DC: Walmart admits its bottom line depends on government assistance to its employees

[Winehole23]

“Our businesshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/24/walmart-admits-its-reliance-on-food-stamps-in-govt-filing-for-first-time/#) operations are subject to numerous risks, factors and uncertainties, domestically and internationally, which are outside our control,” Wal-Mart’s 10-K (https://www.sec.gov/about/forms/form10-k.pdf) reads. “Any one, or a combination, of these risks, factors and uncertainties could materially affect our financial performance, our results of operations, including our sales, earnings per share or comparable store sales or comparable club sales and effective tax rate for any period, our business operations, business strategy, plans, goals or objectives.”

Among those risks, the form explains are “changes in the amount of payments made under the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Plan and other public assistance plans, changes in the eligibility requirements of public assistance plans.”


According to the International Businesshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/24/walmart-admits-its-reliance-on-food-stamps-in-govt-filing-for-first-time/#) Times, this is the first time (http://www.ibtimes.com/first-time-walmart-annual-report-cites-changes-food-stamps-other-public-assistance-plans-risk-factor) Wal-Mart has admitted its reliance on public assistance programs as a major factor in its profit margin in its SEC filings.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/24/walmart-admits-its-reliance-on-food-stamps-in-govt-filing-for-first-time/#ixzz2wzK22mL1

[Wild Cobra]

Are you being intellectually dishonest in the thread title, or did you make a mistake?

It seems to me they are admitting they rely on people who use SNAP, WIC, etc. Not to their employees as your title implies.

[Winehole23]

I recycled the Daily Caller headline. It's consistent with the quotation from Walmart's SEC filing.

[DarrinS]

They depend on their CUSTOMERS having govt assistance.

[DarrinS]

This is DC headline: Wal-Mart admits its reliance on food stamps in gov’t filing for first time

[Winehole23]

reading failure. you're both quite right.

[Wild Cobra]

reading failure. you're both quite right.
Thanx for removing those biased glasses. You wouldn't want to turn into a boutons...

[Winehole23]

crossed wire. I'm sure it never happens to you.

[boutons_deux]

They depend on their CUSTOMERS having govt assistance.

Walmart's low-wage EMPLOYEES across the country depend on many $100Ms of public assistance to get by.

[Winehole23]

boutons is correct

[DarrinS]

Walmart's low-wage EMPLOYEES across the country depend on many $100Ms of public assistance to get by.

I don't doubt that this is the case.

[Winehole23]

is there some way to edit the thread title? edit post toggle isn't getting me there.

[boutons_deux]

How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens

According to one study (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-15/mcdonalds-low-wages-come-with-a-7-billion-side-of-welfare), American fast food workers receive more than $7 billion dollars in public assistance. As it turns out, McDonald's has a “McResource (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-25/a-help-line-voice-saying-what-mcdonalds-wont-fast-food-workers-need-aid)” line that helps employees and their families enroll in various state and local assistance programs. It exploded into the public when arecording of the McResource line (http://lowpayisnotok.org/mcvideo/) advocated that full-time employees sign up for food stamps and welfare.

Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private sector employer, is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid. According to Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, in many states, Wal-Mart employees are the largest group (http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate-subsidy-watch/hidden-taxpayer-costs)of Medicaid recipients. They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients. Wal-mart’s "associates" are paid so little (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/11/12/wal-mart-pay-raise/), according to Grayson, that they receive $1,000 on average in public assistance. These amount to massive taxpayer subsidies for private companies.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-13/how-mcdonald-s-and-wal-mart-became-welfare-queens.html

[DarrinS]

is there some way to edit the thread title? edit post toggle isn't getting me there.


Not a big deal. At least you didn't create one about $50 LED light bulbs. You guys never let me live that one down.

[Winehole23]

that turned into a really good thread, actually. thanks for the OP. :tu

[Wild Cobra]

boutons is correct
Sure he's correct.

That doesn't mean the entitlement mentality is correct.

