4 ms·

Surely, you'd agree that at some point, that system cannot scale. According to Wikipedia, Wal-Mart has 2.2 million employees, and operates at a profit margin o

by bmelton 13y ago

Surely, you'd agree that at some point, that system cannot scale. According to Wikipedia, Wal-Mart has 2.2 million employees, and operates at a profit margin of 3.23%. I both value and appreciate the sentiment, but at the same time, some sort of balance must be struck between sentiment and pragmatism.

selmnoo 13y ago
Sure, I totally get that. But grand-parent post made it sound like a corporation has zero responsibility to give one shit for anyone it employs. I just think that's terrible, that's a terrible and dispiriting culture that permits and even encourages that kind of callous I'm-just-in-it-for-myself thinking.
- bmelton 13y ago
  Well, in all fairness, a corporation does have exactly zero responsibility to give a shit about its employees. It's certainly nicer when they do care, but they aren't obligated to, nor should anyone expect them to.
  - MaysonL 13y ago
    Bullshit!
    - bmelton 13y ago
      I can't vote that down, but I would if I could. A corporation, by its very nature, is obligated to its shareholders. They are in violation of the law if they do not attempt to maximize profits for their shareholders. In order to shift any of that obligation toward employees, they'd have to get shareholder approval, and/or justify it in a way that made sense as a profit-motive (e.g., our workers will be more productive if they're happier or better paid). The problem isn't that Wal-Mart is paying too little, it's that they're paying the wrong people. Those jobs are perfectly great for high-schoolers and those with little experience, but apparently horrible for others. That isn't Wal-Mart's fault, it's a market problem caused by a poor economy and/or a dearth of existing jobs.
RodericDay 13y ago
I'm pretty sure if you wanna put it in terms of "scalable systems", vast numbers of humans are deadweight. Let people be outraged at Walmart. Stop telling people to calm down and look at it from their perspective. The corporation as a whole doesn't need nor deserve your sympathy.
mhurron 13y ago
With 15 billion dollars in profit, I think Wal-Mart could find some cash to pay it's employees.
- bmelton 13y ago
  Well, in order for them to arbitrarily raise wages, they'd have to be convinced that it was in the best interests of their shareholders. Which means they'd have to figure out how to justify paying somebody more money to do the same amount of work, in a position that is effectively fungible. Failing that, they'd have to figure out a way to get more work done out of each employee for less profit, or convince all of America that they should pay higher prices for commodity goods and still shop at Wal-Mart while doing so.
posabsolute 13y ago
Well, I think we can agree that a company that encourage their employes to use food stamp is not a company that value much their 'associate' & that's clearly not sustainable full time wages. Walmart & target is starting to get more & more in canada & have a very pervert effect on the economy, while it drive down the price a bit & also make all supermarkets cut costs, which mean trying to cut cost on employes, price they pay food & etc. Customers win a bit, but all the rest loose a lot.
- bmelton 13y ago
  > Well, I think we can agree that a company that encourage their employes to use food stamp is not a company that value much their 'associate' & that's clearly not sustainable full time wages. I'm afraid I can't agree with that. Raising the minimum wage either increases costs everywhere or makes jobs less available. In short, I don't pay the guy that mows my lawn enough money to live off of. I don't expect that I ever will. I have no idea whether or not he makes enough to live off of between me and his other clients, but I also don't really see that as my concern. I pay him what I think it's worth for me to not have to mow my own lawn. If it cost substantially more, I'd mow my own lawn. If he were the only game in town, then presumably he could name his own rates -- but only to those unable or unwilling to mow their lawns at any cost. He's not making any more money off of me, at least, not without it being an incremental increase. I don't know why Wal-Mart should be expected to pay their employees a 'living wage' at their own expense. They can either find other jobs or find additional jobs if they are unhappy with the arrangement. My niece works at Wal-Mart and loves it. I can't imagine that she would love working there in her thirties. The level of pay at Wal-Mart probably isn't meant to be paid to bread-winners, and I don't fault them for that. I would have a pretty hard time paying somebody $50k to put groceries in a bag knowing that I could pay somebody else far less for doing so without subjecting them to hardship.

