• 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!

Costco's Profit Soars To $459 Million As Low-Wage Competitors Struggle

MaggieD said:
I doubt that would pass constitutional muster. If it does? Congress should raise the minimum wage to whatever amount is necessary. You know, like if a single guy works there? He makes a certain amount per hour. If it's a married guy with three kids? He gets paid a different wage for the same job. Yeah, that makes sense.
Click to expand...

So... it is your contention that we should make it nigh-on impossible for single parents to find jobs, by making them more expensive to hire? :confused:
 
cpwill said:
So... it is your contention that we should make it nigh-on impossible for single parents to find jobs, by making them more expensive to hire? :confused:
Click to expand...

I was being facetious. What they're trying to do will never pass constitutional muster, in my opinion.
 
SheWolf said:
That's amazing. They should make the.company pay so the taxpayers don't have to. Gee, talk about a corporation trying to abuse the system and make the government pay their expenses.
Click to expand...

Are Walmart customers not taxpayers? Don't you think Walmart will merely pass the cost of this fine onto their customers? In the end the taxpayer/customer will still pay...and the state government will still get their 'management fee' in the transaction...
 
poweRob said:
Legislation is now making its way through the California legislature—with the support of consumer groups, unions and, interestingly, physicians—that would levy a fine of up to $6,000 on employers like Wal-Mart for every full-time :)shock:) employee that ends up on the state’s Medi-Cal program—the California incarnation of Medicaid.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of the Third Law of Economic Motion: "For every misguided, punitive, anti-business action by an imbecilic government there is an equal and opposite reaction." The way a company like Wal-Mart can solve the problem is simple: First, make sure all of your FULL-TIME workers are the ones who make the dough, like managers; the ones who get the chump-change work part-time. Next, use fewer employees. Instead of hiring someone to restock, say, toilet paper on your shelves, get the guy who distributes for Kimberly-Clark or Procter and Gamble to do it. Put in more self-checkout lanes; they don't use Medi-Cal. Use more subcontractors or independent agents, i.e. people who are not under your direct employment. You could, for example, contract to have Jamaicans or Brazilians--folks who, as foreign nationals, wouldn't be eligible for Medi-Cal--clean your restrooms and shag your carts. They'd stay for a few months and then you'd get a second batch who'd pay their own way for a chance to meet a single Yankee so they could get married, have lots of babies, and achieve the American dream. The Americans who previously cleaned the restrooms would be unemployed and, presumably, permanent members of the underclass and now on Medi-Cal. Problem solved.
 
Nobody is forced to shop there

Dickieboy said:
Are Walmart customers not taxpayers? Don't you think Walmart will merely pass the cost of this fine onto their customers? In the end the taxpayer/customer will still pay...and the state government will still get their 'management fee' in the transaction...
Click to expand...
 
MaggieD said:
I was being facetious. What they're trying to do will never pass constitutional muster, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

:) My bad.

And I don't know. Constitutionally the powers granted to the states are broad and indefinite, only the powers granted to the federal government are (supposedly) few and defined.
 
cpwill said:
Constitutionally the powers granted to the states are broad and indefinite, only the powers granted to the federal government are (supposedly) few and defined.
Click to expand...

Except in the world according to liberals, in which case it's precisely the other way around.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Huffington Post is a blog. Moved to appropriate location
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: I don't see a particular reason why the existence of a social safety net needs to be incompatible with free market competition.
Click to expand...

because the government is subsidizing the low wage employer. If there were to be a level playing field, then the low wage employer would have to reimburse the government for that subsidy, or else the social safety net would have to be re thought.
 
Dittohead not! said:
because the government is subsidizing the low wage employer. If there were to be a level playing field, then the low wage employer would have to reimburse the government for that subsidy, or else the social safety net would have to be re thought.
Click to expand...

Interesting. How is government subsidizing the low wage employer?

Because I suspect that what you mean is that government is subsidizing the low-wage employee, which is not the same at all. Wal-Mart does not benefit if one of its' employees goes on Medicaid for the simple enough reason that that action did not pull it off of any Wal-Mart plan. Nor does Wal-Mart benefit if one of its' employees gets' WIC, or food stamps (and before anyone goes on a rant about evil walmart paying so little that their employees need them, my employer - the Federal Government - paid me so little that I qualified for both), except to the extent that perhaps they spend those government benefits in their store. But there the "subsidy" is the exact same as every other store that takes food stamps and WIC, from Wal-Mart to K-Mart to Publix to the corner Mom and Pop.
 
cpwill said:
Interesting. How is government subsidizing the low wage employer?

