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.
I'd like to tear this bogus argument apart once and for all. This is logically flawed at it's core, and I will demonstrate why.
For starters, this entire theory hinges on the idea that by employing someone, Walmart is somehow entirely responsible for their well being. This is quite simply, ridiculous.
Different people require different amounts of resources to get by. Some people have kids, some don't. Some have 1 kid. Some have 2 kids. Some have 3 kids. But these differences are completely and totally unrelated to Walmart, or any other corporation for that matter. Walmart does not control these variables, and is therefore not responsible for them.
No one who believes in any type of market economy should make this argument. It goes directly against the concept of supply and demand by introducing a variable which is purely arbitrary, thus rendering the supply and demand dynamic completely and totally irrelevant.
In a theoretical sense, this concept taken to its logical end could completely destroy the idea of wages based on skills or contribution. What we would have would simply be a race to create more need. A high paid position would be nothing more than one filled by someone with more "need" than the next guy.
Before you accuse me of a strawman, I am aware that this argument is completely separate from the argument that all of us should be paid enough to live. That is not the issue here. The issue here is the completely bogus logic being used to support this specific means to the aforementioned end.
If you believe in welfare then you are free to believe in welfare. When you believe in the concept that wages from private companies to private individuals should be based on need even in one particular instance, you are delving into an entirely different economic quagmire.
The "Need" Argument
This theory also hinges on the idea that there is some type of inherent relationship between wages and need. As if the existence of this welfare allows Walmart to pay less than it would otherwise.
In essence, the idea is that if there were no, or less, welfare, Walmart would pay more based on "need".
This is pure economic fantasy. The prices of goods, services, and labor, have nothing to do with the needs of the persons or companies providing them.
Are companies with lower profit margins somehow able to charge more for their products and services, simply because they are not as profitable, and need more money? If their CEOs owe debt on ten million dollar homes as opposed to million dollar homes, do consumers take this into account when comparing prices between their competitors? Absolutely not.
Need has absolutely zero effect on market rates for labor, products, and services.
Take this example. Bob has no children. Joe has one child. Bob can survive comfortably on $10 per hour, Joe needs $15. While Joe may want a higher salary, this has no bearing on whether or not he will get it within whatever market conditions he lives in. He may need (or want) $15, but if no company can justify this rate for the work required, they will not offer it. In the aggregate, all of the Joes out there will be forced to accept a market rate. If you are wondering why I am using the words "want" and "need" interchangeably, I am doing so because in the market, theoretically, your needs are no more important than your wants.
And when push comes to shove, they will take the $10 over the $0 of unemployment.
Note: This argument only applies to individuals when their wants vary by arbitrary variables such as number of children, that are not inherently related to the work being performed. Should an entire group of people with a certain skill set "want" a higher salary and refuse to work for less, this will affect supply and demand for that particular skill. However, even in other circumstances, this is extremely unlikely to happen. No group of people is so tight knit as to be willing not to compete with each other, much less a group of people that are low skill and easily replaceable. So in a practical sense, this will not happen, although theoretically it could.
In the inverse, if Joe has ten million dollars in the bank and doesn't need a penny to live comfortably, that does not mean he will accept anything lower than market wage should he choose to work. He will still choose the $10 job over the $5 job any day of the week, the fact that he doesn't "need" the extra $5 is irrelevant. He may not need it, but he has zero reason to turn it down. Again, there is no connection here.
But to wrap this up, there is zero economic basis for this entire concept. It was pulled out of thin air and has been repeated ever since with absolutely no logical or economic scrutiny.
Where The Money Comes From
Ironically, people who argue that Walmart should be forced to pay higher salaries so their employees do not require welfare to survive are advocating a form of regressive taxation. Not literally, but figuratively.
There is no reason to believe that Walmart will do anything but raise prices on their consumers if forced to raise wages. Walmart operates on a 3.3% profit margin, even a modest salary increase would put a dent in this. Walmart will not just eat this extra cost. They will pass it onto consumers.
And who shops at Walmart? Not rich people. By advocating this, you are advocating that the money to provide these increased salaries should come from the lower end of the consumer spectrum, and not from welfare which comes from the progressive tax base (meaning disproportionately from rich people).
-
I will be patiently awaiting rational fact based and economically viable arguments on the inherent relationship between wages and need. Or the legitimacy of the idea that Walmart is responsible for the costs of covering arbitrary variables completely outside of their control within a market economy.
