• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WAL-MART CEO: Things Aren't Getting Better For America's Middle Class

:lol:

Nope. The Japanese build here. I blame unions for choking their companies and killing off innovation, ensuring their eventual stultification and death.

I'm sure you do blame unions. Unfortunately facts don't support your conclusion. The unions build the machine designs that are handed to them. They didn't design the crap that was built in the 1970's and 1980's. Non-union engineer and design idiots did... along with the stamp of approval by the non-union executives at those companies.
 
I'm sure you do blame unions. Unfortunately facts don't support your conclusion. The unions build the machine designs that are handed to them.

That is incorrect. Particularly with regards to new technology (which runs the risk of making protected jobs outmoded and unneccessary), Unions often exert powerful influence or outright control on company innovation.
 
Or, perhaps, simply not subsidize them and keep them content to do entry level work.

In which case my point will be proven - and there is nothing that forces Wal-Mart to raise wages for the guy bringing in the carts from the parking lot simply because he has stopped collecting food stamps.

Yes, and have help rebuilding their countries, maybe while we are, at the same time building the interstate highway system and paying down the war debt, all the while paying higher wages that we can afford while not spending the cash necessary to do all the building and rebuilding.

Don't forget slashing the federal budget by 75% :)
 
Given that a negative effect on employment for low-skilled workers is the overwhelming conclusion of the evidence available and the basic application of the laws of supply and demand.



C: A model that allows low-skilled workers to become higher-skilled workers through experience.

What you miss is that the two models you propose are not mutually exclusive. Our society will pay little for low-value added labor, and highly for high-value-added labor.



Sure. We have one of those. It is called "The Public Education System".



:shrug: it simply is not, and that is part of why Keynes' theory had such problems in the 70s.

The conclusion was a small portion btw. Also, that is not what is happening as far as low skill workers moving up the ladder in many of these places that use the monopsony model like Walmart. Walmart relies on the churn and burn method.
 
That is incorrect. Particularly with regards to new technology (which runs the risk of making protected jobs outmoded and unneccessary), Unions often exert powerful influence or outright control on company innovation.

No they do not. Your conspiracy theory is incorrect.
 
The conclusion was a small portion btw.

A small portion of the overall workforce, concentrated among the lowest-income households. So we hurt the poor in order to help others. Hooray, that sounds like really awesome policy.

Also, that is not what is happening as far as low skill workers moving up the ladder in many of these places that use the monopsony model like Walmart. Walmart relies on the churn and burn method.

Walmart is not a monopsony - you need to research the definition of that term. There are plenty of purchasers of low-skill low-education labor. When I was a low-experience, low-skill, low-education worker, for example, I worked for a couple of lawn-mowing companies as a general weed-whipper and lawn-mower-pusher, and also for a restaurant as a busboy.
 
A small portion of the overall workforce, concentrated among the lowest-income households. So we hurt the poor in order to help others. Hooray, that sounds like really awesome policy.



Walmart is not a monopsony - you need to research the definition of that term. There are plenty of purchasers of low-skill low-education labor. When I was a low-experience, low-skill, low-education worker, for example, I worked for a couple of lawn-mowing companies as a general weed-whipper and lawn-mower-pusher, and also for a restaurant as a busboy.

We're not hurting the poor to pay highly skilled workers better wages. What hurts them is exploiting them.

Yes, the term fits their model well. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/6219/2/469304.pdf
 
In which case my point will be proven - and there is nothing that forces Wal-Mart to raise wages for the guy bringing in the carts from the parking lot simply because he has stopped collecting food stamps.



Don't forget slashing the federal budget by 75% :)

I'm not sure about that, but the fact of the matter is that the economy was a lot stronger when wages were higher and the social "safety net" wasn't quite so all encompassing and expensive, in other words, when people who worked were better off than those who didn't, and those who worked their way up were better off yet. Today, it is getting more and more difficult to be middle class.
 
We're not hurting the poor to pay highly skilled workers better wages

That is correct - we do not. What we do to hurt the poor is mandate increases in the price floor for their labor, reducing demand and pricing some of them out of the market.


:doh Your own paper states that even in the areas where they have the highest relative concentration of retail workers, they have hired only one in four or five.

So no, not a monopsony.

Monopsony:
a situation in a market in which there is only one buyer for goods or services offered by several sellers
 
I'm not sure about that, but the fact of the matter is that the economy was a lot stronger when wages were higher and the social "safety net" wasn't quite so all encompassing and expensive, in other words, when people who worked were better off than those who didn't, and those who worked their way up were better off yet. Today, it is getting more and more difficult to be middle class.

No, today we have a larger number of people who are no longer making the decisions necessary to remain in the middle class. If you want a single dividing line across the US populace between who succeeds economically and who does not, it is the ability to get and stay married. Attempting to maintain two households instead of one is more expensive for any couple, former or otherwise, and the same lack of discipline generally carries over.

Furthermore, compensation (the cost to employers) has continued to rise, even as the rate of growth in wages has decreased.

I could just as easily make the argument about the bull run from 1983-1999 and claim that the economy was better when the real minimum wage was falling.
 
That is correct - we do not. What we do to hurt the poor is mandate increases in the price floor for their labor, reducing demand and pricing some of them out of the market.



