• 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!

Walmart Gives 500,000 Workers A Raise

A prediction of no change in the Walmart employment numbers is as much a prediction as my prediction of change.

Did I predict that? Walmart is still growing, and opening new stores. A read recently that they have started to build mini-Walmarts, and I know of at least one Walmart that is just a grocery store, so I would assume that they will keep employing more people. What I don't believe will happen is that Walmart will decrease it's number of employees due to the fact that it's increasing wages. If anything, I would think that they are increasing wages so that they can attract more employees - generally that's what companies do when they are having a difficult time of hiring enough people.

Hah, no, but I see you are one of those people who doesn't know the meaning of the word "lie". :roll:

I used that word because so many conservatives claim that Obama "lied" when he made predictions that didn't come true. Conservatives seem to have their own special definition of the word "lie", where it means one thing when it comes to Obama, and something totally different when it comes to someone like Rush or Hannity.
 
That's interesting. So you believe that there are no such things as tax, benefit, or regulatory costs that come along with workers?

on average, employees cost an addition $7 / hr. (more if health insurance is involved) on top of their wages... 10 bucks an hour equates to between 17 and 18 per hour in total labor cost, per employee. ( this is also a reason why we have seen a dramatic increase in temp workers... employers aren't on the hook for the total labor cost bill)
 
Did I predict that? Walmart is still growing, and opening new stores. A read recently that they have started to build mini-Walmarts, and I know of at least one Walmart that is just a grocery store, so I would assume that they will keep employing more people. What I don't believe will happen is that Walmart will decrease it's number of employees due to the fact that it's increasing wages. If anything, I would think that they are increasing wages so that they can attract more employees - generally that's what companies do when they are having a difficult time of hiring enough people.



I used that word because so many conservatives claim that Obama "lied" when he made predictions that didn't come true. Conservatives seem to have their own special definition of the word "lie", where it means one thing when it comes to Obama, and something totally different when it comes to someone like Rush or Hannity.

Walmart is adapting to market demands. They are building smaller stores--even their new super centers are smaller--because that is what consumers want. They also have a store that is like Sonic drive-ins. You order ahead and then come in and pick up without ever being able to go into the building. Another thing they are looking at is home delivery of groceries like is seen in the UK, but they are not quite sure how they are going to model that yet.
 
Sure, and if a cashier ends up costing more than an automated teller which do you think Walmart will choose?

That depends on a lot of factors. If the public rejects automated checkout systems, then they will continue to use cashiers. Or if the theft rate at automated checkout systems is high, they may very well decide to continue to use human cashiers - redardless of the cost.

This is absolutely not the case with an unskilled work force. Regardless of the employment rate an unskilled worker can always be replaced quickly. A lot of those unskilled workers are a half step from losing their job to automation as it is.

If they are eventually going to be replaced with automation, then what's it really matter? And regardless of replaceability, there is still cost to Walmart in hiring and firing and training and retaining employees, so maybe it's cheaper for them to pay a more competitive wage than to lose employees to Lowes or Office Depot or Target.

Did I say it was due to politics? Seems to me the Obama supporters are the ones trying to paint this as a political move. I am just here to point out that across the board raises rarely is ever end up well for the bottom feeding employees.

You implied that the only reason Walmart increased wages was due to political pressure, and totally ignored the possibility that they increased wages for economic reasons.

Indeed they are, just as the layoffs and automation will be a business decision.

Absolutely.
 
Competition is one (of many) of the factors that determines what price results in the greatest profits. But the point is, price isn't determined by costs and businesses aren't free to raise prices simply because their costs increase.

what?

business are free to raise prices because of cost increases...where did you get the idea they are not?

costs is a primary determining factor in pricing, but it's not the only factor... so I think I kinda agree with you on that point.
 
Wal Mart prices going up.

Was that in the article? Or are you just projecting that based upon a tiny purely voluntary wage increase on the part of Walmart?
 
Capitulated ? To what ?

The lefts BS narratives and their dishonest demonizations of a Corporation that employees thousands of Americans ?

Their " abuses " are manufactured by the same idiots who believe " Bush lied " about WMD.

The people that bought into this BS about Wal-Marts " abuses " are the same morons that drone on about the destructive effects of " austerity " and the effectiveness of " stimulus to increase aggregate demand ".

Capitulated....Lol !!
Many other companies 'capitulate' by just moving their resources overseas.
 
We are talking about unemployed people. And no, Wal-Mart probably structured this so as to avoid laying off many or even a noticeable amount of those who are already hired - far more likely is that this was done in conjunction with planning to reduce future hiring.

