• 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

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
'BENTONVILLE Arkansas (Reuters) - U.S. employers may be hiring again, but the job market's recovery is not giving ordinary consumers enough confidence to increase their spending, a top Wal-Mart <WMT.N> executive said on Monday.
In an interview with Reuters at the retailer’s headquarters, Bill Simon, the president and chief executive officer of Wal-Mart U.S., said, “It's really hard to see in our business today … that it's gotten any better.”

He added: “We’ve reached a point where it’s not getting any better but it’s not getting any worse – at least for the middle (class) and down."'

Wal-Mart: US Job Rebound Not Spurring Spending - Business Insider


So much for this great recovery...
 
'BENTONVILLE Arkansas (Reuters) - U.S. employers may be hiring again, but the job market's recovery is not giving ordinary consumers enough confidence to increase their spending, a top Wal-Mart <WMT.N> executive said on Monday.
In an interview with Reuters at the retailer’s headquarters, Bill Simon, the president and chief executive officer of Wal-Mart U.S., said, “It's really hard to see in our business today … that it's gotten any better.”

He added: “We’ve reached a point where it’s 9not getting any better but it’s not getting any worse – at least for the middle (class) and down."'

Wal-Mart: US Job Rebound Not Spurring Spending - Business Insider


So much for this great recovery...

So 100 million Americans are not getting richer for a while, because they have enabled more than 1.500 million starving poor to have jobs that compete. That is unpleasant for us. Sure. But for them it means they survive and their kids can even go to school.
 
On a fairly regular basis, Paul Craig Roberts explains the tiny details of how and why the government's numbers regarding employment and inflation are but smoke & mirrors.

I know too many people who cannot find a job to believe the government's numbers on unemployment.

I'm surprised to see the WalMart dude make his comments public. He is much closer to the truth than so many others.
 
'BENTONVILLE Arkansas (Reuters) - U.S. employers may be hiring again, but the job market's recovery is not giving ordinary consumers enough confidence to increase their spending, a top Wal-Mart <WMT.N> executive said on Monday.
In an interview with Reuters at the retailer’s headquarters, Bill Simon, the president and chief executive officer of Wal-Mart U.S., said, “It's really hard to see in our business today … that it's gotten any better.”

He added: “We’ve reached a point where it’s not getting any better but it’s not getting any worse – at least for the middle (class) and down."'

Wal-Mart: US Job Rebound Not Spurring Spending - Business Insider


So much for this great recovery...

That's because most of the jobs during the recovery have been low paying ones. Ironic Walmart speaks:lol:
 
So 100 million Americans are not getting richer for a while, because they have enabled more than 1.500 million starving poor to have jobs that compete. That is unpleasant for us. Sure. But for them it means they survive and their kids can even go to school.

I might go along with that, but only workers are experiancing difficulties. Owners are making money hand over fist.

And there are billions more to "bring up" before OUR wages start to go up again.

And I'm also not convinced that will happen ever. A second world lifestyle is all business needs to provide. They can make up the difference in volume.

The maquiladora phenomenon in Mexico proves that exploiting cheap labor isn't that effective. They're still coming here for a better deal.
 
It is not the role of the government to "recover" the economy. Granted, Obama has hindered the economy's ability to recover by itself, but the businesses are the ones that need to take the lead. While I understand why the CEO of Wal-Mart does not wish to pay employees more, I would hope that he would not criticize the well-being of the middle class when he plays a large role in keeping people on the poverty line.
 
On a fairly regular basis, Paul Craig Roberts explains the tiny details of how and why the government's numbers regarding employment and inflation are but smoke & mirrors.

I know too many people who cannot find a job to believe the government's numbers on unemployment.

I'm surprised to see the WalMart dude make his comments public. He is much closer to the truth than so many others.

I don't think the government is lying (they are too smart for that)...but I think they are knowingly tabulating and presenting the numbers (both the CPI and the U-3) in a way that provides a greatly distorted view of the reality on Main Street.

