5 ms·

I never bought this argument that somehow Walmart is abusing the system. Abusing the system implies that only if Walmart stops doing the abuse, somehow abuse w

I never bought this argument that somehow Walmart is abusing the system. Abusing the system implies that only if Walmart stops doing the abuse, somehow abuse will stop, but this clearly is not the case. Contrary to what writers of this article believe, prices are not formed in isolation of buyer and seller, in this case labor is being sold, and if Walmart does not lower the salaries and transfer the savings to the customers then some other company is going to beat the to it and manage to provide the cheapest good for the same quality. Most people believe that when a company does something X, to achieve a reduction in costs, then it simply uses it to increase it's own profit margin, but they don't understand that instead of increasing their current profit margin, they can increase their future profit margin by selling their products for less by passing that lower cost to the customer. Calling it a 'Walmart' tax is a spin on things which is aimed to invoke emotional imagery, it's like if NJ lawmakers called a tax as 'Tesla tax' because by bypassing the dealers they are putting more people out of job and on welfare, therefore the tax which will be used increase the benefits is 'Tesla Tax'. There is a wide welfare structure in America, and the market will reflect that. If you give certain group of people free healthcare, then their employers will stop providing them with healthcare, if they give 3% 401K contribution to all working employees then yes, their employer's contribution will go down by 3%.