by bmelton 13y ago

selmnoo 13y ago

Sure, I totally get that. But grand-parent post made it sound like a corporation has zero responsibility to give one shit for anyone it employs. I just think that's terrible, that's a terrible and dispiriting culture that permits and even encourages that kind of callous I'm-just-in-it-for-myself thinking.

bmelton 13y ago
Well, in all fairness, a corporation does have exactly zero responsibility to give a shit about its employees. It's certainly nicer when they do care, but they aren't obligated to, nor should anyone expect them to.
- MaysonL 13y ago
  Bullshit!
  - bmelton 13y ago
    I can't vote that down, but I would if I could. A corporation, by its very nature, is obligated to its shareholders. They are in violation of the law if they do not attempt to maximize profits for their shareholders. In order to shift any of that obligation toward employees, they'd have to get shareholder approval, and/or justify it in a way that made sense as a profit-motive (e.g., our workers will be more productive if they're happier or better paid). The problem isn't that Wal-Mart is paying too little, it's that they're paying the wrong people. Those jobs are perfectly great for high-schoolers and those with little experience, but apparently horrible for others. That isn't Wal-Mart's fault, it's a market problem caused by a poor economy and/or a dearth of existing jobs.

RodericDay 13y ago

I'm pretty sure if you wanna put it in terms of "scalable systems", vast numbers of humans are deadweight. Let people be outraged at Walmart. Stop telling people to calm down and look at it from their perspective. The corporation as a whole doesn't need nor deserve your sympathy.

mhurron 13y ago

With 15 billion dollars in profit, I think Wal-Mart could find some cash to pay it's employees.

bmelton 13y ago
Well, in order for them to arbitrarily raise wages, they'd have to be convinced that it was in the best interests of their shareholders. Which means they'd have to figure out how to justify paying somebody more money to do the same amount of work, in a position that is effectively fungible. Failing that, they'd have to figure out a way to get more work done out of each employee for less profit, or convince all of America that they should pay higher prices for commodity goods and still shop at Wal-Mart while doing so.

posabsolute 13y ago

Well, I think we can agree that a company that encourage their employes to use food stamp is not a company that value much their 'associate' & that's clearly not sustainable full time wages. Walmart & target is starting to get more & more in canada & have a very pervert effect on the economy, while it drive down the price a bit & also make all supermarkets cut costs, which mean trying to cut cost on employes, price they pay food & etc. Customers win a bit, but all the rest loose a lot.

bmelton 13y ago
> Well, I think we can agree that a company that encourage their employes to use food stamp is not a company that value much their 'associate' & that's clearly not sustainable full time wages. I'm afraid I can't agree with that. Raising the minimum wage either increases costs everywhere or makes jobs less available. In short, I don't pay the guy that mows my lawn enough money to live off of. I don't expect that I ever will. I have no idea whether or not he makes enough to live off of between me and his other clients, but I also don't really see that as my concern. I pay him what I think it's worth for me to not have to mow my own lawn. If it cost substantially more, I'd mow my own lawn. If he were the only game in town, then presumably he could name his own rates -- but only to those unable or unwilling to mow their lawns at any cost. He's not making any more money off of me, at least, not without it being an incremental increase. I don't know why Wal-Mart should be expected to pay their employees a 'living wage' at their own expense. They can either find other jobs or find additional jobs if they are unhappy with the arrangement. My niece works at Wal-Mart and loves it. I can't imagine that she would love working there in her thirties. The level of pay at Wal-Mart probably isn't meant to be paid to bread-winners, and I don't fault them for that. I would have a pretty hard time paying somebody $50k to put groceries in a bag knowing that I could pay somebody else far less for doing so without subjecting them to hardship.