The CPI as an inflation indicator is a joke....it is at best an inflation/cost-of-living hybrid.

And the unemployment rate is falling because people are leaving the workforce...period.

Just look at last month...288,000 jobs created.
But look at the household survey numbers and you see that 799K part time jobs were created but 523K full time jobs were lost for a net loss in total hours worked. So it was a negative report but is reported as a good one.

The U-3 is the same...it's a joke because it ignores discouraged workers.

I ignore the headline numbers and the major media reports (they are clueless, IMO) and read the fine print...that is where the story is.


It seems clear to me that this is a Mercedes/McDonald's recovery - with little in between; the Fed is indirectly pumping up the stock markets (GREATLY helping the rich) and gov't./Fed programs are causing rises in crappy jobs for a reduction in solid jobs (quantity over quality).

So the rich get richer and the economy looks decent because the U-3 does not count discouraged workers AND part time jobs are counted equal to full time jobs.

And the masses/media are too naive and/or too ignorant and/or too partisan to notice.
 
Last edited:
It is not the role of the government to "recover" the economy. Granted, Obama has hindered the economy's ability to recover by itself, but the businesses are the ones that need to take the lead. While I understand why the CEO of Wal-Mart does not wish to pay employees more, I would hope that he would not criticize the well-being of the middle class when he plays a large role in keeping people on the poverty line.

Wal-mart does not keep people on the poverty. Individuals employees do that themselves. They don't put the work in to move up, or require more skills that would make worth more to company or able to to a better paying job outside of wal-mart.
 
I might go along with that, but only workers are experiancing difficulties. Owners are making money hand over fist.

And there are billions more to "bring up" before OUR wages start to go up again.

And I'm also not convinced that will happen ever. A second world lifestyle is all business needs to provide. They can make up the difference in volume.

The maquiladora phenomenon in Mexico proves that exploiting cheap labor isn't that effective. They're still coming here for a better deal.

The phenomenon that we are watching is text book really. The reason owners of money to invest in productive plant do better is that capital is in higher demand with maybe 2 billion workers coming into the economy. That will turn around again, but it will take time. There are still about 2 billion people in subsistence that require employment.
 
The phenomenon that we are watching is text book really. The reason owners of money to invest in productive plant do better is that capital is in higher demand with maybe 2 billion workers coming into the economy. That will turn around again, but it will take time. There are still about 2 billion people in subsistence that require employment.

So a couple generations before we can see an increase in America?
 
I don't think the government is lying (they are too smart for that)...but I think they are knowingly tabulating and presenting the numbers (both the CPI and the U-3) in a way that provides a greatly distorted view of the reality on Main Street.

The CPI as an inflation indicator is a joke....it is at best an inflation/cost-of-living hybrid.

And the unemployment rate is falling because people are leaving the workforce...period.

Just look at last month...288,000 jobs created.
But look at the household survey numbers and you see that 799K part time jobs were created but 523K full time jobs were lost for a net loss in total hours worked. So it was a negative report but is reported as a good one.

The U-3 is the same...it's a joke because it ignores discouraged workers.

I ignore the headline numbers and the major media reports (they are clueless, IMO) and read the fine print...that is where the story is.


It seems clear to me that this is a Mercedes/McDonald's recovery - with little in between; the Fed is indirectly pumping up the stock markets (GREATLY helping the rich) and gov't./Fed programs are causing rises in crappy jobs for a reduction in solid jobs (quantity over quality).

So the rich get richer and the economy looks decent because the U-3 does not count discouraged workers AND part time jobs are counted equal to full time jobs.

And the masses/media are too naive and/or too ignorant and/or too partisan to notice.

We notice, and we HATE.

But we are powerless to change.

-
 
Wal-mart does not keep people on the poverty. Individuals employees do that themselves. They don't put the work in to move up, or require more skills that would make worth more to company or able to to a better paying job outside of wal-mart.

I know several people that graduated with me from college, who have been employed with Wal-Mart for several years and have been looking to move up not only in the company but to other jobs as well and cannot get a promotion/ a better job. It is a collective problem that needs to be solved within businesses, not through the government.
 
