|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 24 2014 04:47 Wolfstan wrote:
I think it makes good business sense to pay employees the lowest wages possible. Then take the best out of your frontline and move them up the corporate ladder. Strive to build a business where the system is set up that employees are interchangeable cogs in a wheel. Any raises should be tied to that employee bringing a greater amount of profits in first. Pointless raises are just overpaying.
Well doing that will just give you unhappy employees and a high turnover rate. Also, workers performing low skill jobs may be interchangeable, but this is not necessarily true for higher skilled and specialized workers. Not all employees will bring in a profit, accountants being one example, but if your accounting team screws up you could have problems. Having the lowest wages possible only makes sense in scenarios where you have a lot of low skill workers who make up a significant proportion of the company's costs. In WalMart's case that is true, but there is a problem with their practice of paying the absolute minimum that was recognized 100 years ago:
The quote I was using was from Henry Ford- in his time most people thought he was crazy for paying his workers more than he had to. Why unnecessarily drive up costs? The reason he did so was because he recognized that if he wanted to make a competitive car for the masses, those masses needed to have enough capital to purchase the product. If all the profit goes to the owners and executives, there will eventually not be enough demand to support mass production, leaving products sitting unpurchased. When you consider that WalMart is simply acting as a profit skimming middle man that cuts wages whenever possible, and then consider the sheer size of the company, it paints a scary picture for the overall trajectory of the economy. we can also look back to Ford's time for an example of this exact scenario playing out; the great depression, when the distribution of income was even more out of whack than it is today. Why rebuplicans are intent on going back to that time is a mystery to me.
|
On April 24 2014 08:41 TheFish7 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 04:47 Wolfstan wrote:
I think it makes good business sense to pay employees the lowest wages possible. Then take the best out of your frontline and move them up the corporate ladder. Strive to build a business where the system is set up that employees are interchangeable cogs in a wheel. Any raises should be tied to that employee bringing a greater amount of profits in first. Pointless raises are just overpaying. Well doing that will just give you unhappy employees and a high turnover rate. Also, workers performing low skill jobs may be interchangeable, but this is not necessarily true for higher skilled and specialized workers. Not all employees will bring in a profit, accountants being one example, but if your accounting team screws up you could have problems. Having the lowest wages possible only makes sense in scenarios where you have a lot of low skill workers who make up a significant proportion of the company's costs. In WalMart's case that is true, but there is a problem with their practice of paying the absolute minimum that was recognized 100 years ago: The quote I was using was from Henry Ford- in his time most people thought he was crazy for paying his workers more than he had to. Why unnecessarily drive up costs? The reason he did so was because he recognized that if he wanted to make a competitive car for the masses, those masses needed to have enough capital to purchase the product. If all the profit goes to the owners and executives, there will eventually not be enough demand to support mass production, leaving products sitting unpurchased. When you consider that WalMart is simply acting as a profit skimming middle man that cuts wages whenever possible, and then consider the sheer size of the company, it paints a scary picture for the overall trajectory of the economy. we can also look back to Ford's time for an example of this exact scenario playing out; the great depression, when the distribution of income was even more out of whack than it is today. Why rebuplicans are intent on going back to that time is a mystery to me.
Walmart passes efficiency to the customer. That means lower prices, and through that, higher real incomes. If you consider retailers to be profit skimming middle men, Walmart's doing exactly what you should want - pushing profit margins low.
