilities in addition to having to pay 10% higher grocery bills. The real 'winners' are the IRS, state unemployment and workers comp funds, private health insurance companies etc.
~
Last edited by Melonie; 05-12-2011 at 02:28 PM.





Increasing the pay for all Walmart employees to $15 an hour doesn't mean that Walmart would have to raise prices by 10% to break even. Maybe if the owners of Walmart took a little less money for themselves and gave a little more to their employees, they would be able to pay all of their employees at least $15 an hour. Lets take a look at how much money the owners of Walmart have:
http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400/list
Christy Walton - $24 billion
Jim Walton - $20.1 billion
Alice Walton - $20 billion
S. Robson Walton - $19.7 billion
That's more than $80 billion. Maybe if instead of keeping over $80 billion for themselves, they just kept $40 - $50 billion and used the rest to pay their employees, their employees would make enough money so that they wouldn't need food stamps.





SGA, selling general and administrative expense, where most of WMT's wage expenses reside only amount to 18% of Gross Sales.
HTH
Z





From the official stats I can find, the total pay for WalMart's top 5 executives combined amounted to $65 million ... with Michael Duke taking home the lion's share at 19.2 million. Cristy Walton did not receive a paycheck from WalMart. What she DID receive were earth shaking 2.6% WalMart stock dividend payments ... the same as everyday workers and retirees whose 401k's and pension funds own WalMart stock. So your call for WalMart's 'owners' to sacrifice is actually a call for everyday workers and retirees to sacrifice right along with the Walton family members.
Attempting to equate inherited 'wealth' with 'income' won't fly.
And WalMart's recently published net profit margin is a whopping 3.89% per ... not exactly Microsoft territory i.e. 31.8% ! Of course, much of Microsoft's profits are the result of A. a de-facto gov't 'authorized' monopoly business license, and B. legal US tax avoidance on offshore sales ... which also effectively 'costs' US taxpayers additional money to make up for the tax revenue loss.
~
Last edited by Melonie; 05-12-2011 at 08:28 PM.





Where do you think their inherited 'wealth' came from?





I guess this isn't sinking in. WalMart's actual net profit margin is at a 3.89% level ... the same rate of return available from US gov't bonds. WalMart's actual payout to investors is 2.6% to both Walton heirs owning millions of shares but also to blue collar workers and retirees via their pension funds. There doesn't appear to be a lot of leeway for incurring significantly higher operating expenses without tipping the company into the 'red'.Walmart HAS the money (billions of dollars) to treat their employees better.. but they dont
I sense that what's actually being called for is a 'giveback' by just the wealthiest owners of WalMart stock ... and in particularly the Walton Heirs ... to supposedly make up for 'undeserved' past earnings ... based on voluntarily accepted, legal, but comparatively low pay rates for their unskilled US workers ?





Personally, I'm amazed that some people have no problem at all requiring a billionaire Walton heir to give up their inherited wealth or WalMart stock dividends, while at the same time giving fellow billionaire Steve Jobs or Bill Gates a pass. Where WalMart employs hundreds of thousands of US workers ... albeit at low pay rates ... Apple and Microsoft have ELIMINATED US jobs by the tens of thousands in favor of <$2 an hour outsourced labor writing code in Mumbai or assembling I-Pads in China. Where WalMart must set prices at levels below their competitors, Microsoft and Apple have a de-facto US gov't sanctioned 'monopoly' market where they can charge whatever they choose knowing that they are legally protected from direct competition. Where WalMart must pay US corporate taxes on virtually every dollar earned from US sales, Microsoft and Apple are provided with a legal loophole that allows them to transfer 'ownership' of their software / intellectual property to a division in a low tax country like Ireland thus escaping billions in US corporate tax liability.
But nobody seems to be calling for Jobs or Gates ( or their stockholders ) to make a 'sacrifice' in order to restore former US jobs or to collect US corporate taxes on software sales. Remember that every US job that Microsoft and Apple eliminated is one more underemployed / unemployed American that may be eligible for those expensive taxpayer funded social welfare benefits.
Why is that ? ( hint - check political contributions made versus the recipients of those contributions @! ). Obviously compared to WalMart's 3.89% net profit margin, Microsoft's 31.8% profit margin or Apple's 24.3% profit margin, the latter ( and thier stockholders ) are in a far better position to make such a 'sacrifice'.