So a couple generations before we can see an increase in America?

Not necessarily. If the US structures to be more competitive it would gain.
 
Wal-mart does not keep people on the poverty. Individuals employees do that themselves. They don't put the work in to move up, or require more skills that would make worth more to company or able to to a better paying job outside of wal-mart.

That isn't how Walmart keeps people in poverty.

Of course general retail help is going to earn minimum wage or close to it. That's the nature of the entry-level retail world.

But what Walmart does, and has the power to do as the result of economies of scale, is negotiate wholesale prices down to the point that they force their vendors to either manufacture overseas or import from overseas (where manufacturing labor is dirt cheap) if they want to sell through Walmart.

Since most consumer packaged goods manufacturers and jobbers can't continue doing business unless they sell through Walmart (because their competition certainly will and since everyone shops as Walmart the lack of sales would drive them out of business) they're forced to either move operations offshore or contract with foreign-owned operations that are already capitalizing on third-world labor.

That's one of the biggest reasons that "good paying middle-class manufacturing jobs" are now so scarce in America.

Yes, we still have an enormous manufacturing sector here, probably the largest in the world.

But it used to be, in a general sense, the only manufacturing sector in the world for American purposes and was significantly larger than it currently is.

All the folks that used to do those good-paying (relatively speaking) manufacturing jobs (the 60% of Americans who have traditionally been the high school diploma bearing blue-collar backbone of the economy) are now taking minimum wage jobs at Walmart and McDonalds and etc...

Without that middle-class purchasing power driving the economy we have no real hope of a real recovery.
 
Not necessarily. If the US structures to be more competitive it would gain.

Have to eliminate desperation globally first. And that desperation is good for business, so I imagine they'll lobby to make sure things don't get TOO better elsewhere.

I see no incentive to allow a situation where wages start to go up globally. Easier to just make small profits from large numbers of low paid workers than allow them to obtain leverage.
 
It is not the role of the government to "recover" the economy.

I disagree.

The numerous one-sided free trade agreements that the government has negotiated are at the root of the current problem.

Foreign manufacturers can import raw materials and piece-parts from America for cheap, then manufacture finished goods on the back of slave labor (or tantamount to), then export those goods back to America for cheap.

As long as that continues unabated (hell, it's actually increasing with each no FTA) there's no hope for us.

Add in Chinese currency manipulation and the attendant trade imbalance that creates and we're truly screwed.
 
Last edited:
Have to eliminate desperation globally first. And that desperation is good for business, so I imagine they'll lobby to make sure things don't get TOO better elsewhere.

I see no incentive to allow a situation where wages start to go up globally. Easier to just make small profits from large numbers of low paid workers than allow them to obtain leverage.

The number of humans is still growing, but in Europe it has already peaked and will in the US and China too soon. But it will take time. History does.
 
The number of humans is still growing, but in Europe it has already peaked and will in the US and China too soon. But it will take time. History does.

And I suspect that by that time enough of what can be owned will be owned by a tiny handful of people who will use those assets to maintain that balance.
 
And I suspect that by that time enough of what can be owned will be owned by a tiny handful of people who will use those assets to maintain that balance.

At that point doing something about it will be more easily handled without doing huge harm to the poorest of the planet.
 
At that point doing something about it will be more easily handled without doing huge harm to the poorest of the planet.

If it is profitable to do so.

If it is more profitable for most to stay poor, then they will stay poor.

What you're saying SOUNDS good. I just don't see those competing to see whose money pile is bigger giving that game up. Especially when population is higher and more resources have been expended.

There was no altruistic motive to outsourcing. In some places its just a livestock model. Enough to keep their resources healthy. Not enough for them to get comfortable enough to start negotiating for a larger percentage of what they produce. They have some money for consumption, little for saving.

