Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did you ever notice how few employees a Costco store has? I am not talking about the "sample ladies" that are only paid for a few hours of work by a contracting firm, I mean the actual people with the Costco name badges. Couple of people to pull carts back from the lot, couple to make a feeble effort to mark up you receipt and the handful of cashiers. Jewel or Dominks has people working the deli, fish counter, produce, baggers, supervisors on the self check, managers ... While different level of employement. Since Costco is also selling lots if pricey wine and TVs it is no wonder which is more profitable
Despite Costco's impressive record, Mr. Sinegal's salary is just $350,000, although he also received a $200,000 bonus last year. That puts him at less than 10 percent of many other chief executives, though Costco ranks 29th in revenue among all American companies.
Quote:
Besides paying considerably more than competitors, for example, Costco contributes generously to its workers' 401(k) plans, starting with 3 percent of salary the second year and rising to 9 percent after 25 years.
ITS insurance plans absorb most dental expenses, and part-time workers are eligible for health insurance after just six months on the job, compared with two years at Wal-Mart. Eighty-five percent of Costco's workers have health insurance, compared with less than half at Wal-Mart and Target
Quote:
Costco also has not shut out unions, as some of its rivals have. The Teamsters union, for example, represents 14,000 of Costco's 113,000 employees. "They gave us the best agreement of any retailer in the country," said Rome Aloise, the union's chief negotiator with Costco. The contract guarantees employees at least 25 hours of work a week, he said, and requires that at least half of a store's workers be full time.
Workers seem enthusiastic. Beth Wagner, 36, used to manage a Rite Aid drugstore, where she made $24,000 a year and paid nearly $4,000 a year for health coverage. She quit five years ago to work at Costco, taking a cut in pay. She started at $10.50 an hour - $22,000 a year - but now makes $18 an hour as a receiving clerk. With annual bonuses, her income is about $40,000.
If you tell a company how much they have to pay for labor and then tell them how much they can charge then the gov is indeed dictating the company profit level.
Again, No. All it means is that you wouldn't be allowed to raise prices as a result of a raise in minimum wage.
If companies do not pay a living wage, people can not but things. If people can not buy things with one job, people need to work multiple jobs. If people need to work multiple jobs, they get tired. If people get tired, people are not as productive. If people are not as productive, people do not make money for companies.
I am pretty confident that your average, Jewel, Dominicks, Centrella or similar "full line" grocer has order of magnitude more employees, especially if one measure revenue per employee. It is kind of a no brainer -- sell high profit items like electronics, household goods and luxury goods right alongside groceries and your margins allow you to pay far more generous wages & benefits. The enormous volume of sales that Costco stores have also have a deathly effect on nearby speciality stores -- jewelry, electronics, photography, even furniture and other specialty shops that often were run by families are all gone thanks to Costco's steam roller effect...
The minimum wage is not determined by market forces. The lowest income bracket has been getting steadily poorer and the real value of the minimum wage has steadily declined since 1968. All this has been occurring despite increasing productivity in US workplaces. Low wage workers live in extreme poverty, and cannot afford decent housing, nutritional intake, health care or basic necessities for them or their families. This is not a question of abstract market theory; this is about real people who work two and three jobs just to scrape by. Working families should not live in poverty.
To assume that anyone can “make it” if they work hard enough ignores structural oppression faced by most low-wage workers. Workers face any combination of discrimination based on their race, gender, sexuality, age, class, a disability or linguistic barrier. Individual exceptions of financial success despite the institutions that discriminate against them do not erase systematic discrimination and oppression.
To say workers “choose” to work low-wage jobs exaggerates and misrepresents their actual choices. Many workers hold two or three jobs because they do not have access to higher paying entry-level jobs, or because those jobs do not exist. A choice between poverty, abject poverty, and not surviving is not a choice.
Note that in truth, it was not wanting employees to buy his cars that made Ford think he should pay better wages, but the fact that his employees would be more loyal and more productive if their basic needs were met and they also had disposable income. He also instituted a five day work week which was heretical at the time.
Well, the minimum wage is actually determined by the government- what's determined by market forces is the fair market value of labor.
I never said that low wage workers specifically choose to be low wage workers. Mostly they don't, but since you bring it up, I don't think it has anything to do with oppression. As I said earlier, in most cases it's simply that they haven't acquired the skills and work histories they need for better work. Whoever's fault that is, it's not the employers', and whatever personal hardships are faced by low-wage workers, that's not the employers' responsibility either.
This isn't the Henry Ford's 1920s, when the labor market was much different. Keep in mind that when we talk about workers at or below that minimum wage, we're only dealing with 5% of the workforce, a solid majority of whom are only at that level temporarily before moving on to bigger and better jobs.