the_gastropod 9y ago
> if Walmart does not lower the salaries and transfer the savings to the customers then some other company is going to beat the to it and manage to provide the cheapest good for the same quality This excuse can be used to justify virtually any deplorable behavior by a corporation. "If _we_ don't cut prices by dumping waste directly into the river, another company will!" Costco competes head-to-head with Walmart on prices, and doesn't treat their employees like cattle.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Paying people less or hiring people getting government benefits is nothing like dumping poison into a water supply.
  - hedora 9y ago
    It is similar to slowly poisoning the water supply when you destroy dozens to hundreds of local mom and pop stores with each supercenter (which leads to decreased life expectancy in the community, due to drug/alcohol abuse, suicide, etc). Anyway, that well-documented boat sailed in the '90s, and now we have Amazon (and I think Amazon deliveries are a net good thing). What really bugs me is that I have to subsidize low wages at walmart. If the US would just switch to guaranteed income or raise the minimum wage, walmart prices would go up something like 1%, but their employees would make at least 33% more. Then my taxes could be used for something useful, like education.
    - jrs95 9y ago
      Those expenses would also be passed on to working class people who are not making much more than the minimum wage, though. Paying for it with taxation is probably better in that regard. Although that could be offset in other ways. Adjustments to EITC and universal child care could make a huge difference for low income people, without having to have a full guaranteed income.
    - specialist 9y ago
      Walmart's business model is to enrich themselves by stealing from suppliers, taxpayers, employees. Their retail operation is how they launder the money. The Freedom Market™ zealots willfully ignore that Walmart destroys competition, with other people's money. I do not mind mega corporations being anticompetitive. Sociopath is as sociopath does. I do mind pretending that its a moral good. I do mind that I (Jane Taxpayer) is paying the bill.
      - dang 9y ago
        Please don't post ideological rants here, regardless of their flavor.
- mholmes680 9y ago
  I agree with the parent comment here, the system allows this so I can't fault Walmart on it. What I can fault is them lobbying against/killing labor unions [0]. Labor Unions would fix this problem in a capitalist way. It is interesting to see the numbers in this article ~$6B in subsidies, and then compare that to dividends/buybacks: oh, look $6B-$7B [1] not even including buybacks. That is a direct redistribution of wealth [edit] from bottom to the top. [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-walmart-union-surveillance/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-walmart-union-survei... [1] http://www.vuru.co/analysis/WMT/dividendsBuybacks http://www.vuru.co/analysis/WMT/dividendsBuybacks
  - jrs95 9y ago
    I was actually glad they did this. Union rules at their competitors are terrible for people working two jobs. Although mandatory overtime pay laws are also a huge pain to someone with a legitimate need to work more than 40 hours a week.
  - splintercell 9y ago
    > What I can fault is them lobbying against/killing labor unions [0]. Labor Unions would fix this problem in a capitalist way. But that's not true at all. Unions do not actually benefit all workers equally, they benefit senior workers more at the expense of the more junior workers. And because of Union wage requirements, many times the junior workers are pushed to supplement their income by working in other industries, by suppressing wages in other industries. Unions have a lot of problems associated with them, you should talk to someone who is young and part of a union and see all the issues they have. I once had a conversation with an actor who was claiming the huge benefits of actors union and how because of that she is able to afford to have healthcare. The problem with this conversation was that this was happening while she was talking my order at a restaurant where she worked to supplement her income. I mean that defeats the whole point of union, wouldn't it be better if she was able to work more number of hours on screen at a lower wage and increase her skill set rather than working as a waitress on the side? Nearly all the union attempts to increase wages result in companies either dropping the number of employees they have or drop the number of hours they employ them for. Sadly only the younger or junior workers pay this cost. If you are an older union workers, then there are nothing but benefits for you.
- lotsofpulp 9y ago
  I don't think Costco competes head to head with Wal Mart at all. Costco has the membership fee, and they only sell in bulk, which are usually better quality and higher cost than Walmart items. If you can barely afford Wal Mart, you definitely can't afford Costco and aren't even comparing the two. Costco also doesn't put its stores in low income areas, automatically selecting for higher income customers.
  - specialist 9y ago
    Exactly. Walmart competes with Costco. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam%27s_Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam%27s_Club
    - djrogers 9y ago
      There's nothing in the article about Sam's Club employees or conditions - it specifically calls out Walmart stores.
- jrs95 9y ago
  I think it's more about ensuring that the system is structured in such a way that these things are minimized. If you don't want waste dumped in the river, ban it or tax it rather than subsidizing it. The Costco comparison is a bit apples to oranges, too. They have a substantially different customer base. There are a lot of people who can't afford that $110 membership. Lower income Americans are the ones who benefit the most from WalMart's services. Aldi is more competitive in this area, but they do it by significantly different means, and they're still focused on maintaining a very low labor cost, they just do it differently than WalMart does. And as someone who worked at WalMart for awhile, their lack of a union (Meijer and Kroger both required I have full weekend availability as a result of their union contract -- and I needed weekends free for my job at McDonald's) and the relative ease of being able to get a job there was a huge part in my own escape from poverty.
  - cowardlydragon 9y ago
    Costco sells boxes of consumer stuff in a huge warehouse at discount prices. That is comparing macintosh to golden delicious.
  - the_gastropod 9y ago
    I totally agree. I don't think wanting to improve the system and being critical of corporations exploiting the current system are mutually exclusive. You can have both.
- jasode 9y ago
  >Costco competes head-to-head with Walmart on prices, This isn't really true. Costco carries less than 4000 SKUs in its warehouses. Walmart carries 40000 SKUs. That's an order-of-magnitude difference. Costco competes more with (Walmart's) Sams Club warehouse but based on my shopping, their product selections don't overlap. (E.g. Costco has high-end wine that Walmart/SC doesn't carry.) To make Costco vs Walmart an apples-to-apples comparison, Costco would have to eliminate the $60 to $110 annual membership fees, allow any non-member to shop there, and add 45000 additional SKUs. I don't know anyone who shops at both Walmart and Costco on a regular weekly basis. Their business structures attract very different shopper demographics.
  - ftlio 9y ago
    The income of your average Costco shopper is massive compared to your average Walmart shopper as well. They can't eliminate the annual fee either because it's literally less than their annual profit (well maybe not in this market but it was a few years ago). Their demographic is people with the financial 'ability' to think $100 ahead for a year, to whom they deliver goods at basically cost. Walmart vs Costco is a complete myth. Costco operates where Walmart does very poorly.
- splintercell 9y ago
  > This excuse can be used to justify virtually any deplorable behavior by a corporation. It's not a justification, no more than if you ask me to shoo away the flies from food and I said "but what's the point, some other fly is going to sit on it", I am not justifying it, I am merely pointing out the futility of your solution. The real solution would involve not having to constantly shoo away the flies.
forgotpwtomain 9y ago
This is a spurious analysis, Walmart is large enough and invested in keeping the system the way it is (low un-liveable minimum-wage) to support its business. As a huge corporation it has considerable effect in that regard.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > low un-liveable minimum-wage Why does a grocery bagger need to have a livable wage? Seems like a great first job for someone in high school or a nice part-time job to help generate a little extra income.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    Are you suggesting those are the only people in those types of jobs?
  - gech 9y ago
    Go to a store and see the people actually working in reality.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - bradleyankrom 9y ago
    Because oftentimes it is the wage by which they are forced to live?
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      So the proposal is to give employers a choice: - hire no grocery baggers - only hire grocery baggers if they're willing to pay $20 an hour or more ...it doesn't necessarily follow that someone will end up with a living wage from this kind of regulation. There is also the unintended consequence that (no longer employable) young people are less qualified for future work because they've never learned how to work hard, manage their bosses, etc.
  - 9y ago
gech 9y ago
I don't buy your spin either.
specialist 9y ago
What measure of proof do you require?
abandonliberty 9y ago
You are entirely correct in our competitive capitalist environment. Maximizing for short-term company gain outperforms those who would maximize for long-term social gain. Companies must abuse every law, regardless of original intent, or risk irrelevance and failing to maximize shareholder value. The problem is that what's good for the company often isn't what's good for society. It's a function of the basic rules of our society. If we keep the capitalist model, then the problem is that risk/benefit ratios reward bad behavior. It's extremely hard to legislate soundly to prevent this.