Want things to change? Vote for politicians who will make laws keeping illegal immigrants from taking our jobs. Dissolve the free trade laws and tariff all foreign goods that we can also make or grow so the cost more than what we make them for. Trade with little or no tariffs should on goods that we cannot produce or grow ourselves, or not is sufficient quantity.

It isn't just the poor who are getting poorer and poorer. Almost everyone is. Simply raising minimum wages will cause a cascade effect that will likely produce do no good and inflation will rise too.

I will not entertain an idea that I believe will do no good until after re revive of manufacturing industries. Once we have more jobs vs. the people who want jobs, we can see how natural supply and demand forces will work. Less of a percentage of the population will be working minimum wage jobs once we have more jobs.

[Wild Cobra]

How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens

<snip>

American fast food workers receive more than $7 billion dollars in public assistance.

<snip>

Adults take jobs away from high school students, and expect adult wages?

Fuck that...

Walmart basically has all courtesy clerks, as wages go. Their cashiers most certainly aren't fast and efficient like other stores. They get what they pay for, and if these people want better pay, then they should go to work elsewhere. If Walmart if all they qualify for, then who's fault is that?

[elbamba]

Adults take jobs away from high school students, and expect adult wages?

Fuck that...

Walmart basically has all courtesy clerks, as wages go. Their cashiers most certainly aren't fast and efficient like other stores. They get what they pay for, and if these people want better pay, then they should go to work elsewhere. If Walmart if all they qualify for, then who's fault is that?

That's what I always tell the clerks. I tell them that they are stupid for scanning my DVDs and that they should go be CEOs instead.

[SnakeBoy]

Walmart caters to poor people...that's shocking.

[Th'Pusher]

Walmart caters to poor people...that's shocking.
You're being too nice.

Walmart, a very successful for profit corporation's business model relies on indirect transfers from the federal government.

[Bito Corleone]

It isn't just the poor who are getting poorer and poorer. Almost everyone is. Simply raising minimum wages will cause a cascade effect that will likely produce do no good and inflation will rise too.
Yes, it's not just the poor getting poorer, it's everyone. What you seem to be missing is that raising the minimum wage doesn't just adjust the pay for those at the bottom, it adjusts the whole pay scale. 30 years ago the average CEO made roughly 50 times what their bottom level workers made. Now they make roughly 250-300 times what their bottom worker makes. During that same time the average output of the American worker doubled, but their wages stayed the same. It's time for that to change.

Arguing that it will cause inflation is a cop out. Do you think that keeping wages the same will stop inflation, because that is certainly not the case. The increase in wages does not cause a 1:1 correlation on inflation. No matter how you split it, the increase in worker wages creates more consumer spending, where the benefits of that increased consumer spending far outweighs any amount of inflation that would couple it. The US economy is 70%+ consumer spending. When the US worker doesn't have money to spend, the economy does not grow as fast. Conversely, when the Us consumer has more to spend, the economy is able to grow at a faster pace.

Someone is bound to make the "raising the minimum wage will cost jobs" argument. In the short run, and by that I mean immediate and very short short run, you may be right, but over the long run it creates more jobs. Why? Because labor markets don't function that same way most people understand supply and demand. Labor demand is a function of consumer demand. When consumers have more money to spend, the demand for all products rises, and thus employers higher more workers to meet production needs. If the minimum wage was increased tomorrow, and McDonalds or Wal-Mart lay off a large chunk of employees, their shareholder should ask why they were employing so many superfluous workers in the first place.

Lastly, and this is where I really don't understand why people aren't pissed off about large companies that thrive on low wage workers. The Walton brothers make up 3 of the 6 richest people in America. The US taxpayer subsidizes their employees income with welfare and food stamps. The US taxpayers subsidizes their sales because their products are sold largely to people on welfare and food stamps. And yet they are still consistently one of the larger recipients of corporate tax breaks. If paying their employees a living wage cuts into their bottom line, I really don't give a shit, because they can certainly fucking afford to pay their own employees more easily than I can.