|
On April 24 2014 07:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 07:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2014 06:33 Danglars wrote:On April 24 2014 06:00 GreenHorizons wrote:A series of IRS documents, provided to ThinkProgress under the Freedom of Information Act, appears to contradict the claims by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that only Tea Party organizations applying for tax-exempt status “received systematic scrutiny because of their political beliefs.” The 22 “Be On the Look Out” keywords lists, distributed to staff reviewing applications between August 12, 2010 and April 19, 2013, included more explicit references to progressive groups, ACORN successors, and medical marijuana organizations than to Tea Party entities. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JQBePOr.jpg) Other types of groups received explicit scrutiny for longer than “progressive” or “Tea Party” organizations. These included applicants involved with “medical marijuana” but not “exclusively education” (19 appearances in the “watch list” section of the lists), which were to be forwarded to a “group 7888″ and groups believed to be possible successor-groups to ACORN, the now-shuttered Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (12 appearances on the “watch list” section). Those applications were also to be elevated to managers for further review. All 22 documents also flagged applicants with Puerto Rico addresses and certain types of “Testamentary Trusts.” In Issa’s committee’s recent report, “Debunking the Myth that the IRS Targeted Progressives,” the Republican majority staffers wrote that while the Be On the Lookout lists’ language was “changed to broader ‘political advocacy organizations,’ the IRS still intended to identify and single out Tea Party applications for scrutiny.” The report goes to great lengths to distinguish the different types of scrutiny provided to each of these types of flagged group. But the actual IRS records indicate that at least some additional scrutiny was required for groups of all types that had names that sounded political — and that the explicit heightened scrutiny for left-leaning groups was even longer-standing than for Tea Party groups ThinkProgress still trying to wish away the scandal. The delays spanning years were conservative groups, the quick approvals were progressives. It's a bad faith effort, but what would you expect from TP regardless. Food for progressives that won't read the report to continue the whitewashing. Most humorous part was "goes to great lengths to distinguish the different types of scrutiny provided." As if Be on the Lookout-TAG Historical (In Testimony, issues that haven't come up for a while aka progressives) and BOLO-TAG Emerging Issues (tea party) are even close. 298 cases selected for political review. 3 had "progressive". 0 had "occupy". IRS independent inspector general testimony. 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words 'progress' or 'progressive' in their names were process as potential political cases. In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the timeframe of our audit.
Russel George, the IRS independent IG The report is damning. The congressional testimony alone is damning, staffers aside. At least one of the higher ups, likely Lois Lerner, had her department silence conservative 501c4 groups in advance of the 2012 election, affecting voter turnout. The left knows this is a case of abuse of power, and thus employ so much effort burying the story and raising as many flimsy arguments as possible to cast doubt. One last time for anyone reading that has a good faith desire to learn both sides of the story: The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's report Debunking the Myth that the IRS Targeted Progressives had her department silence conservative 501c4 groups in advance of the 2012 election Even if all of what you are saying was true and accurate (which I don't believe it is, but that conversation is going nowhere), no one was really ' silenced'. I'm not the one saying it. It's included in testimony from the independent inspector general, IRS employees, IRS auditors, men and women throughout the organization. Allowing one group to organize and receive donations they don't have to pay a tax on and denying that to another ... how is that not silencing? Freedom of assembly granted to one solely based on the group ideology they chose, and denied to another. Show nested quote +Those organizations could of said whatever they wanted to say whenever they wanted to say it, they just wouldn't be able to do it tax-free...?
So was there probably some lazy and potentially illegal things happening like using keywords to identify the rush of potentially illegitimate 501c4's... maybe? That's not what the investigation and the testimony points to. I do however like how you use "lazy and potentially illegal things." No scandal here, just some lazy and potentially illegal things. I don't even see you getting somewhere with all this quibbling on language. Show nested quote +But acting like the government actually prevented anyone from expressing their view is pretty disingenuous.
It wouldn't have even been an issue if we didn't create ridiculous groups like 501c4's to start with. Or if blatantly political organizations weren't trying to get the status when they are clearly stretching the interpretation of the statute to it's limits.
If they just formed as Super/PAC's they would have been fine. Criticize the current setup of 501(c)(4)'s if you want. Congress writes the laws and they can be changed. However, don't imply that allowing one side of the ideological spectrum to raise money, conceal donor lists, and engage in turn out the vote operations and denying that to the other side is anything short of silencing the opposition. If the laws are to have any force, they must be applied fairly to everyone. Greenhorizons, is equality before the law at all important to you? Show nested quote +They insist their intention was social welfare but then people like Danglars complain that it negatively impacted Republican/'Conservative' turnout...
