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.
That is a bit rich as Wally world is the leader in outsourcing and low wages. So yes they do have something to do with there employees seeking government assistance.
I already explained it once. Here, I'll explain more thoroughly, as it seems that you're missing some fundamental concepts.
Walmart offers a job. That job pays $X per hour, because that's what the work being performed is worth to Walmart, the entity offering the job.
Sally applies for and accepts the job at $X per hour. Was Sally forced to take that job? No. Nobody was holding a gun to her head as she submitted her job application. Nobody tied her up and forced her to sign the employment agreement. Sally took the job completely of her own free will, knowing full well what the compensation package was.
Maybe Sally has more expenses than her income from Walmart will cover. Is that Walmart's fault? Of course not. Walmart didn't know Sally before she applied for the job. They don't know what her financial responsibilities are. And they shouldn't - her life is her life, not Walmart's. If she accepted a job offer that isn't going to cover her expenses, that was her decision, and Walmart has no knowledge of that, nor should they - it's none of their business.
So Sally made a decision to accept a position that won't cover the costs she has in her life, but it's somehow Walmart's fault? Please explain that one to me, and remember, it's not the responsibility of an employer to make sure that their employees can pay all their bills - that's the employee's responsibility.
All the employer knows is that they have work that needs to be performed, and what they're willing to pay to have that work done is based primarily on how many people have the skills to do that work. The more people in the labor pool that are qualified to do the job, the less the job is going to pay. It's simple supply & demand.
One more thing - please explain your comment about Walmart being a leader in outsourcing. It's kind of hard to outsource a retail operation, so I'd like to understand what you were actually trying to say with that.
the fact that raising their employees pay to $10 an hour only costs them 1 billion in profits says all you need to know. That bumps up about 40% of their workers. let's assume that those workers are making an average of $8.75. This means they're effectively raising pay by an average of $1.25, so we can assume for ever $1.25 for 40% of their employees they raise their wage they lose 1 billion in profits, so for every time they increase it by $1.25 for ALL employees they'll lose 2.5 billion in profits. In 2014, walmart grossed $129 billion in profits, so now at everyone being guaranteed $10 an hour they'll make 128 billion all things the same in 2015. raise everyone to $15 dollars an hour and now they'll STILL be making $116 billion in profits. They may only make 3% in profit, but they move a MASSIVE amount of product a day.
Also you appear to have missed the little note on the side of his link: Gross profit is Net Sales, or Revenue, minus the cost of goods sold. Total Revenue - Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) = Gross Profit or Total Revenue - Cost of Revenue = Gross Profit...
What you explained is revenue.
So what you're basically saying is that it's ok to lie?
Come on... it's patently obvious that myghost was trying to persuade people to his/her position by putting out a really large number without giving it any context. It's lying by omission, and I believe he/she knew full well that he/she was doing it.
One more thing - please explain your comment about Walmart being a leader in outsourcing. It's kind of hard to outsource a retail operation, so I'd like to understand what you were actually trying to say with that.
My guess is he's talking about what they stock. Walmart has for a long time been a leader in the whole "Made in China" thing, so much so that at one point (maybe still? Remember reading this but don't have the source and it was several years ago) something like ~10% of our import of goods from China was being sold through Walmart.
I agree with you about employment being a mutually beneficial agreement, not something imposed, but outside of that Walmart is a pretty terrible corporate citizen in terms of imposing negative externalities on this country.
This is the kind of thinking that has Venezuela in such a mess.
Can you explain and justify this assertion?
My thinking behind what I've said is this. Over time the wages everywhere will equalize less the costs of shipping etc. As this happens wages in the US will experience downwards pressure as wages there experience upwards pressure. We currently have a very high debt load. If wages and or the work force shrink significantly then we will tend to be tipped over into a mass default of debt. The FED's actions are currently trying to forestall this potential outcome. Pushing for a shorter equilibration time will lesson everyone's pain. Pushing for higher wages in our trading partners is protectionism that is designed to benefit all.
I haven't looked at Venezuela but I'm not at all convinced that any of the players there are thinking anything like I am. I'm thinking what is wrong and what is the least painful way to deal with it.