Good thread but it could die a sudden death because it can not be disputed. I would really like too read why would Walmart just let their profit margins go down with out taking action? A corporation/business has 2 objectives increasing profits and cutting expenses and that is reality.
Good thread but it could die a sudden death because it can not be disputed. I would really like too read why would Walmart just let their profit margins go down with out taking action? A corporation/business has 2 objectives increasing profits and cutting expenses and that is reality.
Walmart simply raises prices at that point.
Unless you were to target Walmart specifically, they would be perfectly able to do so. With increasing overhead on an entire industry, each and every member of said industry would be able to raise prices.
In fact, increasing labor costs on this entire industry would disproportionately benefit Walmart over others. By sheer size, they are most likely to be most efficient with labor (larger companies with bigger bank accounts are always able to put down higher initial investment in technology in order to reduce the need for labor), and therefore be the most able to absorb the extra labor costs while keeping profit margins steady.
Take self checkout counters for example. A smaller store with less cash lying around will have a harder time with the initial cost to set these up than a larger company like Walmart. Ergo, that smaller company will be more dependent upon human labor and therefore more vulnerable to an increase in wages. Walmart, on the other hand, has much more ability to put down large amounts of up front investment to avoid these future labor costs.
This would also obviously accelerate technological replacement of human workers across the board, not only with larger companies. As wages for workers increase, technology to replace those workers becomes more and more appealing from a cost/benefit standpoint, not just to WM, but to anyone who needs labor for anything.
Cluttered aisles, merchandise not in stock, shortages on prescription medicines, and apologetic assistant managers with to real tangible or logical answers, other than "we don't count pills" because they're sent from our suppliers.
I told a Walgreens pharmacist what I was told, and he looked at me with a confused expression.
So, all you Walmart lovers, feed your beast! I'm done, /rant.
The liberals just like to bash on Walmart... its an easy scapegoat for them... I have Walmart shares and they have done VERY well... I don't buy/sell shares based on prejudices anymore...
So, all you Walmart lovers, feed your beast! I'm done, /rant.
Herein lies the problem with liberals. Everything is broken down to some emotion, like "love" or "hate". A contentious issue can be made so simple this way, thus making life easier for all. No thinking required. Oh the joy!
"Love" is not a word I would use to describe my feelings towards any inanimate object, much less Walmart.
I can see how a complete lack of ability for abstract thought would lead you to such simpleminded conclusions, but I urge you to make a logical argument for your theoretical position.
This really is not about Walmart by the way, if you think about it.
Herein lies the problem with liberals. Everything is broken down to some emotion, like "love" or "hate". A contentious issue can be made so simple this way, thus making life easier for all. No thinking required. Oh the joy!
"Love" is not a word I would use to describe my feelings towards any inanimate object, much less Walmart.
I can see how a complete lack of ability for abstract thought would lead you to such simpleminded conclusions, but I urge you to make a logical argument for your theoretical position.
This really is not about Walmart by the way, if you think about it.
You're actually correct on one point which I bolded.
It's about corporate profits only.
Walmart doesn't care about it's customer base because it has the dubious distinction of having millions and millions of customers, and if they tick off just 10 or 20 or 100, it's no great loss to them, there's more where that came from.
It's true though, many people who are Walmart employees, a family residing next to me, is receiving government assistance because they can't make ends meet on what Walmart offers as a wage. I know my neighbors well, and they hardly ever complain, gosh, they must be conservatives.
You're actually correct on one point which I bolded.
It's about corporate profits only.
Walmart doesn't care about it's customer base because it has the dubious distinction of having millions and millions of customers, and if they **** off just 10 or 20 or 100, it's no great loss to them, there's more where that came from.
This is nonsense. If you look at proportion, this could be said for any company.
But in either event, this is completely irrelevant to the point of this thread which you have yet to make any type of substantial statement on. As far as I can tell, you're making random mini-rants in order to avoid having to make a logical argument against the points I've clearly laid out in my OP.
This is a common debate tactic. You've gone from calling us Walmart lovers, to talking about poor customer service, to saying something about conservatives as quoted below which to be honest I still don't quite understand the point of.
Anything to avoid a logical debate I guess...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoJiveMan
It's true though, many people who are Walmart employees, a family residing next to me, is receiving government assistance because they can't make ends meet on what Walmart offers as a wage. I know my neighbors well, and they hardly ever complain, gosh, they must be conservatives.
Right.
So... do you have a point? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.
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.
Walmart Lovers Unite!
