|
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. |
United States42598 Posts
On July 11 2013 05:12 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 05:00 DoubleReed wrote:The smaller businesses can afford it about as much as Wal-Mart; the company really doesn't turn much of a profit per employee. Wal-Mart is either going to open fewer stores or none at all so no, the cost of living won't go down as much. Uhh... Can you provide evidence that small businesses are just as capable of affording wage increases? Because that's absurd. Edit: Last I heard, large corporations were making more massive profits than ever. They would still hire the same amount because they're trying be as profitable as possible (which they're already doing), so they'd just make less profit. I am afraid I have to side with Jonny on this, Walmart's profit margin is sub 4% last I checked which is very slim so its not like they have a ton of room to increase expenses.
That number doesn't mean anything without context. You can't just go "in the grand scheme of things 4 is a pretty low number so I guess Walmart aren't doing very well if one of their financial numbers is a 4".
|
On July 11 2013 05:12 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 05:00 DoubleReed wrote:The smaller businesses can afford it about as much as Wal-Mart; the company really doesn't turn much of a profit per employee. Wal-Mart is either going to open fewer stores or none at all so no, the cost of living won't go down as much. Uhh... Can you provide evidence that small businesses are just as capable of affording wage increases? Because that's absurd. Edit: Last I heard, large corporations were making more massive profits than ever. They would still hire the same amount because they're trying be as profitable as possible (which they're already doing), so they'd just make less profit. I am afraid I have to side with Jonny on this, Walmart's profit margin is sub 4% last I checked which is very slim so its not like they have a ton of room to increase expenses.
Well if they're only able to maintain their crazy low prices by grossly under-paying employees then they don't really deserve their competitive advantage do they? They count food stamps as part of their wages. The government is heavily subsidizing WalMart's competitive advantage. They might need to charge more for their stuff.
|
Are you seriously trying to get me to worry about poor widdle Wal-Mart???
But yea, I don't know what 4% means.
|
On July 11 2013 05:18 DoubleReed wrote:
Are you seriously trying to get me to worry about poor widdle Wal-Mart???
But yea, I don't know what 4% means.
It means out of the $470B in revenue they make every year, ONLY $17B of that is net profit. (Poor Wal-Mart!)
|
United States42598 Posts
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there.
|
On July 11 2013 05:00 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +The smaller businesses can afford it about as much as Wal-Mart; the company really doesn't turn much of a profit per employee. Wal-Mart is either going to open fewer stores or none at all so no, the cost of living won't go down as much. Uhh... Can you provide evidence that small businesses are just as capable of affording wage increases? Because that's absurd. Edit: Last I heard, large corporations were making more massive profits than ever. They would still hire the same amount because they're trying be as profitable as possible (which they're already doing), so they'd just make less profit.
Just because a company is large and profitable says nothing about how much profit it earns per employee. That's a key fact here, since a higher wage will increase Wal-Mart's cost structure on a per employee basis. Right now Wal-Mart is earning about $7.7K / employee. That's not an out of the ballpark number for a smaller retailer to hit.
And yes, companies are profitable now, on average, but that doesn't mean that Wal-Mart will be willing to open a store in DC if it feels that it won't make much money off of that.
|
On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there.
On that subject, you have to remember that Wal-Mart's key customer base are also employed by them. Paying them more just means they have even more to spend there. It's probably not a 1-to-1 ratio, but each dollar of increased pay probably comes back by some noticeable fraction. Each dollar of increased pay does not cost Wal-Mart one extra dollar.
|
On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there.
Is there also a two-tier minimum wage based on firm size?
On July 11 2013 05:28 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there. On that subject, you have to remember that Wal-Mart's key customer base are also employed by them. Paying them more just means they have even more to spend there. It's probably not a 1-to-1 ratio, but each dollar of increased pay probably comes back by some noticeable fraction. Each dollar of increased pay does not cost Wal-Mart one extra dollar.
That's incredibly negligible.
|
On July 11 2013 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there. Is there also a two-tier minimum wage based on firm size? Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 05:28 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there. On that subject, you have to remember that Wal-Mart's key customer base are also employed by them. Paying them more just means they have even more to spend there. It's probably not a 1-to-1 ratio, but each dollar of increased pay probably comes back by some noticeable fraction. Each dollar of increased pay does not cost Wal-Mart one extra dollar. That's incredibly negligible.
