3 ms·

>At the expense of what? Profits. >If you raise wages but don't increase productivity, you're just robbing one sector of society to pay another. Yes, won't s

>At the expense of what? Profits. >If you raise wages but don't increase productivity, you're just robbing one sector of society to pay another. Yes, won't somebody think of the poor Waltons. They've worked so hard for their money.

pdonis 11y ago
> Profits. That's one possibility, yes. But if you think that Walmart, for example, is just going to roll over and accept decreased profits without trying to finagle a way out of it, you might want to think again. See below. > won't somebody think of the poor Waltons Who said they would be taking the hit? In fact, they're much more likely to figure out some way to have either their customers or the other companies in their supply chain take the hit.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >That's one possibility, yes. But if you think that Walmart, for example, is just going to roll over and accept decreased profits without trying to finagle a way out of it Of course they won't. However, they know as well as anybody that their ability to finagle themselves out of it is limited to their ability to lobby and shape public opinion - against minimum wage hikes. >Who said they would be taking the hit? Economic studies on this generally all show that profits get hit first and hardest. Inflation happens in some industries, but only generally industries with wafer thin profit margins. If that phrase accurately described Walmart, the Waltons wouldn't be the richest family in America.
- BrandonMarc 11y ago
  > Who said they would be taking the hit? In fact, they're much more likely to figure out some way to have either their customers or the other companies in their supply chain take the hit. Likely, both: * customers - pass the cost on via higher prices * suppliers - either force them to use overseas suppliers, or skip them and user overseas suppliers (where, conveniently, minimum wage, OSHA, ObamaCare(tm), etc etc etc simply don't apply)

pdonis 11y ago

> Profits. That's one possibility, yes. But if you think that Walmart, for example, is just going to roll over and accept decreased profits without trying to finagle a way out of it, you might want to think again. See below. > won't somebody think of the poor Waltons Who said they would be taking the hit? In fact, they're much more likely to figure out some way to have either their customers or the other companies in their supply chain take the hit.

crdoconnor 11y ago
>That's one possibility, yes. But if you think that Walmart, for example, is just going to roll over and accept decreased profits without trying to finagle a way out of it Of course they won't. However, they know as well as anybody that their ability to finagle themselves out of it is limited to their ability to lobby and shape public opinion - against minimum wage hikes. >Who said they would be taking the hit? Economic studies on this generally all show that profits get hit first and hardest. Inflation happens in some industries, but only generally industries with wafer thin profit margins. If that phrase accurately described Walmart, the Waltons wouldn't be the richest family in America.
BrandonMarc 11y ago
> Who said they would be taking the hit? In fact, they're much more likely to figure out some way to have either their customers or the other companies in their supply chain take the hit. Likely, both: * customers - pass the cost on via higher prices * suppliers - either force them to use overseas suppliers, or skip them and user overseas suppliers (where, conveniently, minimum wage, OSHA, ObamaCare(tm), etc etc etc simply don't apply)