I already explained it once. Here, I'll explain more thoroughly, as it seems that you're missing some fundamental concepts.
You are giving a micro economic explanation to counter my macro economic assertion. So I think it is you that are missing the fundamental concepts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
Walmart offers a job. That job pays $X per hour, because that's what the work being performed is worth to Walmart, the entity offering the job.
Sally applies for and accepts the job at $X per hour. Was Sally forced to take that job? No. Nobody was holding a gun to her head as she submitted her job application. Nobody tied her up and forced her to sign the employment agreement. Sally took the job completely of her own free will, knowing full well what the compensation package was.
Maybe Sally has more expenses than her income from Walmart will cover. Is that Walmart's fault? Of course not. Walmart didn't know Sally before she applied for the job. They don't know what her financial responsibilities are. And they shouldn't - her life is her life, not Walmart's. If she accepted a job offer that isn't going to cover her expenses, that was her decision, and Walmart has no knowledge of that, nor should they - it's none of their business.
So Sally made a decision to accept a position that won't cover the costs she has in her life, but it's somehow Walmart's fault? Please explain that one to me, and remember, it's not the responsibility of an employer to make sure that their employees can pay all their bills - that's the employee's responsibility.
All the employer knows is that they have work that needs to be performed, and what they're willing to pay to have that work done is based primarily on how many people have the skills to do that work. The more people in the labor pool that are qualified to do the job, the less the job is going to pay. It's simple supply & demand.
This is micro and doesn't look at what Wal-Mart does in its labor practices. Functionally Wal-Mart is a large enough employer that they are able to use monopolistic labor practices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
One more thing - please explain your comment about Walmart being a leader in outsourcing. It's kind of hard to outsource a retail operation, so I'd like to understand what you were actually trying to say with that.
The buy stuff from suppliers. They will make a small initial order. Then when they make a follow on order they make it large enough so the supplier will have to expand to cover the new order. But they offer a small enough amount that the company can't expand in the US.
The companies say I can't do it, then Wal-Mart comes in and shows them how to expand somewhere else for a lot less money. They are aggressive about it too. So.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon
That is a bit rich as Wally world is the leader in outsourcing and low wages. So yes they do have something to do with there employees seeking government assistance.
Your micro argument doesn't address Wal-Mart's effect on the Macroeconomic situation in the US. They do have something to do with their employees needing to get government assistance to survive. So we need to make their outsourced suppliers pay US minimum wage and we need to up US minimum wage far enough so that Wal-Mart's workers don't need government assistance. Not doing so means that we are subsiding their profits and so those profits should be confiscated to cover the costs.
I am not a fan of the minimum wage law, but since it exists, it should not be cut and dry, exceptions should be made for companies with financial difficulties.
My thinking behind what I've said is this. Over time the wages everywhere will equalize less the costs of shipping etc. As this happens wages in the US will experience downwards pressure as wages there experience upwards pressure. We currently have a very high debt load. If wages and or the work force shrink significantly then we will tend to be tipped over into a mass default of debt. The FED's actions are currently trying to forestall this potential outcome. Pushing for a shorter equilibration time will lesson everyone's pain. Pushing for higher wages in our trading partners is protectionism that is designed to benefit all.
I haven't looked at Venezuela but I'm not at all convinced that any of the players there are thinking anything like I am. I'm thinking what is wrong and what is the least painful way to deal with it.
Unfortunately we can not default. I wish it was possible and in the future the world may be a place where that happens but right now it's impossible for us to default despite the claims of some politicians in the not so distant past.
Explain how a business can afford CEOs that make several hundred times the pay of hardworking employees. Explain how the US military can run itself with generals that make about 10 times the pay of hardworking privates.
Explain how a business can afford CEOs that make several hundred times the pay of hardworking employees. Explain how the US military can run itself with generals that make about 10 times the pay of hardworking privates.
CEO's are in high demand. Burger flippers aren't. Welcome to the free market. First day here?
I am not a fan of the minimum wage law, but since it exists, it should not be cut and dry, exceptions should be made for companies with financial difficulties.
Or people should utilize the power of a free market to get better wages, just like walmart employees did and stop looking for the government for salvation through laws that may, or may not do damage to some individuals.
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.