Well apparently there's already a two tier minimum wage because WalMart is allowed to count food stamps as part of wages.
|
On July 11 2013 05:33 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there. Is there also a two-tier minimum wage based on firm size? On July 11 2013 05:28 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there. On that subject, you have to remember that Wal-Mart's key customer base are also employed by them. Paying them more just means they have even more to spend there. It's probably not a 1-to-1 ratio, but each dollar of increased pay probably comes back by some noticeable fraction. Each dollar of increased pay does not cost Wal-Mart one extra dollar. That's incredibly negligible. Well apparently there's already a two tier minimum wage because WalMart is allowed to count food stamps as part of wages.
You sure about that?
|
On July 11 2013 05:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 05:33 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there. Is there also a two-tier minimum wage based on firm size? On July 11 2013 05:28 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there. On that subject, you have to remember that Wal-Mart's key customer base are also employed by them. Paying them more just means they have even more to spend there. It's probably not a 1-to-1 ratio, but each dollar of increased pay probably comes back by some noticeable fraction. Each dollar of increased pay does not cost Wal-Mart one extra dollar. That's incredibly negligible. Well apparently there's already a two tier minimum wage because WalMart is allowed to count food stamps as part of wages. You sure about that?
Here's a source: http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/04/news/companies/walmart-medicaid/index.html
Take it for what you will. My point is that taxpayers heavily subsidize WalMart. They already get special treatment. And now they're bitching that the special treatment is going the other way.
|
On July 11 2013 05:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 05:00 DoubleReed wrote:The smaller businesses can afford it about as much as Wal-Mart; the company really doesn't turn much of a profit per employee. Wal-Mart is either going to open fewer stores or none at all so no, the cost of living won't go down as much. Uhh... Can you provide evidence that small businesses are just as capable of affording wage increases? Because that's absurd. Edit: Last I heard, large corporations were making more massive profits than ever. They would still hire the same amount because they're trying be as profitable as possible (which they're already doing), so they'd just make less profit. Just because a company is large and profitable says nothing about how much profit it earns per employee. That's a key fact here, since a higher wage will increase Wal-Mart's cost structure on a per employee basis. Right now Wal-Mart is earning about $7.7K / employee. That's not an out of the ballpark number for a smaller retailer to hit. And yes, companies are profitable now, on average, but that doesn't mean that Wal-Mart will be willing to open a store in DC if it feels that it won't make much money off of that.
That's a little misleading. Wal-Mart is making ~$213k in revenue per employee, and $7.7k in profit per employee.
|
On July 11 2013 05:40 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 05:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:00 DoubleReed wrote:The smaller businesses can afford it about as much as Wal-Mart; the company really doesn't turn much of a profit per employee. Wal-Mart is either going to open fewer stores or none at all so no, the cost of living won't go down as much. Uhh... Can you provide evidence that small businesses are just as capable of affording wage increases? Because that's absurd. Edit: Last I heard, large corporations were making more massive profits than ever. They would still hire the same amount because they're trying be as profitable as possible (which they're already doing), so they'd just make less profit. Just because a company is large and profitable says nothing about how much profit it earns per employee. That's a key fact here, since a higher wage will increase Wal-Mart's cost structure on a per employee basis. Right now Wal-Mart is earning about $7.7K / employee. That's not an out of the ballpark number for a smaller retailer to hit. And yes, companies are profitable now, on average, but that doesn't mean that Wal-Mart will be willing to open a store in DC if it feels that it won't make much money off of that. That's a little misleading. Wal-Mart is making ~$213k in revenue per employee, and $7.7k in profit per employee.
Why is that misleading? A hike in labor costs affects profits, not revenues.
|
On July 11 2013 05:40 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 05:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:33 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there. Is there also a two-tier minimum wage based on firm size? On July 11 2013 05:28 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there. On that subject, you have to remember that Wal-Mart's key customer base are also employed by them. Paying them more just means they have even more to spend there. It's probably not a 1-to-1 ratio, but each dollar of increased pay probably comes back by some noticeable fraction. Each dollar of increased pay does not cost Wal-Mart one extra dollar. That's incredibly negligible. Well apparently there's already a two tier minimum wage because WalMart is allowed to count food stamps as part of wages. You sure about that? Here's a source: http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/04/news/companies/walmart-medicaid/index.htmlTake it for what you will. My point is that taxpayers heavily subsidize WalMart. They already get special treatment. And now they're bitching that the special treatment is going the other way.