[boutons_deux]

Tea party, as whores, shills, and defenders of mega-corps, will intimidate Repugs into blocking raising the minimum wage.

[Wild Cobra]

Bito. I have stated I OK with raising the minimum wage quite a bit, but slowly over time. It will cause inflation, and my response is not a cop-out. My point is that in the end, minimum wage is still minimum wage, and I don't believe once inflation catches up, that anyone will be any better off. People of all wages will demand increases as well. Your appeared certainty of not causing a 1:1 I think is foolish. I will not claim it will, but I do highly suspect it will be at least close.

You bring up CEO wages. So what. In my mind, that just put you into the catagory of a jealous fool.

CEO's effectively get supply and demand based wages. How can you see that as wrong?

[boutons_deux]

This probably a guy, or the type of guy, that the Repugs' Pro-Business War on Employees screwed by upgrading them to supervisor/manager and killing all their overtime pay

Wal-Mart Manager Speaks out About His Store’s Ugly Reality


President Obama sparked a new round of big business ire this month, directing the Labor Department to reform rules that exclude salaried managers making over $23,660 a year from overtime protections.

That was welcome news for a Wal-Mart assistant manager – granted anonymity due to concerns over retaliation – who told Salon the retail giant exploits managers’ lack of overtime protection by making managers do rank-and-file employees’ work in order to cut costs. (Wal-Mart did not respond to a request for comment last week.) A condensed version of our conversation – on chronic understaffing, firings of strikers, and why he sympathizes with the union-backed non-union workers group OUR Walmart – follows.

The regulatory change that’s been proposed by the president on overtime — how would that change things for you, if that went into law?

That would force Wal-Mart to, one, start to count how much managers are working … The more time I spend at work, the less time I spend with my family … Without compensation for it, it makes no sense to me … My time with my family is worth a lot more.

How many hours a week do you think you’re working now?

Right now, it’s consistently about 48 hours a week. However, when we get toward the holiday season …you’re regularly working 60 hours a week.

How much do you bring home … from doing that?

My yearly salary is $44,000.

What would change in your life if you were covered by overtime protections?

I think I would get more time with my family — and if I didn’t have more time with my family I would definitely have money … to compensate me for time spent away.

Right now, do you think there’s work that Wal-Mart has managers do rather than rank-and-file employees because they don’t have to pay you for overtime?

Absolutely … What the average customer sees in the store is forcing the manager to step out of that manager role, and into that hourly associate role. So you’ll have managers that are cashiering, stocking shelves … We’re trying to take care of our managerial duties too …

[Managers are] not getting proper lunches or getting breaks. There’s no way for Wal-Mart to ensure that we’re getting breaks, because we don’t punch a clock, of course – we don’t track our time.

It’s been suggested by business groups that this kind of regulation would kill jobs … If this kind of regulation went into effect, do you think your store would be hiring more people or fewer people?

You know, I think Wal-Mart’s way is Wal-Mart’s going to hire fewer and fewer people regardless of what decisions are being made …

With the recent Sam’s [Club] restructuring, Wal-Mart, you know, might pull something like that within their actual [management at] Wal-Mart positions …

[Already] there’s a lot of work to be done that’s not being done right now with the amount of people we have.

In management, in the rank-and-file positions, or both?

In both …

As a salaried manager, if I’m [moving] freight all night long, I’m not able to give my associates in the building the attention that they need, or you know, the developmental process … [to] grow within their role within Wal-Mart. You know, it makes the job very hard to do.

How does that affect Wal-Mart customers?

If you have a manager that’s running a cash register, you know that manager is not on the sales floor ensuring that product is on the shelves. You know that manager is not able to respond to customer calls as quickly …

So I think customer service definitely does lack.

Your job as an assistant manager – what do you think is different about it from what people imagine?