Not really surprised when Danglars gets so upset about something like this though when he, as far as I've been able to extract, would prefer unlimited secret donations? Not sure though because he never got back to me on that. Both sides use 501(c)(4)'s, but the federal government under the Obama administration under its approval or without its knowledge made it so one side didn't get approvals. That's abuse of power. That's why this scandal is important for the future of our republic. You adopt a pretty cavalier attitude when the government sics their IRS on you. Maybe lazy, potentially illegal ... are you now in the business of getting behind a podium and announcing, "Mistakes were made?" When they ask illegally for information, you comply ... they have great power at their disposal to punish you for failure to comply. GreenHorizons, what are the content of your prayers? The IRS wants to know. I know I know, no big deal. It's not silencing, not intimidating, not antagonistic to free speech of the political kind. You just want to form a group that your neighbor did. The only problem is, we have disagreements with the way you think about government and not the way he thinks.
Allowing one group to organize and receive donations they don't have to pay a tax on and denying that to another ... how is that not silencing?
Silencing: cause to become silent; prohibit or prevent from speaking.
They didn't do that? What the IRS is being accused of in no way prevented anyone from speaking...You keep conflating the ability to assemble or speak with the ability to do it and maintain a 'tax-exempt' status.
Freedom of assembly granted to one solely based on the group ideology they chose, and denied to another.
Did I miss the IRS kicking in peoples doors or teargassing tea party rallies saying they couldn't meet and discuss their ideas?
No scandal here, just some lazy and potentially illegal things. I don't even see you getting somewhere with all this quibbling on language. There are several reasons I don't view what did or didn't happen as the bombshell sandal right leaning folks do.
Given the worst case scenario you've described (which I obviously disagree with) where 'conservative' 'non-political' 501c4's were systematically scrutinized and detoured from obtaining tax-exempt status and liberal ones were not I see that as more of a reason to get rid of them than go loco over it.
Both sides use 501(c)(4)'s, but the federal government under the Obama administration under its approval or without its knowledge made it so one side didn't get approvals. That's abuse of power. That's why this scandal is important for the future of our republic.
Really? On that tenuous/non-existent and largely unsubstantial connection, you want to plant your flag of 'abuse of power'....? /sigh There are countless examples much worse you can find anywhere on the political spectrum with vastly more significant impacts on the 'future of our republic' than this... I would reserve 'scandal' and 'gates' for seriously significant stuff that isn't easily remedied or so tenuously based.
This here is another example of why your positions seem disingenuous. You make a big stink about this alleged 'impact on voter turnout' but don't see the problem with openly supported Republican endorsed voter suppression? Which is clearly anti-democratic and a much more direct, immediate, and clearly intentional threat to our republic.
Just so it's clear if everything you said was true (I don't believe it is) I would say that, it was bad and shouldn't have happened. The IRS should not be used to unilaterally target political enemies based only on their political affiliations. If any crimes were committed appropriate penalties should apply. I'm sure sometime this decade charges will be filed since so many are convinced there was a crime here beyond a reasonable doubt?
For me the political use of 501c4's the way that orgs were trying to use them regardless of political bend is more disturbing. I would of preferred if they all could of been delayed and the law rewritten to prevent them from existing on either side.
They and anything that happened at the IRS is a symptom of broken political finance law. The IRS 'scandal' serves more as a distraction from the real issue than any significant display of 'abuse of power' or than it represents a threat to the 'future of our republic'.
|
Costco pays it's employees substantially more than Walmart and also pushes profit margins low. Walmart cares about profits, not profit margins.
|
On April 24 2014 09:06 IgnE wrote:
Costco pays it's employees substantially more than Walmart and also pushes profit margins low. Walmart cares about profits, not profit margins.
