There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
P. J. O'Rourke
Also, Walmart/Sam's employs 2.2 million people to Costco's 175,000... so Costco can't even beat the decimal. So there is Walmart's solution. Fewer stores, fewer employees.
There are better ways of making the argument that the original articles attempted to make. You can do a more direct comparison of the payroll costs of low versus high salary at Sam's/Walmart and Costco which is entirely valid, but there is SO much uncharted ground between payroll and sales that it is entirely stupid to make such a spurious argument.
Other things to consider in a Sams-v-Walmart comparison is store locations. Given that these stores are not all stacked on top of one another there is a difference in clientele that needs to be considered. Or narrow the comparison to Sam's and Costco stores that actually do server the same communities.
On the pricing, here is a good chart (you'll like it, it almost says that Costco wins on cost): Sam's -v- Costco comparison
But in reality, what that table says is that you buy baked goods from Costco and almost everything else from Sam's. But the other interesting thing is that Costco really only wins on scale. Their total cost is higher than Sam's, but their item count per box is higher allowing them to squeak out a win on groceries, but then THAT price victory comes more from the manufacturer and the economy of scale than from something as disconnected as employee wages. In fact, in the items where you do the economy of scale trick (furniture, TVs etc.) Sam's Club beats them hands down. But on that table the winner on all proce comparisons is almost invariably the won who sells more-per-package.
So, Sam's fix isn't wages, it's to sell bigger bundles. But then not everyone needs a 2 gallon can of beefarino...
In other words, the HuffPo article is stupid, makes stupid claims it doesn't even attempt to back up, and calls it a day. They try to unsupported claim that people shop more at Costco because of... employee salaries. This just falls into the ever growing category of spurious liberal arguments that if acted on would make things far worse for the people they are trying to help.
Last edited by jmotivator; 05-31-13 at 06:49 AM.
The problem with all of this is that there is no proven correlation between the company's performance numbers and its wages. It had an increase in profit WHILE paying people better, not necessarily BECAUSE OF paying people better. There could be any number of other factors involved. I'm not against paying people more and I'm not against Costco. I'm just against a partisan article fitting facts to an ideology.
Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
Comparing Costco to Walmart is comparing apples to oranges it is not a fair comparison and very disengenerious, Walmart does not charge you up to 110 dollars a year to shop there. Second you cant go onto Costco and buy one can of beans unless you want to feed 12. and third Walmart has a store in almost every town in America bigger cities have dozens,
So lets do a fair comparison Sams Club to Costco
fond a site who did it for me
Sam's vs. Costco Verdict
its more expensive to shop at Costco their membership is more expensive and so is their merchandise
so the fact still hold true to pay your employees more your prices will be higher
Can't we just turn Congress off and then turn it back on again?