When I came into the role, I thought it was going to be that I’m going to handle paperwork, be there for the associates, and help them with issues that may arise with them; I’m going to be the guy that they can come to for answers, I’m going to develop leaders …

There’s not enough time in the day to do it … They don’t have enough people to get the job done. And it shows. It shows on the shelves, in terms of the stock. You know, it shows with the morale of the associates. That definitely has issues …

If you look at companies like Wegman’s or Costco, you know, that staff their stores, and they have high payroll percentages, but they’re still [showing] profits, because they’re getting the product on the shelves …

If you have empty shelves, your baskets aren’t as good. What really matters is: How much does that customer buy going through the register? You know, if the customer comes in with a shopping list of 35 items, and you only have 20, you lost a good portion of that sale … to your competitor …

The company made $17 billion in profit last year. They paid the CEO $18 million … There’s no reason why they can’t pay overtime, they can’t give hours back to associates.

The group OUR Wal-Mart … What have you heard from Wal-Mart corporate or Wal-Mart management about it?

Corporate has been very quiet recently about … OUR Wal-Mart. What they have told everybody is “most of these aren’t Wal-Mart associates” and … “the union sees Wal-Mart
is a big paycheck.”

And you know, I can understand Wal-Mart’s stance on unions, and why they don’t want it. However, I can say I see a lot of validation in these associates’ claims that are part of the organization.

And you know, I think that they’re trying to bring the issues up the best way they can … Sometimes managers don’t hear it, and it’s not because we don’t want to hear it. It’s because we have 65 things going on at one time …

The individual attention is just not there in the stores right now, because … they’re understaffing.

Have you been tasked personally with doing anything to talk to people about OUR Wal-Mart or discourage people from getting involved in OUR Wal-Mart?

No … I’m on the fence.

I’m not going to say that a union is the answer for Wal-Mart; I’m not going to say that it’s not. However …associates should speak up … Those concerns should be able to be handled by people that have the time to handle them …

It’s not fair to the associates to bring a concern to a member of management in their store who doesn’t necessarily have the time to take care of it … If I don’t get my compliance done, that could cost me my job …

The firing of more than 20 people who had gone on strike with OUR Wal-Mart – what’s your view of what motivated that?

My view on that would probably be: They don’t want it to spread. Wal-Mart’s going to say, you know: “Hey, it’s an attendance policy” … The real reason … is that you don’t want that apple spoiling the bunch, as they would say. The last thing you would want to see is associates … speaking out and … organizing and not facing retaliation, so other associates feel more comfortable with it.
[B]
When the president or members of the Obama administration do events appearing with Wal-Mart executives or promoting Wal-Mart, do you think that’s a good
move or a bad move?

I think that it would be a good move if Wal-Mart had good intentions …

We can donate a ton of money to everybody out there … That’s something that Wal-Mart should be proud of. But Wal-Mart should take its pride back in taking care of its associates and taking care of its customers …

It’s kind of sad that, you know, you have associates that are struggling right now — especially struggle this time of year — to get 24 hours a week … They didn’t ask to be part-time. A lot of them would love to be full-time …

I think that the associates that are out there voicing their concerns — especially through their organization — I think that they should continue to do so … I think the only way that things are going to change is for the public to start understanding what we’re going through …

I think it’s important for the associates to know that not all managers are monsters. There are some people that are certainly bad managers out there … There are a lot of managers – and I’m, you know, personally speaking to managers at my store and managers at other stores — that are unhappy with the direction that the company’s going. It’s a lot different when you’re working at a store than when you’re sitting behind a desk in Arkansas.

http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/wal-mart-manager-speaks-out-about-his-stores-ugly-reality?akid=11644.187590.-BcoU_&rd=1&src=newsletter974694&t=11&paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

[TeyshaBlue]

CEO's effectively get supply and demand based wages. How can you see that as wrong?

lol @ conveniently dismissing the captive BODs. stacked by CEO's for CEO's. Contemporary CEO pay is not even remotely related to supply and demand.