Caring about profits is a good thing. I have never shopped at Costco nor become a shareholder because I disagree with their business model. I shop at Walmart probably half a dozen times a year and am a shareholder because I like the way they do business. I don't see why a 3rd party IgnE seems to care more about Walmart's profits and how to allocate capital than shareholders, employees, and customers.
Fortunately it is because they have profits that this debate is even happening.
Shareholders want profits to feed further growth and further profit.
Employees want profits to go into higher wages for them.
Customers want profits to go into lower prices.
Walmart's business model does 2 of the 3 really well at the expense of the third.
"We save people money so they can live better." is even Walmart's mission statement.
|
On April 24 2014 09:06 IgnE wrote:
Costco pays it's employees substantially more than Walmart and also pushes profit margins low. Walmart cares about profits, not profit margins.
They have a different business model, and it wouldn't work for Walmart to emulate it.
|
I thought we just went through multiple pages of discussion about how Walmart could pay higher wages if they wanted to? Are you saying that if Costco paid their employees less they wouldn't be as profitable?
|
On April 24 2014 09:23 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 09:06 IgnE wrote:
Costco pays it's employees substantially more than Walmart and also pushes profit margins low. Walmart cares about profits, not profit margins. Caring about profits is a good thing. I have never shopped at Costco nor become a shareholder because I disagree with their business model. I shop at Walmart probably half a dozen times a year and am a shareholder because I like the way they do business. I don't see why a 3rd party IgnE seems to care more about Walmart's profits and how to allocate capital than shareholders, employees, and customers. Fortunately it is because they have profits that this debate is even happening. Shareholders want profits to feed further growth and further profit. Employees want profits to go into higher wages for them. Customers want profits to go into lower prices. Walmart's business model does 2 of the 3 really well at the expense of the third. "We save people money so they can live better." is even Walmart's mission statement.
I guess that means you aren't very good at making money in the stock market?
|
On April 24 2014 09:46 IgnE wrote:
I thought we just went through multiple pages of discussion about how Walmart could pay higher wages if they wanted to? Are you saying that if Costco paid their employees less they wouldn't be as profitable?
No, we never discussed if it would be viable for Walmart to raise wages. We were assuming that Walmart could raise prices with zero loss of sales volume.
No, Costco has a different business model - they're a warehouse club that sells in bulk to wealthier households. They pull in much more revenue and profit per employee. If Walmart wanted to emulate them they'd have to shut the majority of their stores down and completely re-brand themselves, change their operations, sell different merchandise and cater to a different demographic.
Edit: some differences:
+ Show Spoiler +
"Costco's higher revenues are also a function of their demographic. Costco shoppers have an average income of $85,000--not surprising, because Costco tends to locate itself in affluent suburbs. "
source
|
On April 24 2014 09:49 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 09:23 Wolfstan wrote:On April 24 2014 09:06 IgnE wrote:
Costco pays it's employees substantially more than Walmart and also pushes profit margins low. Walmart cares about profits, not profit margins. Caring about profits is a good thing. I have never shopped at Costco nor become a shareholder because I disagree with their business model. I shop at Walmart probably half a dozen times a year and am a shareholder because I like the way they do business. I don't see why a 3rd party IgnE seems to care more about Walmart's profits and how to allocate capital than shareholders, employees, and customers. Fortunately it is because they have profits that this debate is even happening. Shareholders want profits to feed further growth and further profit. Employees want profits to go into higher wages for them. Customers want profits to go into lower prices. Walmart's business model does 2 of the 3 really well at the expense of the third. "We save people money so they can live better." is even Walmart's mission statement. I guess that means you aren't very good at making money in the stock market?