the_gastropod 9y ago

> if Walmart does not lower the salaries and transfer the savings to the customers then some other company is going to beat the to it and manage to provide the cheapest good for the same quality This excuse can be used to justify virtually any deplorable behavior by a corporation. "If _we_ don't cut prices by dumping waste directly into the river, another company will!" Costco competes head-to-head with Walmart on prices, and doesn't treat their employees like cattle.

humanrebar 9y ago
Paying people less or hiring people getting government benefits is nothing like dumping poison into a water supply.
- hedora 9y ago
  It is similar to slowly poisoning the water supply when you destroy dozens to hundreds of local mom and pop stores with each supercenter (which leads to decreased life expectancy in the community, due to drug/alcohol abuse, suicide, etc). Anyway, that well-documented boat sailed in the '90s, and now we have Amazon (and I think Amazon deliveries are a net good thing). What really bugs me is that I have to subsidize low wages at walmart. If the US would just switch to guaranteed income or raise the minimum wage, walmart prices would go up something like 1%, but their employees would make at least 33% more. Then my taxes could be used for something useful, like education.
  - jrs95 9y ago
    Those expenses would also be passed on to working class people who are not making much more than the minimum wage, though. Paying for it with taxation is probably better in that regard. Although that could be offset in other ways. Adjustments to EITC and universal child care could make a huge difference for low income people, without having to have a full guaranteed income.
  - specialist 9y ago
    Walmart's business model is to enrich themselves by stealing from suppliers, taxpayers, employees. Their retail operation is how they launder the money. The Freedom Market™ zealots willfully ignore that Walmart destroys competition, with other people's money. I do not mind mega corporations being anticompetitive. Sociopath is as sociopath does. I do mind pretending that its a moral good. I do mind that I (Jane Taxpayer) is paying the bill.
    - dang 9y ago
      Please don't post ideological rants here, regardless of their flavor.
mholmes680 9y ago
I agree with the parent comment here, the system allows this so I can't fault Walmart on it. What I can fault is them lobbying against/killing labor unions [0]. Labor Unions would fix this problem in a capitalist way. It is interesting to see the numbers in this article ~$6B in subsidies, and then compare that to dividends/buybacks: oh, look $6B-$7B [1] not even including buybacks. That is a direct redistribution of wealth [edit] from bottom to the top. [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-walmart-union-surveillance/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-walmart-union-survei... [1] http://www.vuru.co/analysis/WMT/dividendsBuybacks http://www.vuru.co/analysis/WMT/dividendsBuybacks
- jrs95 9y ago
  I was actually glad they did this. Union rules at their competitors are terrible for people working two jobs. Although mandatory overtime pay laws are also a huge pain to someone with a legitimate need to work more than 40 hours a week.
- splintercell 9y ago
  > What I can fault is them lobbying against/killing labor unions [0]. Labor Unions would fix this problem in a capitalist way. But that's not true at all. Unions do not actually benefit all workers equally, they benefit senior workers more at the expense of the more junior workers. And because of Union wage requirements, many times the junior workers are pushed to supplement their income by working in other industries, by suppressing wages in other industries. Unions have a lot of problems associated with them, you should talk to someone who is young and part of a union and see all the issues they have. I once had a conversation with an actor who was claiming the huge benefits of actors union and how because of that she is able to afford to have healthcare. The problem with this conversation was that this was happening while she was talking my order at a restaurant where she worked to supplement her income. I mean that defeats the whole point of union, wouldn't it be better if she was able to work more number of hours on screen at a lower wage and increase her skill set rather than working as a waitress on the side? Nearly all the union attempts to increase wages result in companies either dropping the number of employees they have or drop the number of hours they employ them for. Sadly only the younger or junior workers pay this cost. If you are an older union workers, then there are nothing but benefits for you.
lotsofpulp 9y ago
I don't think Costco competes head to head with Wal Mart at all. Costco has the membership fee, and they only sell in bulk, which are usually better quality and higher cost than Walmart items. If you can barely afford Wal Mart, you definitely can't afford Costco and aren't even comparing the two. Costco also doesn't put its stores in low income areas, automatically selecting for higher income customers.
- specialist 9y ago
  Exactly. Walmart competes with Costco. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam%27s_Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam%27s_Club
  - djrogers 9y ago
    There's nothing in the article about Sam's Club employees or conditions - it specifically calls out Walmart stores.
jrs95 9y ago
I think it's more about ensuring that the system is structured in such a way that these things are minimized. If you don't want waste dumped in the river, ban it or tax it rather than subsidizing it. The Costco comparison is a bit apples to oranges, too. They have a substantially different customer base. There are a lot of people who can't afford that $110 membership. Lower income Americans are the ones who benefit the most from WalMart's services. Aldi is more competitive in this area, but they do it by significantly different means, and they're still focused on maintaining a very low labor cost, they just do it differently than WalMart does. And as someone who worked at WalMart for awhile, their lack of a union (Meijer and Kroger both required I have full weekend availability as a result of their union contract -- and I needed weekends free for my job at McDonald's) and the relative ease of being able to get a job there was a huge part in my own escape from poverty.
- cowardlydragon 9y ago
  Costco sells boxes of consumer stuff in a huge warehouse at discount prices. That is comparing macintosh to golden delicious.
- the_gastropod 9y ago
  I totally agree. I don't think wanting to improve the system and being critical of corporations exploiting the current system are mutually exclusive. You can have both.
jasode 9y ago
>Costco competes head-to-head with Walmart on prices, This isn't really true. Costco carries less than 4000 SKUs in its warehouses. Walmart carries 40000 SKUs. That's an order-of-magnitude difference. Costco competes more with (Walmart's) Sams Club warehouse but based on my shopping, their product selections don't overlap. (E.g. Costco has high-end wine that Walmart/SC doesn't carry.) To make Costco vs Walmart an apples-to-apples comparison, Costco would have to eliminate the $60 to $110 annual membership fees, allow any non-member to shop there, and add 45000 additional SKUs. I don't know anyone who shops at both Walmart and Costco on a regular weekly basis. Their business structures attract very different shopper demographics.
- ftlio 9y ago
  The income of your average Costco shopper is massive compared to your average Walmart shopper as well. They can't eliminate the annual fee either because it's literally less than their annual profit (well maybe not in this market but it was a few years ago). Their demographic is people with the financial 'ability' to think $100 ahead for a year, to whom they deliver goods at basically cost. Walmart vs Costco is a complete myth. Costco operates where Walmart does very poorly.
splintercell 9y ago
> This excuse can be used to justify virtually any deplorable behavior by a corporation. It's not a justification, no more than if you ask me to shoo away the flies from food and I said "but what's the point, some other fly is going to sit on it", I am not justifying it, I am merely pointing out the futility of your solution. The real solution would involve not having to constantly shoo away the flies.