Those subsidies go the walmart's employees, not walmart...
|
On July 11 2013 05:40 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 05:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:33 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there. Is there also a two-tier minimum wage based on firm size? On July 11 2013 05:28 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there. On that subject, you have to remember that Wal-Mart's key customer base are also employed by them. Paying them more just means they have even more to spend there. It's probably not a 1-to-1 ratio, but each dollar of increased pay probably comes back by some noticeable fraction. Each dollar of increased pay does not cost Wal-Mart one extra dollar. That's incredibly negligible. Well apparently there's already a two tier minimum wage because WalMart is allowed to count food stamps as part of wages. You sure about that? Here's a source: http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/04/news/companies/walmart-medicaid/index.htmlTake it for what you will. My point is that taxpayers heavily subsidize WalMart. They already get special treatment. And now they're bitching that the special treatment is going the other way.
Wal-Mart pays minimum wage. Nothing says otherwise. The issue is that minimum wage isn't enough for many people to live on, especially in expensive areas. Entire stores are like this, so they provide jobs, but not enough to live off of. The state has to then come in and provide benefits to shore up those numbers, essentially subsidizing the pay. Also, again, since the workers at Wal-Mart are also the primary customer, those benefits (like food stamps) go to Wal-Mart as profit, while freeing up other expenses to be spent at Wal-Mart as well.
On July 11 2013 05:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 05:40 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 05:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:00 DoubleReed wrote:The smaller businesses can afford it about as much as Wal-Mart; the company really doesn't turn much of a profit per employee. Wal-Mart is either going to open fewer stores or none at all so no, the cost of living won't go down as much. Uhh... Can you provide evidence that small businesses are just as capable of affording wage increases? Because that's absurd. Edit: Last I heard, large corporations were making more massive profits than ever. They would still hire the same amount because they're trying be as profitable as possible (which they're already doing), so they'd just make less profit. Just because a company is large and profitable says nothing about how much profit it earns per employee. That's a key fact here, since a higher wage will increase Wal-Mart's cost structure on a per employee basis. Right now Wal-Mart is earning about $7.7K / employee. That's not an out of the ballpark number for a smaller retailer to hit. And yes, companies are profitable now, on average, but that doesn't mean that Wal-Mart will be willing to open a store in DC if it feels that it won't make much money off of that. That's a little misleading. Wal-Mart is making ~$213k in revenue per employee, and $7.7k in profit per employee. Why is that misleading? A hike in labor costs affects profits, not revenues.
It insinuates that Wal-Mart isn't making much off of each employee, when they actually are.