[boutons_deux]

lol @ conveniently dismissing the captive BODs. stacked by CEO's for CEO's. Contemporary CEO pay is not even remotely related to supply and demand.

and equally unrelated to performance.

A CEO of Home Depot while it was in bad shape walked away with $250M.

The CEO of TWC will get $80M parachute, for a couple months' "employment", when Comcast takes it over

[Wild Cobra]

lol @ conveniently dismissing the captive BODs. stacked by CEO's for CEO's. Contemporary CEO pay is not even remotely related to supply and demand.
WTF?

I am saying their wages shouldn't be a concern.

If CEO's were a dime a dozen like no skill workers, they would be paid far less than they are. However, their skills are valued, and rewarded as such.

Now please elaborate why it isn't supply and demand. they are chosen by skill, and salary is negotiated.

P.S.

I have negotiated my own salary with employers. That's why I dislike union scale. It does not match what I can bargain for my skills.

[boutons_deux]

their skills are valued, and rewarded as such.

:lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Explain the case of Mark Pulido who single handedly erased 11 billion dollars by pushing an aquisition of a corrupt tech company. Overnight, 10,000+ employees 401k's and retirement funds were wiped out when the company stock went from $102/share to $14/share. He walked with a 100 million severance, a 5 year office/staff and car allowance...not to mention the stock grants as the deal went down.
Tell me how the mother fucker deserved to be valued and rewarded.

:facepalm

[TeyshaBlue]

I'll tell you how, the BOD composed of execs and CEO's made sure they protected their own.

[TeyshaBlue]

That's but a single example from a population of many. lol supply and demand.

[TeyshaBlue]

bouton's example of Home Depot is apt and commonplace.
lol supply and demand.

[Wild Cobra]

Explain the case of Mark Pulido who single handedly erased 11 billion dollars by pushing an aquisition of a corrupt tech company. Overnight, 10,000+ employees 401k's and retirement funds were wiped out when the company stock went from $102/share to $14/share. He walked with a 100 million severance, a 5 year office/staff and car allowance...not to mention the stock grants as the deal went down.
Tell me how the mother fucker deserved to be valued and rewarded.

:facepalm
You can always find cherry picked situations outside of what generally happens. I'm not familiar with this case like those of you who engage in class warfare.

[scott]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/354/134/a72.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

bouton's example of Home Depot is apt and commonplace.
lol supply and demand.
Maybe so, but he didn't just take over. A board of directors, or something had to agree to this happening. Maybe he was just an uber-charlatan. He somehow negotiated his payout. Blame the majority stockholders.

Shit happens.

[clambake]

i understand from another thread that you have blond hair.

does that look weird with the brown nose?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Maybe so, but he didn't just take over. A board of directors, or something had to agree to this happening. Maybe he was just an uber-charlatan. He somehow negotiated his payout. Blame the majority stockholders.

Shit happens.

I imagine you would perform oral sex for any CEO in America at this rate.

[Wild Cobra]

i understand from another thread that you have blond hair.

does that look weird with the brown nose?
Well, it doesn't surprise me that you make such a stupid joke, since you are such a stupid troll.

I must ask. You haven't contributed to that thread. Are you stalking me?

[TeyshaBlue]

Maybe so, but he didn't just take over. A board of directors, or something had to agree to this happening. Maybe he was just an uber-charlatan. He somehow negotiated his payout. Blame the majority stockholders.

Shit happens.

So close yet so fucking cluelss. :facepalm

[Bito Corleone]

Bito. I have stated I OK with raising the minimum wage quite a bit, but slowly over time. It will cause inflation, and my response is not a cop-out. My point is that in the end, minimum wage is still minimum wage, and I don't believe once inflation catches up, that anyone will be any better off. People of all wages will demand increases as well. I've seen that, I know it, but you always seem to couple it with "but inflation will rise too." This is why I say it's a cop out - You say you are for an incremental increase, but then claim the effects to be nil. That's even worse..."I'm in favor of this thing that I think will do nothing."