Analyzing this is a fun academic exercise I suppose, but the point itself is of course fallacious. Those people would likely be costing taxpayers the same amount whether they were working at Walmart, Target, Home Depot or the local grocery store.
The same could be said for almost any profitable business. These are businesses, not charities, and Walmart has stockholders who expect a return on their investment. Recognizing profits is the reason that Walmart and other businesses exist and if you take away the profit incentive from the equation then there would be far fewer businesses employing people.
Each local Walmart will generally be forced to pay what the market has determined to be reasonable wages for the jobs that those employees are doing in that particular area. If that was not the case, then they would not have enough employees to man their stores as those that could find better wages elsewhere would.
Last edited by rickdugan; 05-13-2011 at 07:38 PM.
I know your going to say that according to your sources they do provide good health insurance to their full time employees. Well not from what i hear, and this is from the horse's mouth. Yes, they are real people,not just "unskilled workers,"....( yall's words, not mine) with hopes and dreams and families to take care of. You can spit numbers at me all day... bottom line is that its not sinkin in and it never will. For crying out loud its like debating with inhumane machines without feelings. Not everything is about money! I realize that Walmart has its place in this country, however i do not feel that the good out weighs the harm that it has caused. Of course my brother who is Republican calls me a bleeding heart liberal, but thats another story.
Last edited by Hungryeyes; 05-13-2011 at 09:48 PM. Reason: typo





Unfortunately, when you're talking about employee payroll costs versus retail price levels versus profit margins versus stock valuations / dividend payments to stockholders, it IS all about money. The pension funds, hedge funds, Wall St. financial institutions, as well as 'serious' individual investors, do NOT let emotions or social values override hard economic calculations when they make decisions on their investments. Only governments can do that ... at least to the point that they are actually allowed to do so by taxpayers or foreign lenders or mainstream media ! And of course gov'ts have the luxury of starting up a printing press to simply create more money when 'investments' based on emotions or social values result in huge 'losses' of US taxpayer money ... whereas pension funds, hedge funds, Wall St. financial institutions, and individual investors do not share this same luxury and are thus forced to accept real losses resulting from bad investment decisions.bottom line is that its not sinkin in and it never will. For crying out loud its like debating with inhumane machines without feelings. Not everything is about money!
The fact is that WalMart or MacDonalds or any other large employer of 'unskilled' US workers cannot afford to increase wages and/or benefits to those US workers without SOMEBODY having to pay for it. These are not privately owned companies, so there is no way to force an uber-rich 'owner' to pay for it ! So the choice comes down to making retail customers pay for it in the form of higher retail prices ( which in the case of WalMart and MacDonalds mostly hurts the 'poor' ) or making investors ( rich and poor alike ) pay for it in the form of lower stock valuations and lower dividend payments. Indeed it could be argued that a 10% retail price increase by WalMart or MacDonalds ... without a similar price increase by their direct competitors ... could 'sink' both companies on the basis of lost business volume. Similarly, it could be argued that sustained negative profits could 'sink' both companies from the investor side due to falling stock valuations with associated rising costs of working capital. And obviously if the company were to 'sink', their former low pay rate employees then become unemployed altogether ... further increasing the social welfare benefit cost burden on US taxpayers ... as well as forcing US consumers to then pay higher prices for similar goods at these companies' remaining competitors.
For some publicly owned companies who have allowed high wage rates and high benefit costs to kill their profit margins and stock valuations, there has also been a third option ... a US taxpayer funded bailout. However, it is unlikely that WalMart or MacDonalds could ever garner sufficient political support for any such future bailout in the way that Wall St. and GM / Chrysler have .
~
Last edited by Melonie; 05-14-2011 at 12:30 AM.





Impossible? Of course not. But profit killing for sure.
Look at it this way. In 2011, Walmart made $16.4 billion in net income. Now that sounds like a lot, but they also have over 1.5 million associates. Higher-end health plans that include preventative care are brutally expensive, but I'll take the rosey view for a moment and assume that for the sake of argument Wal-Mart could provide better health care plans for an average additional cost of $4,000 per year per employee. This would increase Wal-Mart's expenses by $6 billion per year, eating up over 35% of its net income.
And my example isn't even realistic. Good family plans and single plans for older workers are extremely expensive, so the reality is that it would probably cost Wal-Mart far more if they tried to do this in practice with a full coverage plan, eating up a lot of its net income.
Look, the reality is that the retail model involves relatively low per employee profit margins earned on the efforts of lots of low skilled bodies. Wal-Mart didn't create this model and they are operating no differently than any of the other large retailers. It is just the nature of retail sales.





A - I would have to say that an estimated $4,000 per year actual cost per employee of providing 'quality' medical insurance coverage is HIGHLY optimistic. Given the 'geriatric' nature of a good portion of WalMart employees, actual costs could easily be double your $4,000 figure.
B - even if your $4,000 number were achievable, the resulting 6 billion dollars worth of net income reduction for WalMart corporation would also result in something like $1.5 billion worth of lost US corporate tax revenues on the reduced level of net corporate income ( at an effective 25% corporate tax rate ) ... which would then have to be 'made up for' by other US taxpaying businesses and individuals. This is essentially in the same ballpark as the 'claimed' 1.5 billion dollar annual cost to taxpayers of providing social welfare benefit coverage to WalMart employees !!! Net result, US taxpayers would STILL be funding benefits for WalMart employees ... but in a much more indirect manner.
put simply, there is no such thing as a 'free lunch'. SOMEBODY winds up paying the tab.





Please stop saying "unskilled employees". The fact is while most of their employees are unskilled not all are. Many are skilled but in fields that are either leaving this country (like IT) or becoming obsolete. It's almost like people are justifying paying them minimum wage because they don't deserve more. I'm not saying whether they should be paid more or not (that's up to them)just that I am sick of this attitude that if someone is working at a job like that it must be because they are unskilled, and this is a lie.





