• 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

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?

Sure...I have a simple solution.

If the government wants to pay those people to live, then require them work for their pay. Now, I don't mean "look for a job", I mean put in 8 hours of labor for the money they get from the government. If they don't want to do that then they get nothing.

It all goes back to personal responsibility.
 
Sure...I have a simple solution.

If the government wants to pay those people to live, then require them work for their pay. Now, I don't mean "look for a job", I mean put in 8 hours of labor for the money they get from the government. If they don't want to do that then they get nothing.

It all goes back to personal responsibility.

which sounds a lot like what I said a couple of posts back: Make the government the employer of last resort. Anyone who can't find a job in the private sector can go to work cleaning up the highways, clearing brush, whatever, and at least have the dignity of working for a living instead of depending on the dole. In the process, that person just might learn enough of a work ethic to become employable at a higher wage. That way, the only people who would need free assistance would be people who are totally unable to work.
 
Sure...I have a simple solution.

If the government wants to pay those people to live, then require them work for their pay. Now, I don't mean "look for a job", I mean put in 8 hours of labor for the money they get from the government. If they don't want to do that then they get nothing.

It all goes back to personal responsibility.

which sounds a lot like what I said a couple of posts back: Make the government the employer of last resort. Anyone who can't find a job in the private sector can go to work cleaning up the highways, clearing brush, whatever, and at least have the dignity of working for a living instead of depending on the dole. In the process, that person just might learn enough of a work ethic to become employable at a higher wage. That way, the only people who would need free assistance would be people who are totally unable to work.

Public sector labor unions would militarize against the US government before they would allow something like this to happen, and they have government by the balls. Public sector union workers already have jobs working for the government for 8 hours a day, and they do not want competitors from outside the union encroaching on the labor over which they have monopoly. Their goal is to restrict the supply of public labor so that they can jack up its price. What you're proposing would explode the supply of labor in the public sector and drag down its price.
 
Public sector labor unions would militarize against the US government before they would allow something like this to happen, and they have government by the balls. Public sector union workers already have jobs working for the government for 8 hours a day, and they do not want competitors from outside the union encroaching on the labor over which they have monopoly. Their goal is to restrict the supply of public labor so that they can jack up its price. What you're proposing would explode the supply of labor in the public sector and drag down its price.
not even close
the federal work force has its pay and benefits established by congress
added workers will not change that
additionally, the civil servants are doing jobs the government needs done, whereas these low skill employees made to work for their basic living wage would be performing low wage activities
it would be the contracting community, those who now receive federal monies to do the custodial and other menial tasks required, that would lose by the influx of low skilled workers into federal employment
however, even they could benefit, by being contracted to manage this new hoard of conscripts
i doubt the low skilled employees would be made members of the civil service, because they would not have to qualify for their jobs. they would likely be more like draftees performing work and acquiring skills with tools other than arms. and at such a low level of compensation that they would leave the make-work federal jobs for higher paying ones in the private sector, if those jobs opened up to them

while i prefer the volunteer army, when we did away with the draft we eliminated one of the best means of moving the underclass into the middle class. more so for minority draftees. once drafted, the 'recruit' was made to acquire life and work skills. something that much of our underclass is without
requiring work - by those who are physically/mentally/emotionally able to perform it - for basic sustenance benefits would be a huge advance for the least among us and for our nation
 
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.
thank you for once again not making an argument just like every other person out there that screams living wage.

please tell me how you pay a bag boy 20 bucks an hour? or even 15 an hour?
what skill does he provide to earn that type of money?
 
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.

If you don't think walmart has a minimum % of profit on each item you are fooling yourself. anything they charge above that is better for them.
however every item they sale they make money on otherwise they would go out of business.
 
If you don't think walmart has a minimum % of profit on each item you are fooling yourself. anything they charge above that is better for them.
however every item they sale they make money on otherwise they would go out of business.

I'm sure that Walmart has loss leader items, just like every store does.

Regardless, of that exception, of course they make money on most everything they make, and I would think that they generally would have a minimum margin. They set their prices based upon what they feel is the profit maximizing price. Some items will most certainly have a larger margin than others. If they increase prices in order to compensation for higher costs, unless the profit maximizing price has increased for some reason (like maybe many of their competitors have also increased price), then they will end up making less net profit. No business desires to make less net profit, and making less net profit would certainly not help them with higher cost of labor any.
 
An interesting take from Mike Rowe

Back in 1979, I was working as an usher for United Artists at a multiplex in Baltimore. The minimum wage was $2.90, and I earned every penny.
When I wasn’t tearing tickets in half and stopping kids from theater hopping, I was cleaning out the bathrooms, emptying the trash, and scrapping dubious substances off the theater floor with a putty knife. I wore a silly outfit and smiled unnaturally, usually for the entirety of my shift....

After three months, I got a raise, and wound up behind the concession stand. Once it was determined I wasn’t a thief, I was promoted to cashier. Three months later, I got another raise. Eventually, they taught me how to operate a projector, which was the job I wanted in the first place.

The films would arrive from Hollywood in giant boxes, thin and square, like the top of a card table, but heavy. I’d open each one with care, and place each spool on a separate platter. Then, I’d thread them into the giant projector, looping the leader through 22 separate gates, careful to touch only the sides. Raging Bull, Airplane, The Shining, Caddyshack, The Elephant Man – I saw them all from the shadowy comfort of the projection booth, and collected $10 an hour for my trouble. Eventually, I was offered an assistant manager position, which I declined. I wasn’t management material then, anymore than I am now. But I had a plan. I was going to be in the movies. Or, God forbid, on television.