Inflation "catches up" when wages stagnate, which is why this entire county is getting poorer. Yes, if the minimum wage is increased most people will demand more money, and they should. The majority of this county is over-worked, over-stressed, and well underpaid.


Your appeared certainty of not causing a 1:1 I think is foolish. I will not claim it will, but I do highly suspect it will be at least close.My certainly is based on demonstrable history. It's not foolish. It's the truth. The correlation is nowhere near 1:1, please take a look back at all wage increases and corresponding inflation rates if you really don't believe me. Perhaps it will help you change your mind.


You bring up CEO wages. So what. In my mind, that just put you into the category of a jealous fool.I brought up CEO wages in relation to worker wages, it had nothing to do with jealousy, it was to paint a picture of how the productivity of the American worker has doubled over the last 30 years and they haven't seen their pay go up, but they have seen the people at the top of their companies receive a six fold increase. If being able to see what's wrong with that picture makes me a "jealous fool," then maybe I should re-examine the definitions of "jealous" and "fool."


CEO's effectively get supply and demand based wages. How can you see that as wrong?If you think that CEO wages are an accurate reflection of supply and demand, then your understanding of economics is both misguided, and intellectually lazy.

[Wild Cobra]

I've seen that, I know it, but you always seem to couple it with "but inflation will rise too." This is why I say it's a cop out - You say you are for an incremental increase, but then claim the effects to be nil. That's even worse..."I'm in favor of this thing that I think will do nothing."

I thought I elaborated on this once, but maybe I didn't. The reason I am "OK with it"... not for it... is because I believe people need to see how it factually plays out, plus, I am not all-knowing. It is possible I am wrong. I just really doubt it.



Inflation "catches up" when wages stagnate, which is why this entire county is getting poorer. Yes, if the minimum wage is increased most people will demand more money, and they should. The majority of this county is over-worked, over-stressed, and well underpaid.

I don't agree with your reasoning of stagnate vs inflation. Over worked and under paid? I don't buy it as an excuse. Go to the root problem. There simply are less jobs out there than people qualified. That m,eans if someone refuses to do what the crybabies consider over worked, that there is always someone else who is a bit more mature and will do it.

Supply and demand...



My certainly is based on demonstrable history. It's not foolish. It's the truth. The correlation is nowhere near 1:1, please take a look back at all wage increases and corresponding inflation rates if you really don't believe me. Perhaps it will help you change your mind.

Maybe that's because we have only had moderate increases that lag behind COLA. I though we were on topic as the idea on making a dramatic increase. Not historical small ones.



I brought up CEO wages in relation to worker wages, it had nothing to do with jealousy, it was to paint a picture of how the productivity of the American worker has doubled over the last 30 years and they haven't seen their pay go up, but they have seen the people at the top of their companies receive a six fold increase. If being able to see what's wrong with that picture makes me a "jealous fool," then maybe I should re-examine the definitions of "jealous" and "fool."

I fail to understand what relevance that has except to fuel jealousy. For the very few who make these CEO wages, it is meaningless in the big picture.



If you think that CEO wages are an accurate reflection of supply and demand, then your understanding of economics is both misguided, and intellectually lazy.
If you think it doesn't apply, then I would say you don't understand supply and demand.

CEO's negotiate their salaries and bonuses based on their perceived abilities that they bring to the company. The best candidate gets the job, partially based on what they ask for, demand, etc. There are few who are deemed capable of filling the position.

[ElNono]

i understand from another thread that you have blond hair.

does that look weird with the brown nose?

:lmao

[Bito Corleone]

I thought I elaborated on this once, but maybe I didn't. The reason I am "OK with it"... not for it... is because I believe people need to see how it factually plays out, plus, I am not all-knowing. It is possible I am wrong. I just really doubt it.OK. Perhaps I misunderstood your stance on this issue. If you want to see how it factually plays out, the facts are written in history. When people have more money to spend, they end up spending more money. In an economy that is comprised of over 70% consumer spending, you cannot reasonably argue against this being a good thing. You can doubt that you’re wrong all you like, it won’t change the fact that you are.


