• 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

Thrilla said:
hopefully it runs it's course quickly.... i've been battling some sort of sinus malady for almost 2 months with no improvement.
I have no faith in the medical professions right now...money grubbin' pill pushers, the lot of them
Click to expand...

Same here with the sinus'. I'm not made out for the southwest. When I moved from my humid Georgia to Phoenix... bad bad nose bleed on the first day due to being so dry. Don't get nose bleeds anymore but the allergies and sinus infections seem damn near nonstop.
 
jet57 said:
The proof is in the pudding and the OP article.
Click to expand...

you are are unable to provide proof... that's what i figured.

next time save us both some time and just say it's your opinion.

the new CEO , right after he was installed, started a campaign of bettering service, even if that meant incurring drastically increased labor costs...
ya see, it was a business decision, first and foremost.. not some capitulation to unions as you would have us believe.

Walmart can thumb it's nose to unions all day long and it can still make decision that unions approve of... yet you find that to be impossible, that the only answer must be that unions caused this wage increase, despite having no evidence or proof they played a part.

now, when will we look forward to you giving credit to Walmart for raising their wages?... will this ever happen ? or will you continue to believe it's the unions who increased the wages?
 
Thrilla said:
you are are unable to provide proof... that's what i figured.

next time save us both some time and just say it's your opinion.

the new CEO , right after he was installed, started a campaign of bettering service, even if that meant incurring drastically increased labor costs...
ya see, it was a business decision, first and foremost.. not some capitulation to unions as you would have us believe.

Walmart can thumb it's nose to unions all day long and it can still make decision that unions approve of... yet you find that to be impossible, that the only answer must be that unions caused this wage increase, despite having no evidence or proof they played a part.

now, when will we look forward to you giving credit to Walmart for raising their wages?... will this ever happen ? or will you continue to believe it's the unions who increased the wages?
Click to expand...

The proof is all out there. Just like the lies for the Iraqi war, everybody knows why walmart is under pressure and why walmart has been forced to capitulate which is exactly what I've said would happen all along.
 
jet57 said:
The proof is all out there. Just like the lies for the Iraqi war, everybody knows why walmart is under pressure and why walmart has been forced to capitulate which is exactly what I've said would happen all along.
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in your opinion.

I want you to show proof Walmart was forced to capitulate... and who forced them to capitulate

oddly enough, if you google the phrase " Walmart forced to capitulate".... this thread is the top return.... that should tell you something.
 
Thrilla said:
I'm not interested in your opinion.

I want you to show proof Walmart was forced to capitulate... and who forced them to capitulate

oddly enough, if you google the phrase " Walmart forced to capitulate".... this thread is the top return.... that should tell you something.
Click to expand...

The proof is in the pudding, everybody knows it. So I'm not messin with you anymore.

Goodbye
 
jet57 said:
The proof is in the pudding, everybody knows it. So I'm not messin with you anymore.

Goodbye
Click to expand...

there is no pudding here.... there is only you failing to provide substantiation for you opinion.... as usual.

you are basically the only person alive who is arguing Walmart has been forced to capitulate.... you are that special snowflake.
 
poweRob said:
Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator
Click to expand...

which has nothing to do with how business actually run themselves.
however I have asked for him to define living wage.

is it 10-20-30-40-50 dollars an hour?

what is it, and how do you expect businesses to pay people that are not worth that skill wise that kinda of money?
the whole entire living wage argument is a joke. just because you work doesn't mean you earn 20 bucks an hour.

a bag boy at the grocery store doesn't have the skills required to earn more than 7.25 an hour. the job just doesn't call for it.
 
jet57 said:
This country will always have need of low skilled workers for the service sector. There are also trades jobs that cannot be contracted out. The argument comes with what you're going to pay such workers and walmart has decided that for now $10 an hour is okay. We cannot have a country wherein low skilled labor lives in huddles of poverty because the market wants to keep them poor.
Click to expand...

they keep themselves poor for not having any other skills to get paid more. it isn't that hard to figure out.
before I graduated with my 2 year I was making 5.15 an hour.
when I got my 2 year I start entry lvl making 12.45
I got my 4 year
I started entry lvl at about 13.
after a few promotions I was making 16.
I got another promotion and now I am making way more than that.

I didn't get it waiting on someone to go poor you. you have no skill but here is a big pay check anyway.
you want more money then go do something to get it.
 
jet57 said:
There a;ways going to need shelf stockers and cashiers, do you have any PhDs in mind for the jobs? There also plenty of of educated people out of work these days, so $7.25 an hour is good enough for them too eh?
Click to expand...

yep and they are going to get paid 7.25 an hour because that is all their job calls for. they are ENTRY level NO SKILL jobs for a reason.
they are there for people that have no skills and need work, however due to that fact the pay is low.

making 7.25 an hour is better than making 0. been there did that. found a better job.
 
ludin said:
they keep themselves poor for not having any other skills to get paid more. it isn't that hard to figure out.
before I graduated with my 2 year I was making 5.15 an hour.
when I got my 2 year I start entry lvl making 12.45
I got my 4 year
I started entry lvl at about 13.
after a few promotions I was making 16.
I got another promotion and now I am making way more than that.

