Very interesting discussion!You know,there are no Wal-Marts in DC.In MD and VA,yes,but not here.




Very interesting discussion!You know,there are no Wal-Marts in DC.In MD and VA,yes,but not here.





No it isn't. It's not Walmart's responsibility to provide for the pension funds of others or 401k plans. If investors are looking for stocks with dividends, there are plenty of others besides Walmart.
Again, Walmart can raise employee's pay without raising prices.
According to the site, these figures are from 2001. Things have gotten much worse for the poor since them. I'm also skeptical of how accurate these statistics are. I don't think it's likely that many poor people own a house worth $86,000.
I have yet to see a Walmart with a self check-out line. The store I've been to that have self checkout lines haven't eliminated any cashiers, they just added more checkout lines.
Originally Posted by Melonie
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 !
~
Nooo, its b/c they are cheap and greedy!




^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
OK, Mel, I'll do it: I think that Bill Gates could (should) have forgone ~ $10B or so of his ~ $50B fortune made over several decades in the form of price reductions on his software passed on to Microsoft customers. Furthermore, I doubt that having net worth of "only" $40B would cause anyone to pack up their marbles and "go John Galt" on everyone.
I'll also correct my earlier post- erroneously transposed ~$2K figure per Walmart store worker into cost per taxpayer. My bad. Actual cost per taxpayer for supporting low WM wages is probably more like $20/taxpayer. I've likely saved a few Benjamins per year with my WM purchases. Myself (and others) shop at WM for reasons other than low prices, especially the 24/7 store hours. This likely improves WM bottom line in ways that several other stores with more limited hours don't do. As for my 401K, ONE of my funds (conservative stock fund) has WM comprising just 0.4% of fund total holdings. So, many retirees aren't that dependent on WM for retirement income.
That said, I don't think its a terrible ammount of skin off peoples bones to improve the lot of WM workers somewhat.
I'm right 96% of the time.I don't sweat
the other 5% .......................





Yes ... but ! Thanks to a de-facto US gov't monopoly 'license' for Windows and other software, Gates could charge high prices and achieve a 31% profit margin with little or no risk of losing market share to a competitor. This is NOT true for WalMart.I think that Bill Gates could (should) have forgone ~ $10B or so of his ~ $50B fortune made over several decades in the form of price reductions on his software passed on to Microsoft customers
Apparently they started implementing self-checkout automation in states that have an above federal level state minimum wage and/or above average costs of state unemployment / comp coverage for employees. Every WalMart in NY has them already. And while the original number of 'human' check out lines may still be in place, half or more don't have 'human' check-out clerks available unless it's 'black friday'. Don't worry because wherever you are your local WalMart store will get them eventually.I have yet to see a Walmart with a self check-out line. The store I've been to that have self checkout lines haven't eliminated any cashiers, they just added more checkout lines.





Nor are the poverty statistics in America Wal-Mart's responsibility. Nor, for that matter, is it the responsiblity of Wal-Mart to pay more for a particular job than the market deems it is worth.
But Wal-Mart's shareholders, including the mutual funds held in my kids' college plans as well as my retirement plan, would probably disagree with your assessment as to who Wal-Mart is responsible to. Company management reports to a board of directors, who is elected by the shareholders. If Wal-Mart starts placing personal or social goals over financial ones, management may be replaced by the Board. And if the Board is not doing its job in overseeing the company's management, it may be replaced with one that will through the shareholder proxy voting process.
And how is this relevant to a discussion of Wal-Mart? Wal-Mart is not responsible for poverty in America.
Last edited by rickdugan; 05-16-2011 at 07:20 AM.
It's ironic that Eagle posted those poverty stats. Under Obama, one in six Americans now gets Food Stamps. Obama has become the "Food Stamp" President.










All you're doing is repeating idiocy from that ignoramus Newt Gingrich. I don't know how anyone can take him seriously. It's obvious to most Americans that Bush and the Republicans are the ones responsible for wrecking the economy.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/06/news...poll/index.htm
Despite the amount of time Obama has been in office, 55% of Americans say that former president George W. Bush and the Republicans are more responsible for current economic problems than Obama.





^^^ that must be the 47% of American tax filers who don't actually have to pay income taxes, plus another 8% of unionized gov't workers whose paychecks are being paid for via Obama stimulus spending of money borrowed from our children and grandchildren !!!
At any rate, this entire discussion boils down to one basic point ... in a 'free market' absent gov't protections and subsidies, no corporation can survive in the long term if it pays its workers more money than those workers are able to produce in terms of 'added value' / additional revenue for that corporation. WalMart's financials indicate that the corporation is already close to the tipping point with a 3% profit margin and a 3% stockholder dividend payout rate.
And in every highly publicized recent case of new WalMarts posting job openings for 'unskilled' labor at minimum wage pay rates, there have been far more applicants lining up than job openings available. The pay rate is 100% legal. The job applicants are willingly accepting that pay rate.
This is a permutation of my earlier point about Bill Gates and Microsoft or Steve Jobs and Apple eliminating US jobs altogether in favor of outsourcing hardware production to China and software support to India. At least WalMart is still providing US jobs ... albeit that the media hue and cry about minimum wage pay rates is prompting them to automate some of those US jobs out of existance. Thanks to their HUGE profit margins, Microsoft and Apple could have easily afforded to retain US electronics assembly jobs and/or software support jobs without jeopardizing the profitability of the corporation. But the same media that rides WalMart about minimum wage pay rates is strangely silent about Microsoft and Apple.It's ironic that Eagle posted those poverty stats. Under Obama, one in six Americans now gets Food Stamps. Obama has become the "Food Stamp" President.
Because there aren't as many jobs now courtesy of outsourcing and H1-B visas (and all the other visas).