|
On July 11 2013 05:46 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 05:40 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 05:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:33 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there. Is there also a two-tier minimum wage based on firm size? On July 11 2013 05:28 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there. On that subject, you have to remember that Wal-Mart's key customer base are also employed by them. Paying them more just means they have even more to spend there. It's probably not a 1-to-1 ratio, but each dollar of increased pay probably comes back by some noticeable fraction. Each dollar of increased pay does not cost Wal-Mart one extra dollar. That's incredibly negligible. Well apparently there's already a two tier minimum wage because WalMart is allowed to count food stamps as part of wages. You sure about that? Here's a source: http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/04/news/companies/walmart-medicaid/index.htmlTake it for what you will. My point is that taxpayers heavily subsidize WalMart. They already get special treatment. And now they're bitching that the special treatment is going the other way. Wal-Mart pays minimum wage. Nothing says otherwise. The issue is that minimum wage isn't enough for many people to live on, especially in expensive areas. Entire stores are like this, so they provide jobs, but not enough to live off of. The state has to then come in and provide benefits to shore up those numbers, essentially subsidizing the pay. Also, again, since the workers at Wal-Mart are also the primary customer, those benefits (like food stamps) go to Wal-Mart as profit, while freeing up other expenses to be spent at Wal-Mart as well. Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 05:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:40 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 05:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:00 DoubleReed wrote:The smaller businesses can afford it about as much as Wal-Mart; the company really doesn't turn much of a profit per employee. Wal-Mart is either going to open fewer stores or none at all so no, the cost of living won't go down as much. Uhh... Can you provide evidence that small businesses are just as capable of affording wage increases? Because that's absurd. Edit: Last I heard, large corporations were making more massive profits than ever. They would still hire the same amount because they're trying be as profitable as possible (which they're already doing), so they'd just make less profit. Just because a company is large and profitable says nothing about how much profit it earns per employee. That's a key fact here, since a higher wage will increase Wal-Mart's cost structure on a per employee basis. Right now Wal-Mart is earning about $7.7K / employee. That's not an out of the ballpark number for a smaller retailer to hit. And yes, companies are profitable now, on average, but that doesn't mean that Wal-Mart will be willing to open a store in DC if it feels that it won't make much money off of that. That's a little misleading. Wal-Mart is making ~$213k in revenue per employee, and $7.7k in profit per employee. Why is that misleading? A hike in labor costs affects profits, not revenues. It insinuates that Wal-Mart isn't making much off of each employee, when they actually are.
What's the relevance of revenue? That's one of the least meaningful numbers you could use.
|
On July 11 2013 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 05:40 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 05:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:33 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there. Is there also a two-tier minimum wage based on firm size? On July 11 2013 05:28 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there. On that subject, you have to remember that Wal-Mart's key customer base are also employed by them. Paying them more just means they have even more to spend there. It's probably not a 1-to-1 ratio, but each dollar of increased pay probably comes back by some noticeable fraction. Each dollar of increased pay does not cost Wal-Mart one extra dollar. That's incredibly negligible. Well apparently there's already a two tier minimum wage because WalMart is allowed to count food stamps as part of wages. You sure about that? Here's a source: http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/04/news/companies/walmart-medicaid/index.htmlTake it for what you will. My point is that taxpayers heavily subsidize WalMart. They already get special treatment. And now they're bitching that the special treatment is going the other way. Those subsidies go the walmart's employees, not walmart...
Those subsidies allow WalMart to pay much lower wages than other firms. They go to WalMart.
|
On July 11 2013 05:55 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:40 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 05:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:33 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there. Is there also a two-tier minimum wage based on firm size? On July 11 2013 05:28 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also worth noting is that Walmart also operates in the UK which has a minimum wage of around $9 with very few jobs actually paying that poorly and Walmart does just fine there. On that subject, you have to remember that Wal-Mart's key customer base are also employed by them. Paying them more just means they have even more to spend there. It's probably not a 1-to-1 ratio, but each dollar of increased pay probably comes back by some noticeable fraction. Each dollar of increased pay does not cost Wal-Mart one extra dollar. That's incredibly negligible. Well apparently there's already a two tier minimum wage because WalMart is allowed to count food stamps as part of wages. You sure about that? Here's a source: http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/04/news/companies/walmart-medicaid/index.htmlTake it for what you will. My point is that taxpayers heavily subsidize WalMart. They already get special treatment. And now they're bitching that the special treatment is going the other way. Those subsidies go the walmart's employees, not walmart... Those subsidies allow WalMart to pay much lower wages than other firms. They go to WalMart.
WalMart pays similar to the retail average.
Assume you're right - then let's get rid of all welfare, it just goes to big companies after all 
|
Jonny, do you really think Wal-Mart needs you to stand up for them? I always find it strange that people feel this intense desire to defend multi-billion dollar corporations like this. They have lawyers and lobbyists. They don't need you, too.
Or do you actually think Wal-Mart can't take the profit hit and small businesses wouldn't have more trouble?
|
On July 11 2013 06:03 DoubleReed wrote:
Jonny, do you really think Wal-Mart needs you to stand up for them? I always find it strange that people feel this intense desire to defend multi-billion dollar corporations like this. They have lawyers and lobbyists. They don't need you, too.
I'm sticking up for good public policy and the poor. Even Obama's top economic adviser says that Wal-Mart is a fantastic benefit to the poor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