I don't agree with your reasoning of stagnate vs inflation. Over worked and under paid? I don't buy it as an excuse. Go to the root problem. There simply are less jobs out there than people qualified. That means if someone refuses to do what the crybabies consider over worked, that there is always someone else who is a bit more mature and will do it.
Supply and demand... You seem to have a functional misunderstanding of how labor demand differs from product demand. Labor demand curves don’t operate in the same basic manner that production demand curves do. Labor demand is a function of production demand.

The reason there are fewer jobs than qualified people ties back again to American consumer becoming poorer and poorer. If consumers aren’t purchasing your products, you don’t need to hire more people to help make those products. Conversely, if more people are purchasing your products, you hire more people to meet production needs.

Yes, of course companies are more likely to higher labor at the lowest available cost for a qualified employee (which likely ties into why you think labor curves are the same as product curves) but the amount of that labor required has to do entirely with the amount of people purchasing that companies products. Want more jobs? Create more demand.


Maybe that's because we have only had moderate increases that lag behind COLA. I though we were on topic as the idea on making a dramatic increase. Not historical small ones.I am not against smaller incremental increases as opposed to a single large increase. I think it’s better for both employers and consumers to be able to plan for this than the economic shock (however short lived it would be) that would come with a larger jump. I do however believe that these smaller increases should continue to be increased by being tied to inflation and/or cost of living.


I fail to understand what relevance that has except to fuel jealousy. For the very few who make these CEO wages, it is meaningless in the big picture.You fail to understand why workers shouldn’t share in the gains when their increased production makes their companies more profitable? The big picture here isn’t what the CEO makes. Stop focusing on just that part of it. Of course CEOs should make a lot of money. Their job is not easy, and their skill sets are hard to come by. The big picture here is that the CEOs shouldn’t be the only ones who see the benefits of their workers increased production. How do fail to understand the relevance in that? Do you openly offer any raise that’s ever been given to you to your boss?


If you think it doesn't apply, then I would say you don't understand supply and demand.
CEO's negotiate their salaries and bonuses based on their perceived abilities that they bring to the company. The best candidate gets the job, partially based on what they ask for, demand, etc. There are few who are deemed capable of filling the position.I didn’t say it doesn’t apply. I said it’s not an accurate reflection. There is quite a difference. Do you believe that every CEO in America is worth every penny of their salary, along with their bonuses even in years when their companies struggle overall? Do you think that in years when their workers become increasingly efficient by creating more output at continually reduced cost, it’s the CEO who is wholly responsible? None of the gains should go to the worker, right? Because “supply and demand” says that CEOs are the only employees of actual value to any good company and everyone else should just suck it up and stop being a crybaby.

[TeyshaBlue]

You can always find cherry picked situations outside of what generally happens. I'm not familiar with this case like those of you who engage in class warfare.

Im familiar with it because I fucking lived it, dipshit.

[boutons_deux]

Walmart Realizes It’s Losing Billions Of Dollars By Denying Workers More Hours

Walmart will begin adding worker hours this year as part of an effort to address complaints about empty shelves at the company’s understaffed stores. The retail giant’s top executives said that fixing the chain’s stocking problems could be worth $3 billion per year, a tacit acknowledgment that Walmart’s notorious efforts to wring productivity out of skeleton crews have hurt its bottom line.

Executives announced “plans to add labor hours as part of an effort to bolster ‘in-store execution’” at the company’s annual Year Beginning Meeting in March, Bloomberg reports. The news service did not offer specifics on how the plan will work, but Walmart has historically preferred scheduling workers for part-time hours to avoid paying them benefits required for full-time hours. Walmart workers around the country have gone on strike repeatedly in recent years, often listing the need for more staff hours among their reasons for protesting.