It is interesting that when we were sold all the free trade agreements nobody bothered to mention a protracted stagnation or lowering of wages for the vast majority of the population of this country so that billions could be raised from abject poverty. IIRC, we were told quite the opposite. And opponents predicted what we're seeing now. American workers in DIRECT competition with people in RADICALLY different economies. And a profit motive in maintaining low wages and dominance over labor. Plenty of money to spread around to keep 'em hungry

This whole argument reeks. It gives an impression that global businesses are lovingly raising the wretched up. Reality paints a different picture on the ground.
 
I disagree.

The numerous one-sided free trade agreements that the government has negotiated are at the root of the current problem.

Foreign manufacturers can import raw materials and piece-parts from America for cheap, then manufacture finished goods on the back of slave labor (or tantamount to), then export those goods back to America for cheap.

As long as that continues unabated (hell, it's actually increasing with each no FTA) there's no hope for us.

Add in Chinese currency manipulation and the attendant trade imbalance that creates and we're truly screwed.

True free trade agreements, not these thousand page agreements that we currently have, are much better. If there were not so many taxes and incentives to ship jobs overseas, then we would see manufacturing back here. It is the job of the government to create a free market where everybody can thrive, not pick winners and loses. Other then that the economy can self recover without intervention from the government that only holds back the recovery process.
 
If it is profitable to do so.

If it is more profitable for most to stay poor, then they will stay poor.

What you're saying SOUNDS good. I just don't see those competing to see whose money pile is bigger giving that game up. Especially when population is higher and more resources have been expended.

There was no altruistic motive to outsourcing. In some places its just a livestock model. Enough to keep their resources healthy. Not enough for them to get comfortable enough to start negotiating for a larger percentage of what they produce. They have some money for consumption, little for saving.

It is interesting that when we were sold all the free trade agreements nobody bothered to mention a protracted stagnation or lowering of wages for the vast majority of the population of this country so that billions could be raised from abject poverty. IIRC, we were told quite the opposite. And opponents predicted what we're seeing now. American workers in DIRECT competition with people in RADICALLY different economies. And a profit motive in maintaining low wages and dominance over labor. Plenty of money to spread around to keep 'em hungry

This whole argument reeks. It gives an impression that global businesses are lovingly raising the wretched up. Reality paints a different picture on the ground.

True. It was not explained to the public that if the consumer wanted to t-shirts to cost almost nothing the labor producing it would be less than before. Nobody told the public that winning the Cold War would accelerate the process of equalization aggregate income between the low income regions and the rich areas nor that the addition of the people freed by the fall of the Iron Curtain would shift the relativ rarity of labor towards capital which is now much more in demand relatively.

But, would you really have said: Let the other half starve.
 
I might go along with that, but only workers are experiancing difficulties. Owners are making money hand over fist.

I recommend you change that to some owners are making money hand over fist. I offer that suggestion from personal experience.
 
It is not the role of the government to "recover" the economy. Granted, Obama has hindered the economy's ability to recover by itself, but the businesses are the ones that need to take the lead. While I understand why the CEO of Wal-Mart does not wish to pay employees more, I would hope that he would not criticize the well-being of the middle class when he plays a large role in keeping people on the poverty line.

He pays what the marketplace decides he has to pay. He wouldn't be doing his job if he paid more. When the supply/demand curve moves in favor of demand, he will have to pay more and will pay more. We have a free market economy and that is how it works. If you want wages to increase, the economy has to get better and unemployment has to decrease. I won't write a book here on how to get the economy to be better.
 
He pays what the marketplace decides he has to pay. He wouldn't be doing his job if he paid more. When the supply/demand curve moves in favor of demand, he will have to pay more and will pay more. We have a free market economy and that is how it works. If you want wages to increase, the economy has to get better and unemployment has to decrease. I won't write a book here on how to get the economy to be better.

That is why I pointed out that Wal-mart should not pay more if they do not wish. But I still stipulate that they should not make comments on how poor the middle class is if they are not willing to raise pay because they contribute a large amount to that. I understand the free market and how supply demand determines wages, that is also why I called on the government to stop its restrictive business practices.
 
Back
Top Bottom