Most employers pay most positions more than a living wage, and I would assume that what they pay is commensurate with the value of the employees' work. If Costco pays a better wage than similar businesses, I would guess they have a smaller number of more experienced workers, and if they have a better employment model, I would expect to see similar businesses emulate it. I just don't see the sense in focusing on these large companies, when you're typical minimum wage worker probabaly works for a mom & pop outfit that really can't afford to pay workers two or three times what their work would be worth at fair market.
Well, the minimum wage is actually determined by the government- what's determined by market forces is the fair market value of labor.
I never said that low wage workers specifically choose to be low wage workers. Mostly they don't, but since you bring it up, I don't think it has anything to do with oppression. As I said earlier, in most cases it's simply that they haven't acquired the skills and work histories they need for better work. Whoever's fault that is, it's not the employers', and whatever personal hardships are faced by low-wage workers, that's not the employers' responsibility either.
This isn't the Henry Ford's 1920s, when the labor market was much different. Keep in mind that when we talk about workers at or below that minimum wage, we're only dealing with 5% of the workforce, a solid majority of whom are only at that level temporarily before moving on to bigger and better jobs.
Most employers pay most positions more than a living wage, and I would assume that what they pay is commensurate with the value of the employees' work. If Costco pays a better wage than similar businesses, I would guess they have a smaller number of more experienced workers, and if they have a better employment model, I would expect to see similar businesses emulate it. I just don't see the sense in focusing on these large companies, when you're typical minimum wage worker probabaly works for a mom & pop outfit that really can't afford to pay workers two or three times what their work would be worth at fair market.
Now this is a way to educated and reasonable response for a lot of the people on this board. Lets also mention the fact that an increase in the minimum wage results in a temporary rise in unemployment followed by higher prices to compensate. Class is over liberals.
If Costco pays a better wage than similar businesses, I would guess they have a smaller number of more experienced workers, and if they have a better employment model, I would expect to see similar businesses emulate it. I just don't see the sense in focusing on these large companies, when you're typical minimum wage worker probably works for a mom & pop outfit that really can't afford to pay workers two or three times what their work would be worth at fair market.
Many, minimum wage workers work for Walmart and Sam's Club.
Costco pays its workers well and consequently has a very low turnover and thus many more experienced workers than Walmart.
I am not sure where you get your information that most minimum wage workers are in mom and pop stores. They aren't.
A study done by the National Employment Law Project (NELP) explained how minimum wage changes would not really hurt the companies who are paying minimum wage. They found:
The majority (66 percent) of low‐wage workers are not employed by small businesses, but rather by large corporations with over 100 employees;
The 50 largest employers of low‐wage workers have largely recovered from the recession and most are in strong financial positions: 92 percent were profitable last year; 78 percent have been profitable for the last three years; 75 percent have higher revenues now than before the recession; 73 percent have higher cash holdings; and 63 percent have higher operating margins (a measure of profitability).
Top executive compensation averaged $9.4 million last year at these firms, and they have returned $174.8 billion to shareholders in dividends or share buybacks over the past five years.
The three worst employers are McDonald's, Yum Foods (Taco Bell, KFC and Pizza Hut) and Walmart.
In my high priced area many people work a full time job and a part time job. These are working adults that may be doing it to get by, make ends meet, or just want to get out of debt quicker. One guy I know works full time and has a second job at a Costco to help pay for their kids education.
What I am wondering is does that happen in Chicago as well. Are there people that work jobs that pay a good wage and also work a second job for some other reason than making ends meet.
Probably some folks, but really the issues in Illinois are different ...
There is massive shortage of jobs in Illinois. Combine that with the bizarre illogic of Illinois politicians doing everything they can to ignore Federal laws that are still on the books to verify employment elibility / immigration status AND making ridiculous promises to exceedingly well compensated organized labor and the utter insanity or more "never never law" employment laws makes even less sense -- folks whose immigration status should prevent them from working fill up scarce jobs. Unions see to it that their shrinking members of promised total compensation completely out of touch with reality...
In the face of these pressures it takes super human motivation to put forth effort for even one job let alone multiple...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE
In my high priced area many people work a full time job and a part time job. These are working adults that may be doing it to get by, make ends meet, or just want to get out of debt quicker. One guy I know works full time and has a second job at a Costco to help pay for their kids education.
What I am wondering is does that happen in Chicago as well. Are there people that work jobs that pay a good wage and also work a second job for some other reason than making ends meet.
My source on that was the National Federation of Independent Business. I wasn't able to find underlying stats, but I don't think the study you're citing is on point- it's talking about low-wage workers making less than 10/hr, which is a broader category than minimum wage workers. (I also question the claim that 2/3 of low wage workers work for "large corporations." The study says businesses with 100+ employees, which might count as "large employers" for some purposes, but would include a lot of businesses that would otherwise be considered mid-sized. It also appears to be counting franchise employees as employees of franchisor corporation, which they aren't.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But how many employees does each store have?