Because I suspect that what you mean is that government is subsidizing the low-wage employee, which is not the same at all. Wal-Mart does not benefit if one of its' employees goes on Medicaid for the simple enough reason that that action did not pull it off of any Wal-Mart plan. Nor does Wal-Mart benefit if one of its' employees gets' WIC, or food stamps (and before anyone goes on a rant about evil walmart paying so little that their employees need them, my employer - the Federal Government - paid me so little that I qualified for both), except to the extent that perhaps they spend those government benefits in their store. But there the "subsidy" is the exact same as every other store that takes food stamps and WIC, from Wal-Mart to K-Mart to Publix to the corner Mom and Pop.
Click to expand...

Liberals on the one hand rant in favor of expanding their pet welfare programs for people who aren't indigent but then rail again against big corporations like Wal-Mart for being "subsidized." Their Alice in Wonderland logic never ceases to amaze me. How about we fine non-profits like MoveOn.org for being subsidized when people who are on Medicaid or Food Stamps volunteer their time? I figure the fine should be worth the entire cost of their benefits, since these people are working for free.
 
cpwill said:
Interesting. How is government subsidizing the low wage employer?

Because I suspect that what you mean is that government is subsidizing the low-wage employee, which is not the same at all. Wal-Mart does not benefit if one of its' employees goes on Medicaid for the simple enough reason that that action did not pull it off of any Wal-Mart plan. Nor does Wal-Mart benefit if one of its' employees gets' WIC, or food stamps (and before anyone goes on a rant about evil walmart paying so little that their employees need them, my employer - the Federal Government - paid me so little that I qualified for both), except to the extent that perhaps they spend those government benefits in their store. But there the "subsidy" is the exact same as every other store that takes food stamps and WIC, from Wal-Mart to K-Mart to Publix to the corner Mom and Pop.
Click to expand...

Actually, I said the "low wage employer", which is what you listed.
Without the government subsidies, those employees would not be able to work for the wages offered. They'd have to either upgrade skills and move on to a higher paying job, or find another way of supplementing their income.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Actually, I said the "low wage employer", which is what you listed.
Without the government subsidies, those employees would not be able to work for the wages offered. They'd have to either upgrade skills and move on to a higher paying job, or find another way of supplementing their income.
Click to expand...

That is ridiculous. If the employees could upgrade jobs and move to a higher paying one, they would. I agree that welfare cliffs are real, but to paint the programs as some kind of subsidy to a business that hires low-talent low-experience labor is baseless. Without those subsidies, there is no magic "oh well I guess NOW I'll finally go finish that masters degree" button that the mass of these people would push (although again, I agree we would see an increase in their willingness to self-improve), nor would we see a sudden collapse in the number of entry-level workers into the workforce.

On the contrary, in the absence of these programs, demand for jobs that can be handled by low-experience low-education low-talent workers would increase dramatically, strengthening the hand of employers.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Without the government subsidies, those employees would not be able to work for the wages offered.
Click to expand...

You mean some of these no/low-skill workers would be unemployed, because I imagine others among the 24% of unemployed youth would gladly take those jobs. Whenever Wal-Mart opens a new store it's mobbed by applicants, some of whom drive long distances in order to apply for those $9 or $10 per hour jobs. But assuming I buy into your argument, what you're really saying is without these jobs those people would be unemployed and indigent and government would be paying their entire freight, right? So why is it good public policy to punish a company that reduces poverty and lowers the tax burden?

Also, with the implementation of Obamacare, states that bought into BOb's expanded Medicaid program will include people up to 133% of the federal poverty level. So under your theory, beginning in 2014 wages should drop at Wal-Marts in states like California that bought into the expansion relative to states like Mississippi that didn't buy into it, right? I'll entertain a friendly wager on that if you want. I noticed that right across the border in Canada, which has national health insurance, Wal-Mart tends to pay workers MORE than it pays in the U.S. For example, according to Glassdoor a "completely subsidized" night stocker in Canada makes an average wage of $12.48/hour, well above the country's minimum wage, while in the U.S. the "low-subsidized" U.S. equivalent earns $9.60.

WalMart Canada Salaries in Canada | Glassdoor

Walmart Stores Hourly Pay | Glassdoor
 
Thrilla said:
I can see the morale argument... productivity though?.. not so much.

whether I go into Costco or Walmart, the shelves are stocked and people help me find stuff....I doubt you'll find differing levels of productivity.

what I usually find at Walmart, as opposed to Costco, is ...employees.
there's lots of employees running around Walmart... not nearly so many running around Costco.... customer service is not their schtick.( it's a retail versus wholesale difference)
Click to expand...