forgotpwtomain 9y ago

This is a spurious analysis, Walmart is large enough and invested in keeping the system the way it is (low un-liveable minimum-wage) to support its business. As a huge corporation it has considerable effect in that regard.

humanrebar 9y ago
> low un-liveable minimum-wage Why does a grocery bagger need to have a livable wage? Seems like a great first job for someone in high school or a nice part-time job to help generate a little extra income.
- vidarh 9y ago
  Are you suggesting those are the only people in those types of jobs?
- gech 9y ago
  Go to a store and see the people actually working in reality.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- bradleyankrom 9y ago
  Because oftentimes it is the wage by which they are forced to live?
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    So the proposal is to give employers a choice: - hire no grocery baggers - only hire grocery baggers if they're willing to pay $20 an hour or more ...it doesn't necessarily follow that someone will end up with a living wage from this kind of regulation. There is also the unintended consequence that (no longer employable) young people are less qualified for future work because they've never learned how to work hard, manage their bosses, etc.
- 9y ago

gech 9y ago

I don't buy your spin either.

specialist 9y ago

What measure of proof do you require?

abandonliberty 9y ago

You are entirely correct in our competitive capitalist environment. Maximizing for short-term company gain outperforms those who would maximize for long-term social gain. Companies must abuse every law, regardless of original intent, or risk irrelevance and failing to maximize shareholder value. The problem is that what's good for the company often isn't what's good for society. It's a function of the basic rules of our society. If we keep the capitalist model, then the problem is that risk/benefit ratios reward bad behavior. It's extremely hard to legislate soundly to prevent this.