This is an example of that which is seen V that which is not seen.

That doesn't seem logical to me. If I were an employer who was planning on not needing as many employees in the future, the last thing I would do is to increase their pay rates. It would make much more sense to have a pay freeze.

Are you trying to use some of that Rush Limbaugh reverse logic? If you haven't noticed, it doesn't work very well.
 
That's interesting. So you believe that there are no such things as tax, benefit, or regulatory costs that come along with workers?

Of course there is, and those things would be adjusted for. That's why I indicated that an employee would have to produce MORE than they get paid (or else the employer simply wouldn't offer the job).
 
If I can hire 10 workers at 7.50 an hour to do the job, it costs me $750/hour (plus other costs associated with labor, say, raising it to $1,000 per hour) to do the job. It also increases my liability risks.

However, if it would cost me $11500/hour to develop and employ machines to replace them, then hey, it's worth it.

When all those workers get their pay raised to $10/hour, meaning that my full cost of labor is now 1350/hour for having people do the work..... suddenly the capital investment is more profitable than the human investment.

Absolutely.

So now explain to me why Walmart would voluntarily increase it's pay rate, unless it needed workers? If Walmart was planning a massive layoff for any reason, including replacing humans with technology, it would have absolutely no incentive to give pay raises, doing that would actually be counter-productive.
 
Sure. I know that. You know that. But there are sure a lot of people that don't seem to understand that you will look for a new solution, if the old one goes up in price.

Sure, but in this case, the old one didn't go up in price, it went up in what Walmart was willing to pay, which indicates that most likely, they aren't planning on reducing their workforce size any time soon.
 
on average, employees cost an addition $7 / hr. (more if health insurance is involved) on top of their wages... 10 bucks an hour equates to between 17 and 18 per hour in total labor cost, per employee. ( this is also a reason why we have seen a dramatic increase in temp workers... employers aren't on the hook for the total labor cost bill)

You are probably closer to the ballpark for their reasoning than most here. I saw an interview with the CEO of Walmart awhile back in which he discussed that they were not sure how much longer they were going to be able to provide the health insurance option they have for all their associates at the discounted rate at which they were dong it because of Obamacare mandate flooding them with new enrollments. My guess is they are going to raise wages and then shift more of the cost onto those workers as wages are a no-brainer expense whereas health insurance premiums seem subject to change in how they are treated for tax purposes.
 
What is the cost of living where you are? What would be the bare minimum amount that you would need to survive where you are, without any welfare?

please define a living wage 10,20,30,40,100 dollars an hour.

why can't people that demand a living wage say what it is.
 
HenryChinaski answered that question, before you even posted.

no he didn't. he gave some other answer. that is now how businesses works. businesses work in numbers.
how much is a living wage 10, 20, 30 40, 100 dollars an hour give a number.

you can't scream pay a living wage and when asked what it should be go "I don't know enough that people can pay their bills."
that is not an acceptable answer. It means you don't know what a living wage is and are making an appeal to emotion
because it sounds good in 5 second sound bites.
 
Sure, but in this case, the old one didn't go up in price, it went up in what Walmart was willing to pay, which indicates that most likely, they aren't planning on reducing their workforce size any time soon.

That didn't seem to me the question at that point of the thread. But you are right and the move is interesting.
 
on average, employees cost an addition $7 / hr. (more if health insurance is involved) on top of their wages... 10 bucks an hour equates to between 17 and 18 per hour in total labor cost, per employee. ( this is also a reason why we have seen a dramatic increase in temp workers... employers aren't on the hook for the total labor cost bill)

Actually employers are still on the hook for the entire labor bill. Do you think that just because someone works for a temp company that there are still cost associated with that stuff? Temp agencies don't hve to pay taxes or have workers comp insurance? Temp agencies don't have to advertise for workers?

In my county, most of the workers at BMW actually are temps. Those temps make $15/hr, and get full benefits, just as if they worked directly for BMW, and obviously BMW has to pay the temp company a good bit over that $15/hr. Having temps does not save a company on wages, but it does help the company in other ways.

The real reason that companies use temps instead of direct hires is that it makes it easier for them (psychologically) to fire bad workers. One of the most stressful things for a boss is to fire people. When the worker is a temp, it becomes a lot easier because the boss doesn't actually fire them, he just tells them they they are no longer needed, or calls the temp company and tells the temp company to fire the worker.
 
When I heard this, I was pretty pleased because this means that ultimately, minimum wage and wages overall will go up, however Wal-Mart's plan isn't happening overnight and the info graphic they have on their website insinuate a lot of stipulations.
 
That depends on the price of stuff.

Sometimes I think that maybe we should get away from valuing stuff in dollars, and start valuing it in work hours. Obviously, the phrase "living wage" is going to be somewhat subjective, and may vary depending on location, and exactly how well we expect someone to be able to live. Someone who's compensation package includes great insurance totally paid for by the employer obviously doesn't need as high of a per hour salary.

if you can't define an amount then you really don't have an argument to base yourself in. you have created an appeal to emotion argument.
 
what?

business are free to raise prices because of cost increases...where did you get the idea they are not?

Because they still have to compete based upon price (and other factors). People go to Walmart for cheap prices, we certainly don't go there because their employees are so knowledgable about the product, or because the place smells good. Walmart competes 90% on price.

This additional expense to Walmart is only for Walmart, so unless it's competitors also raise their wages (possible), then it's competitors will have no cost-push inflationary pressure, and no reason to raise prices. If Walmart raises prices, but it's competitors don't, then Walmart will lose market share, and thus sales.

costs is a primary determining factor in pricing, but it's not the only factor... so I think I kinda agree with you on that point.

Cost only sets a floor price. Only a fool would sell at the floor price, because the floor does not allow for a profit. Walmart obviously is no fool.
 
You are probably closer to the ballpark for their reasoning than most here. I saw an interview with the CEO of Walmart awhile back in which he discussed that they were not sure how much longer they were going to be able to provide the health insurance option they have for all their associates at the discounted rate at which they were dong it because of Obamacare mandate flooding them with new enrollments. My guess is they are going to raise wages and then shift more of the cost onto those workers as wages are a no-brainer expense whereas health insurance premiums seem subject to change in how they are treated for tax purposes.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. It would be cheaper just to eat the cost of the insurance, because that cost is 100% tax deductible, and is a huge benefit to the employees. If they increased wages, then employee then would have to pay taxes on those wages (and possibly lose means tested welfare benefits), and then hand over the cost of the insurance to Walmart, putting the employees in a WORSE situation. No company desires to piss off their employees.
 
Actually employers are still on the hook for the entire labor bill. Do you think that just because someone works for a temp company that there are still cost associated with that stuff? Temp agencies don't hve to pay taxes or have workers comp insurance? Temp agencies don't have to advertise for workers?

In my county, most of the workers at BMW actually are temps. Those temps make $15/hr, and get full benefits, just as if they worked directly for BMW, and obviously BMW has to pay the temp company a good bit over that $15/hr. Having temps does not save a company on wages, but it does help the company in other ways.

The real reason that companies use temps instead of direct hires is that it makes it easier for them (psychologically) to fire bad workers. One of the most stressful things for a boss is to fire people. When the worker is a temp, it becomes a lot easier because the boss doesn't actually fire them, he just tells them they they are no longer needed, or calls the temp company and tells the temp company to fire the worker.

that's not the experience i've had with Temp services... at all.
most, if not all, of the temp experience i have had ( including being one) is simply earning a wage that is lower than a full time employee, having little or no benefits, and being easily replaceable.
but i will say it doesn't sound like being a temp at BMW is a bad gig at all... in the world of temps, they got it pretty good.

but you last paragraph is true.. it's easy as hell to fire a temp.... and much less stressful on the manager
 
That doesn't make a lot of sense. It would be cheaper just to eat the cost of the insurance, because that cost is 100% tax deductible, and is a huge benefit to the employees. If they increased wages, then employee then would have to pay taxes on those wages (and possibly lose means tested welfare benefits), and then hand over the cost of the insurance to Walmart, putting the employees in a WORSE situation. No company desires to piss off their employees.

You can have the insurance deducted from pay before taxes are applied so employees do not have to be taxed on it. It just means that they cannot use their out of pocket premium as an expense if they are itemizing.
 
Was that in the article? Or are you just projecting that based upon a tiny purely voluntary wage increase on the part of Walmart?

No, I base that on a keen business acumen and knowing how biz works.
 
That doesn't seem logical to me. If I were an employer who was planning on not needing as many employees in the future, the last thing I would do is to increase their pay rates. It would make much more sense to have a pay freeze.

Sure. Unless it was the other way around, and you were planning on raising wages now to generate good publicity, but needed an off-ramp for increased costs down the road.
 
So now explain to me why Walmart would voluntarily increase it's pay rate, unless it needed workers?

We have high unemployment, and its highest among the populace that would be effected by this raise (low-skill). Walmart isn't doing this to attract more workers.
 
Back
Top Bottom