Not really no, typically just stick to mature companies that pay dividends.
|
Norway28674 Posts
On April 24 2014 09:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 09:46 IgnE wrote:
I thought we just went through multiple pages of discussion about how Walmart could pay higher wages if they wanted to? Are you saying that if Costco paid their employees less they wouldn't be as profitable? No, we never discussed if it would be viable for Walmart to raise wages. We were assuming that Walmart could raise prices with zero loss of sales volume. No, Costco has a different business model - they're a warehouse club that sells in bulk to wealthier households. They pull in much more revenue and profit per employee. If Walmart wanted to emulate them they'd have to shut the majority of their stores down and completely re-brand themselves, change their operations, sell different merchandise and cater to a different demographic. Edit: some differences: + Show Spoiler +"Costco's higher revenues are also a function of their demographic. Costco shoppers have an average income of $85,000--not surprising, because Costco tends to locate itself in affluent suburbs. " source
See, when I look at that picture what I think is that each employee could easily and should ideally make (at least) $5k more per year.
Alternatively we could impose huge taxes on the biggest profiteers and return it to the lowest wage earners but I think that is inferior because it creates a political dependency bond and there's something really emancipatory about making your own money and not being "given" it.
|
On April 24 2014 10:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 09:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 24 2014 09:46 IgnE wrote:
I thought we just went through multiple pages of discussion about how Walmart could pay higher wages if they wanted to? Are you saying that if Costco paid their employees less they wouldn't be as profitable? No, we never discussed if it would be viable for Walmart to raise wages. We were assuming that Walmart could raise prices with zero loss of sales volume. No, Costco has a different business model - they're a warehouse club that sells in bulk to wealthier households. They pull in much more revenue and profit per employee. If Walmart wanted to emulate them they'd have to shut the majority of their stores down and completely re-brand themselves, change their operations, sell different merchandise and cater to a different demographic. Edit: some differences: + Show Spoiler +"Costco's higher revenues are also a function of their demographic. Costco shoppers have an average income of $85,000--not surprising, because Costco tends to locate itself in affluent suburbs. " source See, when I look at that picture what I think is that each employee could easily and should ideally make (at least) $5k more per year. Alternatively we could impose huge taxes on the biggest profiteers and return it to the lowest wage earners but I think that is inferior because it creates a political dependency bond and there's something really emancipatory about making your own money and not being "given" it.
How do you figure they could make $5K more per year?
|
Norway28674 Posts
because the profit per employee is $7.4k. So even if each employee made $5k more, they'd still be seeing considerable profits. I mean yeah it'd be $5 billion not $15 but that's still great.
I just don't see how having money should entitle you to greater income than working.
|
On April 24 2014 11:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:
because the profit per employee is $7.4k. So even if each employee made $5k more, they'd still be seeing considerable profits. I mean yeah it'd be $5 billion not $15 but that's still great.
I just don't see how having money should entitle you to greater income than working.
From an investor's perspective their return is in relation to how much money they put into it, not how many employees are working there.
|
Norway28674 Posts
yeah, I just don't agree with the idea that investor interests should trump worker interests. I know that I'm talking idealism and not really a political idea that can quickly be implemented or whatever, I understand that investor money would disappear if profits greatly diminished, I just still think it's fundamentally problematic that money is so much more powerful than labor.
|
On April 24 2014 11:26 Liquid`Drone wrote:
yeah, I just don't agree with the idea that investor interests should trump worker interests. I know that I'm talking idealism and not really a political idea that can quickly be implemented or whatever, I understand that investor money would disappear if profits greatly diminished, I just still think it's fundamentally problematic that money is so much more powerful than labor.
Along with how much of it is inherited and not 'earned' in any way by the person reaping massive income from it, other than winning a birth lottery.
That Berkeley study on the difference between how 'wealthy' people and not 'wealthy' people tend to behave and think is so obvious in so many places it's ridiculous.