I didn't get it waiting on someone to go poor you. you have no skill but here is a big pay check anyway.
you want more money then go do something to get it.
Click to expand...

First, you realize of course that after you got your BA you only making $2 more than what the walmart workers are going to make right?

Secondly, there will always be a segment of society of what are referred to as low skilled workers and keeping them in poverty says nothing about this country. Everybody has a chance by any legal means to make it America.
 
ludin said:
yep and they are going to get paid 7.25 an hour because that is all their job calls for. they are ENTRY level NO SKILL jobs for a reason.
they are there for people that have no skills and need work, however due to that fact the pay is low.

making 7.25 an hour is better than making 0. been there did that. found a better job.
Click to expand...

With high unemployment (an employer's market) the wages are set and too many adults with kids are out looking for work and that's $1267 a month. For a high school kid that's great, but too many adults have pushed the kids out of work. You can't make it on that mind of money. The only thing to do is force the American economy to save the American economy and that's what's happening at walmart right now.
 
jet57 said:
First, you realize of course that after you got your BA you only making $2 more than what the walmart workers are going to make right?

Secondly, there will always be a segment of society of what are referred to as low skilled workers and keeping them in poverty says nothing about this country. Everybody has a chance by any legal means to make it America.
Click to expand...

everyone has to start somewhere, but now I am making way more. once I learned the system it took me 6 months to get a promotion which is the least amount of time possible.
yep and they choose not to take it.
 
ludin said:
everyone has to start somewhere, but now I am making way more. once I learned the system it took me 6 months to get a promotion which is the least amount of time possible.
yep and they choose not to take it.
Click to expand...

You've ignored everything I said.
 
jet57 said:
With high unemployment (an employer's market) the wages are set and too many adults with kids are out looking for work and that's $1267 a month. For a high school kid that's great, but too many adults have pushed the kids out of work. You can't make it on that mind of money. The only thing to do is force the American economy to save the American economy and that's what's happening at walmart right now.
Click to expand...

not really because walmart and other companies will adjust their prices accordingly in order to maintain their profit %.
so cool they get a small raise but then everything around that goes up as well making it less than what they thought it would be.

so really while walmart might pay their people a bit more. they can reduce hours etc and other companies are not going to have to do that either.
not everyone can afford 10 dollars for someone to bag groceries at the store.
 
ludin said:
not really because walmart and other companies will adjust their prices accordingly in order to maintain their profit %.
so cool they get a small raise but then everything around that goes up as well making it less than what they thought it would be.

so really while walmart might pay their people a bit more. they can reduce hours etc and other companies are not going to have to do that either.
not everyone can afford 10 dollars for someone to bag groceries at the store.
Click to expand...

walmart has plenty of money to fill such a small space. They're not going to cut off their nose to spite their face. They will reduce hours quite probably, but that will only make the organizing drive that much stronger.
 
ludin said:
which has nothing to do with how business actually run themselves.
however I have asked for him to define living wage.

is it 10-20-30-40-50 dollars an hour?

what is it, and how do you expect businesses to pay people that are not worth that skill wise that kinda of money?
the whole entire living wage argument is a joke. just because you work doesn't mean you earn 20 bucks an hour.

a bag boy at the grocery store doesn't have the skills required to earn more than 7.25 an hour. the job just doesn't call for it.
Click to expand...

If you go to the link it has a calculator of what a living wage is down to every county in the nation. Not a nationwide one.
 
ludin said:
not really because walmart and other companies will adjust their prices accordingly in order to maintain their profit %...
Click to expand...

Nope. Walmart and other companies will adjust their prices to whatever they feel is the profit maximizing amount. They don't seek to maintain their profit %, they seek to make as much profit as they can. If this means less profit (due to whatever reasons), then that's the best they can do, and if it means more profit then they certainly aren't going to pass on more profit.

Companies care much more about the bottom line, than they do profit margins.

think about it, if you owned a business, and you could chose between two different business models, one which would result in a million dollar bottom line but a very small margin, and the other resulting in a half million dollar bottom line but a huge margin, which would you chose?

If you were an investor, and you had to make a choice between two different stocks which were priced identically per share and were otherwise equal, would you chose the stock of a company that had a large profit margin as a percentage of sales but only made $1/year/share, or the one with a lower profit margin that made $2/share/year?

I think I wouldn't give a rats arse about margin on sales, I would go for the more profitable company in both cases.
 