I think the whole atmosphere is different when comparing Costco to Walmart. At Costco you feel like you're dealing with people who are intelligent, are genuinely interested in the best shopping experience you can have and everything is about quality at every level. Walmart; I don't think quality but I think cheap, not just products but the whole experience at every level from super long lines to no so sanitary restrooms to no ice buildup growing on some items in their frozen food freezers and employees who are nice people but...

I have a former neighbor who works at Costco and she says it takes a while to get hired full time but they START they fulltime associates out at $60,000.00 a year. I seems they train and hire they fulltime associates to be generalists who can go any and everything in the store. Everyone of them is like a store manager and your interaction with them makes you feel like you're dealing with someone who cares about your shopping experience, appreciates your business and has the authority to personally solve any problem you might have. And although their prices aren't always going to be dirt cheap, you get what you pay for. You see the value of spending a little more when you know you're getting the highest quality products, packaging is often in bulk so you save there, free bonus warranties on electronics when you use certain payment methods and some things are actually less expensive than Walmart.
 
I should have mentioned that the Canadian wages in the post above are in slightly-stronger Canadian dollars.
 
Ahlevah said:
You mean some of these no/low-skill workers would be unemployed, because I imagine others among the 24% of unemployed youth would gladly take those jobs. Whenever Wal-Mart opens a new store it's mobbed by applicants, some of whom drive long distances in order to apply for those $9 or $10 per hour jobs. But assuming I buy into your argument, what you're really saying is without these jobs those people would be unemployed and indigent and government would be paying their entire freight, right? So why is it good public policy to punish a company that reduces poverty and lowers the tax burden?

Also, with the implementation of Obamacare, states that bought into BOb's expanded Medicaid program will include people up to 133% of the federal poverty level. So under your theory, beginning in 2014 wages should drop at Wal-Marts in states like California that bought into the expansion relative to states like Mississippi that didn't buy into it, right? I'll entertain a friendly wager on that if you want. I noticed that right across the border in Canada, which has national health insurance, Wal-Mart tends to pay workers MORE than it pays in the U.S. For example, according to Glassdoor a "completely subsidized" night stocker in Canada makes an average wage of $12.48/hour, well above the country's minimum wage, while in the U.S. the "low-subsidized" U.S. equivalent earns $9.60.

WalMart Canada Salaries in Canada | Glassdoor

Walmart Stores Hourly Pay | Glassdoor
Click to expand...

Canadian employers in general are able to pay more because they don't have the burden of paying for health care for employees. The playing field is more even, then, as there is no longer the option of undercutting the competition by making the government pay for low pay employers while higher pay, more responsible employers pay themselves.

For the really low paying jobs, the ones that conventional wisdom says Americans won't do, the employers hire illegal aliens. The government subsidizes them, too, by looking the other way while unskilled illegals come across the borders. If an illegal needs health care, they either get it from the government, or go to an emergency room and stick the rest of us with the bill. Either way, it is the public that is paying the tab for that cheap labor.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Canadian employers in general are able to pay more because they don't have the burden of paying for health care for employees.
Click to expand...

I find it hilarious that you're arguing Wal-Mart pays lower wages in California because it receives a subsidy while the same company pays higher wages in Canada because, well, it receives a subsidy. Presumably, Wal-Mart got religion in Canada and decided it can't hoodwink the competition, eh? You haven't explained why there's an uneven playing field in California and other companies are stuck paying higher wages than Wal-Mart. Maybe you have competition hampered by collective bargaining agreements in mind? I would say those workers can bargain for higher wages, but it seems a bit disingenuous for them to then claim they're playing on an uneven playing field when they were the ones with the shovels.

Anyway, let's look at another example. In Texas, Medicaid eligibility is pretty difficult compared to some other states. For example, a pregnant mom in Texas can't earn more than 185% of the federal poverty level in order to receive benefits, while under California's Medi-Cal program she can earn up to 250% of the FPL. So under the "Medicaid Is a Subsidy" theory, to the degree that the "subsidy" is less than other states like California's, it should result in higher wages. And yet we see that Wal-Mart pays its Texas associates less, on average, than those in the rest of the country.