I think if people just honestly understood the concepts highlighted there a lot of economic debate would make a lot more sense.
|
Norway28674 Posts
Like say, they implemented a rule saying that worker wages would increase proportionally to company profits or something? Like there could be a fairly low minimum wage which would be of the "barely scraping by" kind (where it currently is) and then there'd be an extra wage determined by company profits, and then you could say that company profits would be split in two, half evenly divided to the workers through this bonus system whereas the rest was returned to investors or retained by the company or how that really works. (I have no background in economics but am eager to learn!  )
So then when walmart employing 2.1 million people and seeing $15billion profits, $7.5 billion from that year would be divided between the 2.1 million, granting them all a $3kish bonus that year. (Less than the $5k I said earlier but I'll backtrack on that - I think split in half is better and more achievable.) If the company had a negative year, then obviously no bonus - and maybe even downsizing. I also think this system would grant workers a feeling of if not ownership then accountability, where their collective efforts would directly correlate with their pay.
And if I understand it correctly (and as would be my goal) it would alleviate the problem of return of investments being greater than the return of labor. But I might be mis-thinking some here.
|
On April 24 2014 11:26 Liquid`Drone wrote:
yeah, I just don't agree with the idea that investor interests should trump worker interests. I know that I'm talking idealism and not really a political idea that can quickly be implemented or whatever, I understand that investor money would disappear if profits greatly diminished, I just still think it's fundamentally problematic that money is so much more powerful than labor.
Workers have legal protections that guarantee they'll get paid for their work and bond holders have legal rights to their repayment. Equity holders only have their own control. So if you offer them a bad return, they can balk, but only if they have a better place to put their money.
|
On April 24 2014 11:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:Like say, they implemented a rule saying that worker wages would increase proportionally to company profits or something? Like there could be a fairly low minimum wage which would be of the "barely scraping by" kind (where it currently is) and then there'd be an extra wage determined by company profits, and then you could say that company profits would be split in two, half evenly divided to the workers through this bonus system whereas the rest was returned to investors or retained by the company or how that really works. (I have no background in economics but am eager to learn! ) So then when walmart employing 2.1 million people and seeing $15billion profits, $7.5 billion from that year would be divided between the 2.1 million, granting them all a $3kish bonus that year. (Less than the $5k I said earlier but I'll backtrack on that - I think split in half is better and more achievable.) If the company had a negative year, then obviously no bonus - and maybe even downsizing. I also think this system would grant workers a feeling of if not ownership then accountability, where their collective efforts would directly correlate with their pay. And if I understand it correctly (and as would be my goal) it would alleviate the problem of return of investments being greater than the return of labor. But I might be mis-thinking some here.
It's not unusual for a company to have a profit sharing plan. I think Walmart does to an extent as well. Typically that doesn't add a whole lot, and it kind of can't because you'd have to take it back in a down year, and employees generally don't want to be exposed to that kind of volatility.
I'm not sure how you'd calculate a rate of return on labor. I imagine it would far exceed a rate of return on capital.
Edit: Good article making the case for more profit sharing / employee bonuses:
In praise of across-the-board bonuses
|
On April 24 2014 11:26 Liquid`Drone wrote:
yeah, I just don't agree with the idea that investor interests should trump worker interests. I know that I'm talking idealism and not really a political idea that can quickly be implemented or whatever, I understand that investor money would disappear if profits greatly diminished, I just still think it's fundamentally problematic that money is so much more powerful than labor.
If you increase the price of labor above its market value it only makes reducing the labor force and moving to automated systems much more probable. Now, if you want to talk about standard of living and how to focus on improving it then we can have a discussion about that, but just singling out Wal-Mart is pretty disingenuous (all you will do with that rule is shunt consumer preference growth. Most profits are re-invested to grow businesses, or as 'rainy-day' funds so to speak). Meanwhile, no peep about half of every transaction - namely our monetary system - which is FAR more important than one business and their practices. No talk about how new workers entire the labor force, either. (Re: Internships, Apprenticeships, Trades-work, College prices and why they are so high, etc.) All of these factors are much more a determination of the direction of the economy and our standard of living than GD Wal-Mart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2012/11/26/why-can-t-walmart-be-more-like-costco/jcr:content/body/inlineimage.img.800.png/1353972586639.cached.png)