Last edited:
imagep said:
Nope. Walmart and other companies will adjust their prices to whatever they feel is the profit maximizing amount. They don't seek to maintain their profit %, they seek to make as much profit as they can. If this means less profit (due to whatever reasons), then that's the best they can do, and if it means more profit then they certainly aren't going to pass on more profit.

Companies care much more about the bottom line, than they do profit margins.
Click to expand...

You are wrong about Walmart. They have programs that put made in the USA products on their shelves at a much thinner profit margin than comparable Made in Wherever Else products. Walmart's current profit margin is 3.77% (Wal-Mart Stores Profit Margin (Quarterly) (WMT)). They rake in their money on volume.
 
jet57 said:
walmart has plenty of money to fill such a small space. They're not going to cut off their nose to spite their face. They will reduce hours quite probably, but that will only make the organizing drive that much stronger.
Click to expand...

Walmart already operates with as few employees as it thinks it needs. That's why there is often only 3 checkout lines open despite the fact they may have 12. Walmart will not reduce hours or employees below the number that they believe they need.

Even if Walmart comes up with more efficiency, it won't reduce the number of work hours below what it needs, regardless of what the cost of labor is. To reduce it's staff below the profit maximizing level, would only result in lower profits, and thus would defeat the purpose.
 
imagep said:
Nope. Walmart and other companies will adjust their prices to whatever they feel is the profit maximizing amount. They don't seek to maintain their profit %, they seek to make as much profit as they can. If this means less profit (due to whatever reasons), then that's the best they can do, and if it means more profit then they certainly aren't going to pass on more profit.

Companies care much more about the bottom line, than they do profit margins.

think about it, if you owned a business, and you could chose between two different business models, one which would result in a million dollar bottom line but a very small margin, and the other resulting in a half million dollar bottom line but a huge margin, which would you chose?

If you were an investor, and you had to make a choice between two different stocks which were priced identically per share and were otherwise equal, would you chose the stock of a company that had a large profit margin as a percentage of sales but only made $1/year/share, or the one with a lower profit margin that made $2/share/year?

I think I wouldn't give a rats arse about margin on sales, I would go for the more profitable company in both cases.
Click to expand...

The 'bottom line' is profit.
 
The issue of wages is not a simple thing, very complex in fact.
On the one hand, there are some people who aren't worth even $7.50 an hour. Anyone who has worked in an entry level job, or supervised people who do, will agree with that one.
On the other hand, if people don't have money, then business doesn't have a market.
And automation has eliminated a whole lot of jobs that people used to do, which affects supply and demand for labor.
Of course, there's SS disability, which some seem to consider a career, along with a variety of other government handouts that in aggregate cost us around a trillion a year.
But, even people who are not worth minimum wage need to have something worthwhile to do. Idleness, the old saying goes, is the Devil's workshop. Whether or not you believe in the Devil, it's pretty obvious that people with nothing to do tend to get in trouble and/or engage in self destructive behaviors.
But, eliminate that trillion in means tested welfare, eliminate the minimum wage, and we have a limited market for people who do produce.
And business, whether it is a large retailer like WalMart, or the local deli, are in business to make money. The bottom line is profit, and not social welfare. If they don't make money, they're soon out of business.
So, now: Is there a simple solution to this rather complex issue?
 
Dittohead not! said:
The issue of wages is not a simple thing, very complex in fact.
On the one hand, there are some people who aren't worth even $7.50 an hour. Anyone who has worked in an entry level job, or supervised people who do, will agree with that one.
On the other hand, if people don't have money, then business doesn't have a market.
Click to expand...

Those few who arent worth $7.50, tend not to be worth any wage, not even a penny. I've had one employee like that.

Most of the time the employer is going to do exactly what I did - fire them.

But, even people who are not worth minimum wage need to have something worthwhile to do.
Click to expand...

Yup. It's unfortunate that some people are totally incapable of creating any value. We have government programs for people like that, the private sector should not be expected to be their baby sitter.

So, now: Is there a simple solution to this rather complex issue?
Click to expand...

Nope, but maybe the basic income guarantee will one day become the answer.
 
imagep said:
Those few who arent worth $7.50, tend not to be worth any wage, not even a penny. I've had one employee like that.

Most of the time the employer is going to do exactly what I did - fire them.



Yup. It's unfortunate that some people are totally incapable of creating any value. We have government programs for people like that, the private sector should not be expected to be their baby sitter.



Nope, but maybe the basic income guarantee will one day become the answer.
Click to expand...
Maybe.

Or, maybe the answer, or part of it anyway, is to make the government the employer of last resort, and eliminate any and all giveaways except for people who are truly unable to work. There is plenty to do, after all, that doesn't necessarily yield a profit but is still worthwhile. Maybe some people who aren't worth minimum wage can learn some job skills and work ethic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom