4 ms·

Would be interesting if anybody will follow them. Walmart is taking a hit for the american economy by giving it's workers more spending power, not something I w

Would be interesting if anybody will follow them. Walmart is taking a hit for the american economy by giving it's workers more spending power, not something I would have ever expected from the retail giant.

fizzbatter 10y ago
I mean, they're not doing it for the American economy. They're experimenting to see how it affects their short and long term profits. Why do i believe they're not helping the American economy? Because firstly, that is not what they legally holden to (ie, the stock holders). Secondly, and most importantly, Walmart is costing the country a lot by not paying their workers a living wage. So a job at walmart means another person on government social aid program(s).
- bzbarsky 10y ago
  > So a job at walmart means another person on government social aid program(s) As opposed to a person with no job (at Walmart or otherwise) who would then not be on said programs? That is, you are assuming that if Walmart paid more it would still have just as many employees. This assumption is not obviously true, and is likely false.
  - fizzbatter 10y ago
    I'm assuming exactly what i said. A job at walmart means another person on government aid, which is obviously (mostly) true. By (loose) definition, non-living wage employment results in needing assistance - ie government assistance. Whether you agree with it or not is another story. I'm not saying Walmart shouldn't exist because employees are on government assistance. I'm saying that Walmart is profiting off of this assistance.
pmorici 10y ago
They aren't doing it for the economy they are doing it because their sales were sliding as a result of poor customer experience. They realized that their focus on lowest possible labor cost left them in a position where they were getting the least ambitious bottom of the barrel labor. So they hypothesized that by training people in basic retail concepts, like how to stock a shelve to be visually attractive, offering people an above minimum wage and a path to better opportunities within the company that they could have a better trained workforce and better retain those people.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  It's more a way to try to quell incipient union action. They've closed several stores in order to head off strike action already (which is expensive) and it failed.
maxxxxx 10y ago
I am sure others are thinking about how to get the same results without paying more.

fizzbatter 10y ago

I mean, they're not doing it for the American economy. They're experimenting to see how it affects their short and long term profits. Why do i believe they're not helping the American economy? Because firstly, that is not what they legally holden to (ie, the stock holders). Secondly, and most importantly, Walmart is costing the country a lot by not paying their workers a living wage. So a job at walmart means another person on government social aid program(s).

bzbarsky 10y ago
> So a job at walmart means another person on government social aid program(s) As opposed to a person with no job (at Walmart or otherwise) who would then not be on said programs? That is, you are assuming that if Walmart paid more it would still have just as many employees. This assumption is not obviously true, and is likely false.
- fizzbatter 10y ago
  I'm assuming exactly what i said. A job at walmart means another person on government aid, which is obviously (mostly) true. By (loose) definition, non-living wage employment results in needing assistance - ie government assistance. Whether you agree with it or not is another story. I'm not saying Walmart shouldn't exist because employees are on government assistance. I'm saying that Walmart is profiting off of this assistance.

pmorici 10y ago

They aren't doing it for the economy they are doing it because their sales were sliding as a result of poor customer experience. They realized that their focus on lowest possible labor cost left them in a position where they were getting the least ambitious bottom of the barrel labor. So they hypothesized that by training people in basic retail concepts, like how to stock a shelve to be visually attractive, offering people an above minimum wage and a path to better opportunities within the company that they could have a better trained workforce and better retain those people.

crdoconnor 10y ago
It's more a way to try to quell incipient union action. They've closed several stores in order to head off strike action already (which is expensive) and it failed.

maxxxxx 10y ago

I am sure others are thinking about how to get the same results without paying more.