6 ms·

Most of our local friends work at Walmart, because there's honestly not much other choice for them. Our economy is so broken that the only people who win are p

Most of our local friends work at Walmart, because there's honestly not much other choice for them. Our economy is so broken that the only people who win are people who know how to abuse the system, and who have designed the system to be easier to abuse and harder to survive by honest hard work. I read once that Walmart uses their resources to take advantage of current (broken) laws to allow them to keep paying pennies for hard work, and forcing the government to pay the rest of a living wage. (Most of our friends are also receiving at least one or two forms of public aid.) I wouldn't be surprised if they also use their resources to "influence" laws to ensure that it stays this way.

Houshalter 9y ago
That's surprising. In the past walmart has supported increases in the minimum wage because they know it hurts their competitors more than it hurts them. They shove the cost of higher wages off to higher prices for consumers and keep the same profit. In any case within a few years these jobs will likely be automated, and walmart will stop hurting all those poor employees.
- mtberatwork 9y ago
  Walmart has acquiesced to increases in minimum wages only under protest from their workers and even then, the increases were pitiful. [1] [1] http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/03/walmart-can-afford-15-minimum-wage-commentary.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/03/walmart-can-afford-15-minimum...
  - Houshalter 9y ago
    Walmart raising it's own wages voluntarily is different than supporting a law that forces all companies to raise wages.
    - mtberatwork 9y ago
      Walmart raising its own wages under protest is different than Walmart raising them voluntarily.
dominotw 9y ago
>forcing the government to pay the rest of a living wage. What difference does it make where the money is coming from? If we force Walmart to pay more, low-income ppl who shop will have to pay higher prices as opposed to now where all the taxpayers are footing the bill.
- penpapersw 9y ago
  For one thing, sometimes you can't get it when you need it. In our area, there's an 8 year waiting list on housing assistance.
- timthelion 9y ago
  utter nonsense. Walmart makes 131 BILLION dollars a year in pure profit [1]. Obviuosly, forcing walmart to pay their employees more could lead to them making less profit and the poor being better off. EDIT: Basically there is no correlation between walmart's costs and how much the consumer pays. [1] http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_(WMT)/Data/Gross_Profit http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_(WMT)/Data/Gross_Pro...
  - xienze 9y ago
    The page you linked doesn't tell the whole story: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/wmt/financials http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/wmt/financials The ~100+ billion number is revenue - cost of goods. Actual profit after _all_ expenses is around ~13 billion or so. Big number? Yes, but only around 3-4% profit margin. And it's been declining. Walmart has 2.3 million employees. $13 billion doesn't make for huge pay increases when you've got that many people to cover.
  - dominotw 9y ago
    >forcing walmart to pay their employees more could lead to them making less profit and the poor being better off. What's stopping them from passing on costs to consumers, given they have eliminated all competition in large parts of the country.
    - 9y ago
wutbrodo 9y ago
> I read once that Walmart uses their resources to take advantage of current (broken) laws to allow them to keep paying pennies for hard work, and forcing the government to pay the rest of a living wage. I have never understood this complaint. I'm 100% onboard with the idea that, in a society as affluent as ours, no one should be going hungry, unhoused, etc. But how is that not our collective responsibility, as opposed to the responsibility of an entity who happens to be buying their labor? The idea that Walmart is "forcing" the government to take care of poorer citizens is frankly idiotic: if you accept that there is a responsibility to take care of the poor (as I do), that responsibility is on all of us, and the government is the canonical expression of our collective will and action. Trying to shirk this responsibility by desperately shoe-horning it into the labor market is just a messy hack (the same is true of the idea that employers should be the de facto providers of health insurance, as opposed to the gov't). I can't help but think that people who think that this is somehow the ethical approach have a status-quo bias as a poor substitute for actual moral reasoning.
- s73ver 9y ago
  Because that is Walmart shoving their costs onto the rest of us. I'm glad that the social safety net exists, but a company that requires the rest of us to pick up their slack quite frankly should not exist. If they are not capable of paying their employees a living wage, then they are not a viable business. I honestly cannot see how anyone can consider subsidizing a massively profitable multi billion dollar business is an "ethical approach".
- grasshopperpurp 9y ago
  You don't understand why someone would complain that a mega-rich corporation is increasing its own wealth by refusing to pay a living wage, which then requires everyone else - not profiting on this person's labor - to make up the difference? I don't know how you get, 'Everyone else is turning their backs on the poor and forcing Walmart to take care of them' from 'Walmart should pay their employees a living wage.' The only other alternative would be to drastically increase social services and tax people - like the Waltons - a LOT more.
  - 9y ago

Houshalter 9y ago

That's surprising. In the past walmart has supported increases in the minimum wage because they know it hurts their competitors more than it hurts them. They shove the cost of higher wages off to higher prices for consumers and keep the same profit. In any case within a few years these jobs will likely be automated, and walmart will stop hurting all those poor employees.

mtberatwork 9y ago
Walmart has acquiesced to increases in minimum wages only under protest from their workers and even then, the increases were pitiful. [1] [1] http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/03/walmart-can-afford-15-minimum-wage-commentary.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/03/walmart-can-afford-15-minimum...
- Houshalter 9y ago
  Walmart raising it's own wages voluntarily is different than supporting a law that forces all companies to raise wages.
  - mtberatwork 9y ago
    Walmart raising its own wages under protest is different than Walmart raising them voluntarily.

dominotw 9y ago

>forcing the government to pay the rest of a living wage. What difference does it make where the money is coming from? If we force Walmart to pay more, low-income ppl who shop will have to pay higher prices as opposed to now where all the taxpayers are footing the bill.

penpapersw 9y ago
For one thing, sometimes you can't get it when you need it. In our area, there's an 8 year waiting list on housing assistance.
timthelion 9y ago
utter nonsense. Walmart makes 131 BILLION dollars a year in pure profit [1]. Obviuosly, forcing walmart to pay their employees more could lead to them making less profit and the poor being better off. EDIT: Basically there is no correlation between walmart's costs and how much the consumer pays. [1] http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_(WMT)/Data/Gross_Profit http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_(WMT)/Data/Gross_Pro...
- xienze 9y ago
  The page you linked doesn't tell the whole story: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/wmt/financials http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/wmt/financials The ~100+ billion number is revenue - cost of goods. Actual profit after _all_ expenses is around ~13 billion or so. Big number? Yes, but only around 3-4% profit margin. And it's been declining. Walmart has 2.3 million employees. $13 billion doesn't make for huge pay increases when you've got that many people to cover.
- dominotw 9y ago
  >forcing walmart to pay their employees more could lead to them making less profit and the poor being better off. What's stopping them from passing on costs to consumers, given they have eliminated all competition in large parts of the country.
  - 9y ago

wutbrodo 9y ago

> I read once that Walmart uses their resources to take advantage of current (broken) laws to allow them to keep paying pennies for hard work, and forcing the government to pay the rest of a living wage. I have never understood this complaint. I'm 100% onboard with the idea that, in a society as affluent as ours, no one should be going hungry, unhoused, etc. But how is that not our collective responsibility, as opposed to the responsibility of an entity who happens to be buying their labor? The idea that Walmart is "forcing" the government to take care of poorer citizens is frankly idiotic: if you accept that there is a responsibility to take care of the poor (as I do), that responsibility is on all of us, and the government is the canonical expression of our collective will and action. Trying to shirk this responsibility by desperately shoe-horning it into the labor market is just a messy hack (the same is true of the idea that employers should be the de facto providers of health insurance, as opposed to the gov't). I can't help but think that people who think that this is somehow the ethical approach have a status-quo bias as a poor substitute for actual moral reasoning.

s73ver 9y ago
Because that is Walmart shoving their costs onto the rest of us. I'm glad that the social safety net exists, but a company that requires the rest of us to pick up their slack quite frankly should not exist. If they are not capable of paying their employees a living wage, then they are not a viable business. I honestly cannot see how anyone can consider subsidizing a massively profitable multi billion dollar business is an "ethical approach".
grasshopperpurp 9y ago
You don't understand why someone would complain that a mega-rich corporation is increasing its own wealth by refusing to pay a living wage, which then requires everyone else - not profiting on this person's labor - to make up the difference? I don't know how you get, 'Everyone else is turning their backs on the poor and forcing Walmart to take care of them' from 'Walmart should pay their employees a living wage.' The only other alternative would be to drastically increase social services and tax people - like the Waltons - a LOT more.
- 9y ago