The Walton family made their fortune of more than $80 billion through the hard work of their employees. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with business owners becoming wealthy from their business, but if they are able to make billions of dollars from their business, they should at least pay their employees enough so that they can afford to eat enough without needing food stamps.





So it's more important for the Walton family to get their 2.6% payout on their more than $80 billion fortune, than it is for Walmart employees to get paid a decent wage?
Walmart can still afford to significantly increase the wages of their employees. Costco pays their employees significantly more, and provides much better benefits, and Costco's margin is 1.7%. Also, Costco's CEO also gets paid significantly less than Walmart's and Costo's stock has significantly outperformed Walmart's.
Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's right.










From:
http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-...tatistics.aspx
Poverty Statistics i
*
In 2009, 43.6 million people (14.3 percent) were in poverty.
*
In 2009, 8.8 (11.1% percent) million families were in poverty.
* In 2009, 24.7 million (12.9 percent) of people aged 18-64 were in poverty.
* In 2009, 15.5 million (20.7 percent) children under the age of 18 were in poverty.
* In 2009, 3.4 million (8.9 percent) seniors 65 and older were in poverty.
Hunger Statistics on Food Insecurity and Very Low Food Security ii
* In 2009, 50.2 million Americans lived in food insecure households, 33 million adults and 17.2 million children
* In 2009, 14.7 percent of households (17.4 million households) were food insecure.
* In 2009, 5.7 percent of households (6.8 million households) experienced very low food security.
* In 2009, households with children reported food insecurity at almost double the rate for those without children, 21.3 percent compared to 11.4 percent.
* In 2009, households that had higher rates of food insecurity than the national average included households with children (21.3 percent), especially households with children headed by single women (36.6 percent) or single men (27.8 percent), Black non-Hispanic households (24.9 percent) and Hispanic households (26.9 percent).
* In 2009, 7.8 percent of seniors living alone (884,000 households) were food insecure.
Hunger Statistics on the use of Emergency Food Assistance and Federal Food Assistance Programs
* In 2009, 4.8 percent of all U.S. households (5.6 million households) accessed emergency food from a food pantry one or more times. ii
* In 2009, food insecure (low food security or very low food security) households were 15 times more likely than food-secure households to have obtained food from a food pantry. ii
* In 2009, food insecure (low food security or very low food security) households were 19 times more likely than food-secure households to have eaten a meal at an emergency kitchen.ii
* In 2009, 57 percent of food-insecure households participated in at least one of the three major Federal food assistance programs –Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly Food Stamp Program), The National School Lunch Program, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.ii Feeding America provides emergency food assistance to an estimated 37 million low-income people annually, a 46 percent increase from 25 million since Hunger In America 2006 iii
* Feeding America provides emergency food assistance to approximately 5.7 million different people per week. iii
* Among members of Feeding America, 74 percent of pantries, 65 percent of kitchens, and 54 percent of shelters reported that there had been an increase since 2006 in the number of clients who come to their emergency food program sites. iii





It's important that the blue collar workers and retirees who hold WalMart shares in their 401k's and pension funds to get their 2.6% payout.So it's more important for the Walton family to get their 2.6% payout on their more than $80 billion fortune, than it is for Walmart employees to get paid a decent wage?
A. every 'poor' American will be worse off if WalMart raises prices for basic foods, clothing etc.Poverty Statistics i
B. some REAL WORLD US 'poverty' statistics ...
(snip)"The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
Forty six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a threebedroom house with oneandahalf baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middleclass children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. (snip)
from
Well in global economic terms, they don't !!! The business definition of the 'economic value' of an employee is the amount of additional revenue they can generate for their employer. In more than a few cases, $7.50-$8.00 an hour US minimum wage pay rates ( plus mandated employee salary based worker's comp, disability, employer SSI tax etc. which the employer must also pay ) cost the employer more than the minimum wage employee is able to generate in additional revenue for their employer. This is why WalMart continues to add 'self-check out' automation !It's almost like people are justifying paying them minimum wage because they don't deserve more.
~
Last edited by Melonie; 05-14-2011 at 06:59 PM.


Why is this still in debate? Why walmart and not the million other companies that are taking advantage of employees/ ripping off whoever- come on! ~Ta-may-to, Ta-mot-to~ agree to disagree because walmart isn't reading this.





^^^ arguably, because a bunch of those other companies aren't actually 'taking advantage' of US employees being paid minimum wage. Instead, they have gotten rid of many US employees altogether, and instead are 'taking advantage' of $2 an hour chinese labor to assemble I-pads or $3 an hour Indian call center labor to address customer service issues or $1 an hour Vietnamese labor to build furniture or $4 an hour Mexican labor to assemble Chevy trucks. Out of sight, out of mind, I suppose ! And for better or worse, since WalMart is a retailer that has a huge physical presence in the USA, it's impossible for them to achieve a similarly low profile.
Bookmarks