:doh Your own paper states that even in the areas where they have the highest relative concentration of retail workers, they have hired only one in four or five.

So no, not a monopsony.

Leaving their wages low will not help them as we see inequality getting worse not better.

Also, Walmart is seen as a monopsony model because of their immense power as a buyer for goods and services offered by sellers in the market place.
 
Leaving their wages low will not help them as we see inequality getting worse not better.

Inequality is not a problem. Keeping people from being able to improve their station in life is a problem. Furthermore, since the real minimum wage is zero, you cannot actually reduce income disparity by forcing up the floor, but only by tearing down the top performers.

Also, Walmart is seen as a monopsony model because of their immense power as a buyer for goods and services offered by sellers in the market place.

Even your own source, which was trying as hard as it could, could only establish that in some places they are the largest minority, but less than 25% of the market. That is not a monopsony, and it means that Wal-Mart is not the only or even the majority purchaser of low-value labor; and certainly it is not the only purchaser of such labor, which is what is required for a monopsony.

Within the United States there are very few markets run by monopsonies - and most of the time that purchaser is government.
 
No, today we have a larger number of people who are no longer making the decisions necessary to remain in the middle class. If you want a single dividing line across the US populace between who succeeds economically and who does not, it is the ability to get and stay married. Attempting to maintain two households instead of one is more expensive for any couple, former or otherwise, and the same lack of discipline generally carries over.

That is no doubt a part of the problem, and a huge societal problem as well. Real wages still aren't as high as they were in my youth, however.

Furthermore, compensation (the cost to employers) has continued to rise, even as the rate of growth in wages has decreased.

That's true also, and is due in large part to the cost of medical care and to taxes to pay for those subsidies.

I could just as easily make the argument about the bull run from 1983-1999 and claim that the economy was better when the real minimum wage was falling.

The real minimum may have been falling, but what was happening to the average wages?
 
That is no doubt a part of the problem, and a huge societal problem as well. Real wages still aren't as high as they were in my youth, however.

That is incorrect. The real minimum wage is not as high as it was in your youth. Real wages have continued to increase, albeit the upper range of what is possible has expanded as well.

That's true also, and is due in large part to the cost of medical care and to taxes to pay for those subsidies.

True as well.

The real minimum may have been falling, but what was happening to the average wages?

They were going up, though again you can draw pretty lines on a graph showing it going up fastest among the top decile of income earners, as what is possible has increased.
 
That is incorrect. The real minimum wage is not as high as it was in your youth. Real wages have continued to increase, albeit the upper range of what is possible has expanded as well.



True as well.



They were going up, though again you can draw pretty lines on a graph showing it going up fastest among the top decile of income earners, as what is possible has increased.
The wages of the CEO, the salaries of sports heroes, executive salaries have gone up. Salaries for the middle class, not so much.
 
The wages of the CEO, the salaries of sports heroes, executive salaries have gone up. Salaries for the middle class, not so much.

They have, actually. Not as dramatically as their standard of living, but they have gone up.

household-incomes-growth-real-annotated.gif


real-income-growth-since-1967-dshort-2102-September.jpg



And again, it's worth noting that that larger amount of money is supporting smaller households - so the "per capita" income of the middle class has grown by more than what is demonstrated. Even had average real incomes remained the exact same, that phenomena would still mean that the middle class was earning more money.
 
The wages of the CEO, the salaries of sports heroes, executive salaries have gone up. Salaries for the middle class, not so much.

My salary has tripled since I was 18 y/o.
 
They have, actually. Not as dramatically as their standard of living, but they have gone up.

household-incomes-growth-real-annotated.gif


real-income-growth-since-1967-dshort-2102-September.jpg



And again, it's worth noting that that larger amount of money is supporting smaller households - so the "per capita" income of the middle class has grown by more than what is demonstrated. Even had average real incomes remained the exact same, that phenomena would still mean that the middle class was earning more money.

The government's figures do look pretty good, but they don't jibe with what I remember having earned and my friends having earned as compared to the cost of living.

I wonder just how they calculated those inflation figures.
 
They have, actually. Not as dramatically as their standard of living, but they have gone up.

household-incomes-growth-real-annotated.gif


real-income-growth-since-1967-dshort-2102-September.jpg



And again, it's worth noting that that larger amount of money is supporting smaller households - so the "per capita" income of the middle class has grown by more than what is demonstrated. Even had average real incomes remained the exact same, that phenomena would still mean that the middle class was earning more money.

Sure, they trended up for a while. But from your chart, looks to me that they have been trending down for the past 14 or 15 year.

If I was to take that middle quintile and continue the trend line for the next 15 years, we will be right back where your chart starts around 1967 or so.
 
My salary has tripled since I was 18 y/o.


So?

Have you not gained any job skills since then? And has it really tripled when you adjust for inflation?
 
So?

Have you not gained any job skills since then? And has it really tripled when you adjust for inflation?

Either way, my salary has increased, not decreased as some like to suggest.
 
and unless you're very young, prices have more than tripled.

But, my salary tripled. Hell my salary has tripled since 2000. Probably increased 5x since I was 18. I'm 45, now.
 
Back
Top Bottom