I realize that other factors may be at play to explain the difference between wages among the various jurisdictions, but the argument that a Medicaid "subsidy" results in lower wages seems tenuous and anyone making such a claim should put up some stats to prove it. In the meantime, this has union lobbying in Sacramento written all over it.

Walmart Stores Salaries in Texas | Glassdoor

Walmart Stores Salaries | Glassdoor
 
Ahlevah said:
I find it hilarious that you're arguing Wal-Mart pays lower wages in California because it receives a subsidy while the same company pays higher wages in Canada because, well, it receives a subsidy. Presumably, Wal-Mart got religion in Canada and decided it can't hoodwink the competition, eh? You haven't explained why there's an uneven playing field in California and other companies are stuck paying higher wages than Wal-Mart. Maybe you have competition hampered by collective bargaining agreements in mind? I would say those workers can bargain for higher wages, but it seems a bit disingenuous for them to then claim they're playing on an uneven playing field when they were the ones with the shovels.

Anyway, let's look at another example. In Texas, Medicaid eligibility is pretty difficult compared to some other states. For example, a pregnant mom in Texas can't earn more than 185% of the federal poverty level in order to receive benefits, while under California's Medi-Cal program she can earn up to 250% of the FPL. So under the "Medicaid Is a Subsidy" theory, to the degree that the "subsidy" is less than other states like California's, it should result in higher wages. And yet we see that Wal-Mart pays its Texas associates less, on average, than those in the rest of the country.

I realize that other factors may be at play to explain the difference between wages among the various jurisdictions, but the argument that a Medicaid "subsidy" results in lower wages seems tenuous and anyone making such a claim should put up some stats to prove it. In the meantime, this has union lobbying in Sacramento written all over it.

Walmart Stores Salaries in Texas | Glassdoor

Walmart Stores Salaries | Glassdoor
Click to expand...

Anyway, let's look at another example. In Texas, Medicaid eligibility is pretty difficult compared to some other states. For example, a pregnant mom in Texas can't earn more than 185% of the federal poverty level in order to receive benefits, while under California's Medi-Cal program she can earn up to 250% of the FPL. So under the "Medicaid Is a Subsidy" theory, to the degree that the "subsidy" is less than other states like California's, it should result in higher wages. And yet we see that Wal-Mart pays its Texas associates less, on average, than those in the rest of the country.
Click to expand...

Since the threshold for receiving a subsidy is lower in Texas than it is in California, WalMart and other low pay employers are able to pay even less than they do here. You just made my point. In Canada, where everyone gets the same medical care insurance, there is a level playing field, responsible employers pay the same as irresponsible ones, get the same subsidies, and so wages are higher for low end jobs.

As an added bonus, Canada's health care costs only about 2/3 as much as that in the USA. Were we to have a rational health care system that didn't place the burden of health care on the backs of the job creators, but one that put more of the onus of providing health care on the individual, we could probably reverse those figures and pay only half or two thirds as much as Canada, thus making our industry more competitive.

But, no, we continue to have a patchwork medical care system, to subsidize low paying employers, and now under Obamacare, to require every employer to pay for health care and thus discourage full time employment. No wonder our economy is not doing well.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Since the threshold for receiving a subsidy is lower in Texas than it is in California, WalMart and other low pay employers are able to pay even less than they do here. You just made my point.
Click to expand...

So now you're saying the higher the subsidy the HIGHER the wages? You've got me completely flummoxed. :confused:
 
MaggieD said:
Well, I don't believe it. I don't know how they arrived at "the typical Costco employee makes $45,000 a year," but I don't buy it. I don't care what the survey shows.
Click to expand...

Yeah, **** facts. Who needs them. :roll:
 
Ahlevah said:
So now you're saying the higher the subsidy the HIGHER the wages? You've got me completely flummoxed. :confused:
Click to expand...

It's not a higher subsidy. It's a higher threshold of income to receive the subsidy.
 
Your Star said:
Yeah, **** facts. Who needs them. :roll:
Click to expand...

The "facts" are at Glass Door indicating no where CLOSE to $45,000 a year for a "typical Costco employee." **** simply believing what somebody tells you when it doesn't make sense. Go find the facts yourself. Glass Door tells quite a different story.

In addition, DonSutherland checked in on this thread and explained that he went to their IRS filings (I think that's where he went) and that the average was taken including all CEO, CFO, etc. salaries. It is highly misleading to say that typical rank and file average $45,000 a year. Not only misleading, but patently untrue.

I question what I read. You?

Edit: The article also says that the $45K number was per Fortune. A search at Fortune.com produced no such article. *shrug*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom