:shrug: good - I hope their model continues to be successful. However, the "buy large bulk quantities with as minimal shelving costs as possible in a warehouse" model isn't a "fine example" of what all other businesses should do. Costco can afford to do what it does because of how it runs - hire fewer workers per square foot of sales space, minimize the cost of the space, and lock people in with memberships. Costco also hires (uh-oh) better workers than Wal-Mart does. Because they hire fewer, and pay more, they are pickier. A kid coming off the street who either isn't finished with High School or who didn't finish High School and has little social capital backing him in the form of all those Soft Assets that make us better workers is more likely to actually get a job at Wal-Mart than he is at Costco.
So, if your "role model for the economy" is "keep our poor trapped in poverty through joblessness", then hey, I agree, raising the minimum wage is a fine idea.
:lol: and Costco's isn't? There is no moral difference between the two companies, both are simply putting into place successful but different provision models. With, I think, two notable exceptions - 1. Wal-Mart get's where it does by providing a good/service at a price people want, Costco appears to want to increase it's market share by using government force to tilt the scales in its favor and 2. We currently have at or almost at double-digit unemployment for recent veterans, who often lack easily definable civilian job skill sets (your average restaurant or bank does not need many people who know how to repair machine guns) but who do often come with health issues. Wal-Mart has pledged to hire any unemployed veteran who has served in the wars and who walks through their doors looking for a job. GaThomas (a poster here) is in that boat, and is right now applying through their managerial program. I realize that's a small thing, but I find it worth noting.
Is Goldman Sachs more moral than Costco because it pays its' employees more?