I actually share your frustration with this. I am your age and have been watching our manufacturing base close down and move overseas for as long as I can remember. Where I grew up, shoe, clothing, hat and other manufacturers moved overseas and closed down factories that had been major contributors to the local job bases. The small cities that they once occupied are, to this day, destitute and crime ridden, with high percentages of their populations collecting government assistance.
But it is hard to blame these companies. They are forced to compete against overseas manufacturers paying next to nothing for labor and benefits. If they did not adapt, they would have gone out of business anyway.
The reality is that the real "culprit" is the American consumer. We have shown no loyalty towards American made goods and almost always flock to whatever can be had for the cheapest cost. And as long as this continues, manufactureres will continue to be forced to assemble their goods wherever it is cheapest to do so.
Last edited by rickdugan; 05-17-2011 at 09:03 AM.




Someone said it already, Walmart is a lightning rod because they are so big... But get used to it, because eventually they're going to figure out how to run a Grocery Store and they'll put everyone out of business. They are already a good 10% or 15% cheaper than the lower grocery stores around here.
They also do often pay better for equivalent jobs, than other companies do. I know a few people who got $2 or $3 an hour bumps to go work for Walmart. That said they all claimed to hate it there, and at least two of them quit in less than a year. I do generally beleive that the management in those stores actively treats the employee's pretty shittily, and probably has the tacit approval of Corporate.





Unfortunately, Americans would rather spend less and that is why they left, you are right. I'm not like that but most people think "hey that's cheaper". They don't realize that buying cheaper means in the long run they may not have jobs themselves because it's spiraling out of control. As much as it pains me to say this, while I blame the corporations I also blame the unions. Way too many wanted salaries far above what they deserve.
I've seen several towns around me go from booming towns to ghetto and it's very sad. I saw the suburb my parents grew up in go this way. It went from a suburb with a few famous people to a ghetto.




I know this is nitpicky, but in a lot cases it's not "would rather" it's "don't have much of a choice".
People that have a choice are not the people shopping at Walmart, and its ridiculous to even imagine a world where people spend more because in the distant future it might somehow save their job?





^^^ exactly ! Thus my earlier point that forcing WalMart to provide higher pay rates and higher benefit levels to its employees, which in turn results in a 10% price increase in order to keep stockholders from 'losing money', will directly 'harm' the poorest Americans who 'don't have a choice'I know this is nitpicky, but in a lot cases it's not "would rather" it's "don't have much of a choice".
For better or worse, this same economic 'truth' effectively dooms the future of any US 'goods' industry ... where the US producer is forced to pay higher taxes, higher energy costs, higher environmental and worker safety compliance costs etc. than their offshore competitors are able to pay. In this situation, as was pointed out earlier, the only way that the US 'goods' producer can remain economically viable in the long term is if gov't uses its authority to restrict foreign competition via tariffs and/or quotas on lower cost imported 'goods'. This is essentially already the case for imported trucks, for imported tires, for imported ethanol etc. In essence the US gov't is forcing Americans rich and poor alike to pay higher than necessary prices for all of these items in order to protect the economic viability of US producers, albeit often without the direct knowledge of the American rich and poor consumers.its ridiculous to even imagine a world where people spend more because in the distant future it might somehow save their job





Another classic from Paul Krugman. Or as those of us who love the the little retarded munchkin like to call him : "Krugie".
In this month's Playboy Interview Krugie outdid himself with probably his loopiest statement ever. Ready ? The government should mandate that workers at Walmart get paid on a par with workers at GM including all the benefits. I am NOT making this up. Read it for yourselves. I can't think of a better way to assure that Walmart cuts its workforce and raises prices so high that nobody will shop there anymore.





Well, if the FED goes for broke on QE3, printing up new US dollar bills at warp speed, it's not inconceivable that future $40 an hour union auto wages won't be too far ahead of a future $30 US minimum wage. Of course, this would also mean that a gallon of gasoline would cost $20, a loaf of bread would cost $8, and an ounce of gold would cost $10,000, and a bargain basement new car would cost $50,000 !










I don't feel Wal-Mart workers should make as much as car manufacturers. However, there is a movement where people (mostly the OWS people and the like)where they feel Wal-Mart workers and other restaurant and retailers should pay the same as a skilled job. I am opposed to this because why then go to college if you can make the same at Wal-Mart?



This to me is a "chicken and egg" thing. Are the people who are poor well served because Walmart enables them to by cheap goods alongside; how many people need to buy cheap goods because Walmart made them poor by either putting them out of business or getting them fired/reduced salary because it puts so much pressure on suppliers to lower price?.



Isn't this really "amerca vs america'? Or rather AMERICAN VS AMERICAN?
Lower prices for goods=lower pay and fewer benecits
Big sprawl buildngs= less downtown
National chain=less local business, more $ leaves your town
Lots of cheap,, often imported products=cash strapped vendors do what they got to = lower wages, overseas suppliers, cheaper quality. THIS MEANS FEWER GOOD AMERICAN JOBS
But sure, saving $1 fels good if u don't think about it





Bill Clinton let the global economy 'genie' out of the bottle almost 20 years ago. Wal-mart is just one of many different manifestations of the US now being open to global competition ... both in terms of relative prices of goods, as well as in terms of relative prices for labor. Arguably, the points concerning Wal-Mart are not about 'American' versus 'American' at all. Instead they are about mexican tomatoes, vietnamese furniture, chinese big screen TV's etc. simply costing far less to produce.
Last edited by Melonie; 02-17-2012 at 08:32 PM.





Bookmarks