I thought about all this last month when I saw “Boyhood” at a theater in San Francisco. I bought the tickets from a machine that took my credit card and spit out a piece of paper with a bar code on it. I walked inside, and fed the paper into another machine, which beeped twice, welcomed me in mechanical voice, and lowered a steel bar that let me into the lobby. No usher, no cashier. I found the concession stand and bought a bushel of popcorn from another machine, and a gallon of Diet Coke that I poured myself. On the way out, I saw an actual employee, who turned out to be the manager. I asked him how much a projectionist was making these days, and he just laughed.

“There’s no such position,” he said. I just put the film in the slot myself and press a button. Easy breezy.”....
 
I have zero problem with a company raising it's workers' pay.

I have a problem with governments forcing them to do it.
 

actually what happens is those might be items they put on sale to get off their shelf but those are also discontinued items. IE walmart won't carry them anymore
and they want them gone.

however while they might have a few items like that the majority of them are not otherwise they would lose money not make it.
but they don't care about items they discontinue they are not restocking.
 
I have zero problem with a company raising it's workers' pay.

I have a problem with governments forcing them to do it.

the major problem I have with the govt dictating wage floors is that it's extremely arbitrary and not dependent on labor market value whatsoever.
MW can be 10 bucks an hour, or 200 bucks an hour.... both are legitimate wage levels as per the standards we employ to set them... there is simply no formula or standards to set the wage levels.
it is very much dependent on the whim of the sponsor of the MW bill to set the wage floor " meh..10 bucks an hour sounds good to me... that's what i'll write in."
 
actually what happens is those might be items they put on sale to get off their shelf but those are also discontinued items. IE walmart won't carry them anymore
and they want them gone.

however while they might have a few items like that the majority of them are not otherwise they would lose money not make it.
but they don't care about items they discontinue they are not restocking.

obviously, you have no idea what constitutes a loss leader
 
the major problem I have with the govt dictating wage floors is that it's extremely arbitrary and not dependent on labor market value whatsoever.
MW can be 10 bucks an hour, or 200 bucks an hour.... both are legitimate wage levels as per the standards we employ to set them... there is simply no formula or standards to set the wage levels.
it is very much dependent on the whim of the sponsor of the MW bill to set the wage floor " meh..10 bucks an hour sounds good to me... that's what i'll write in."

which minimum wage floor was found to have been in error?
 
none... you can't determine error if you have no standards or formula.

then it seems like the system is working properly
 
then it seems like the system is working properly

well, in a way you are right.. if you have no standards or formula to fix wage levels, any wage levels you set can be said to be proper.

10 bucks and hour.. 200 bucks and hour... 1000 bucks an hour.... all proper.
 
obviously, you have no idea what constitutes a loss leader

you obviously have no idea what walmarts business is, or how it operates.
their sales is based on volume. so businesses that want to sell their items in walmart have to sale at a very big
discounted price. walmart then buys those items and sells them for a bit under retailer or close to it.

however their model might have some losses here and there they are most items they want to get rid of.
that is why they are put on the discount or clearance racks.
 
well, in a way you are right.. if you have no standards or formula to fix wage levels, any wage levels you set can be said to be proper.

10 bucks and hour.. 200 bucks and hour... 1000 bucks an hour.... all proper.

There is a reason they can't actually define their argument, and it stems from the fact that they don't know.
they expect a bag boy to make 20 bucks an hour since to some that might be a living wage.

yet they can't justify a bag boy making that much money.
 
There is a reason they can't actually define their argument, and it stems from the fact that they don't know.
they expect a bag boy to make 20 bucks an hour since to some that might be a living wage.

yet they can't justify a bag boy making that much money.
well, that's just it.. not only can they not justify it... they do not have to.

it's completely arbitrary.

think about that... a very important part of our economy having no standards or formula whatsoever... a completely arbitrary number used to set wages for millions of unskilled laborers.

we have the tools to set standards...but it never happens... although it was ruled unconstitutional on no less than 3 occasions by the supreme court, it was finally enacted in 1941( it was part of FDR's court packing BS)...and in all these years, not one standard has been applied to it whatsoever.
 
you obviously have no idea what walmarts business is, or how it operates.
their sales is based on volume. so businesses that want to sell their items in walmart have to sale at a very big
discounted price. walmart then buys those items and sells them for a bit under retailer or close to it.

however their model might have some losses here and there they are most items they want to get rid of.
that is why they are put on the discount or clearance racks.

loss leader is not the same as close out discount
 
well, in a way you are right.. if you have no standards or formula to fix wage levels, any wage levels you set can be said to be proper.

10 bucks and hour.. 200 bucks and hour... 1000 bucks an hour.... all proper.

the point is they have not over-shot the amount of the floor, causing a reversal
such reversal would be necessary if the floor resulted in substantial layoffs, because the businesses could not afford to operate at normal staff levels and the higher wage

which then allows us to recognize that the system works
 
the point is they have not over-shot the amount of the floor, causing a reversal
such reversal would be necessary if the floor resulted in substantial layoffs, because the businesses could not afford to operate at normal staff levels and the higher wage

which then allows us to recognize that the system works

we've had multiple economic downturns since 1941 which resulted in massive amounts of layoffs... where were the reversals?
 
we've had multiple economic downturns since 1941 which resulted in massive amounts of layoffs... where were the reversals?

were the reversals found attributable to excessive wage floors?
 
Back
Top Bottom