Regardless of how the company goes about staffing up, the decision to foreground in-store personnel issues at a major annual meeting confirms that Walmart is reconsidering the relationship between its workforce and its profits. Despite opening more than 600 new stores over the past five years, Walmart now employs 20,000 fewer people than it did in 2008. That aggressive decrease in staff eventually left stores unable to do the most basic thing for any retail company: putting merchandise on the shelves.

Stocking problems started to frustrate customers late last year, and Walmart cited concerns about empty shelves when it hired tens of thousands more workers for the holiday season. Months after making that temporary seasonal move, Walmart got downgraded by an investment research firm in a report that said the company’s “relentless focus on costs does seem to have taken some toll on in-store conditions and stock levels.”

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/30/3420798/walmart-staff-hours-3-billion/

from what I hear, food suppliers fight like hell for grocery retailer shelf space, and now they find having won shelf space, WM is leaving the shelves empty? :lol

[boutons_deux]

Walmart ain't happy with the banking cartel

Wal-Mart sues Visa for $5 billion over card swipe fees

Wal-Mart Stores Inc this week sued Visa Inc for $5 billion, accusing the credit and debit card network of excessively high card swipe fees, several months after the retailer opted out of a class action settlement between merchants and Visa and MasterCard Inc.

Visa declined to comment on the suit, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, where Wal-Mart is headquartered.

Visa and other card networks charge retailers fees, called swipe fees or interchange fees, each time a shopper uses a debit or credit card to pay.

In December, a federal judge in Brooklyn, N.Y., approved a $5.7 billion class action settlement between merchants and Visa and MasterCard despite the objections of thousands of retailers that complained it was inadequate.

Wal-Mart, Amazon.com Inc, and Target Corp were among those opting out of the monetary components of the settlement to have the freedom to seek damages on their own.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/27/us-walmart-visa-lawsuit-idUSBREA2Q2BJ20140327

[Wild Cobra]

Referring to post 45, I have witnessed Walmarts problem of less revenue to be customer dissatisfaction. It's bad enough that they have slow checkers but their smaller workforce means longer lines. I use to do all my grocer shopping at Walmart, but rarely go there now. I simply will mot buy meat, milk, eggs waiting so long in line. I assume many other people have done the same thing. The Winco stores in my area are almost as cheap, and employee owned. I think in trying to save money, they are cutting their own customer base.

[Winehole23]

At a private dinner Walmart held for market analysts last fall in Bentonville, Ark., a company vice president estimated Walmart takes in 18 percent of all food stamp spending in the U.S., a number Walmart’s David Tovar confirmed when I interviewed him. Meaning, Walmart took in more than $13 billion in revenue, or about 4 percent of Walmart’s total sales in the U.S.



So Walmart is likely the biggest single corporate beneficiary of SNAP, but it’s not just Walmart. A growing number of stores have baked food stamp funding into their business models since the Great Recession. The tally of stores authorized to accept food stamps has more than doubled since the year 2000, from big-box stores like Target and Costco to 7-Elevens and dollar stores.http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/04/big_box_stores_make_billions_off_food_stamps_often _it_s_their_own_workers.2.html

[BradLohaus]

This was predicted 20+ years ago with free trade/globalization. Domestic manufacturing workers laid off and then getting on the dole to buy the products that they used to make.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/04/free-trade-reduces-us-income.html

Free trade reduces US income

As I have repeatedly shown, the Rising Tide school of economic thought always leaves out the fact that the rising tide must inevitably come at the expense of workers in the wealthier societies:

Branko Milanovic, a visiting professor at CUNY who once served as a senior economist at the World Bank, has tracked worldwide changes in income growth from 1998 to 2008. Milanovic calculates that the middle class in China and India experienced 60 to 70 percent income growth from 1998 to 2008, while growth stalled for the middle and working classes in the United States.

The question then becomes, in Milanovic’s words, “Does the growth of China and India take place on the back of the middle class in rich countries,” especially the United States? Milanovic does not claim a direct causal relationship, but contends that the two “may not be unrelated.”...

Entering the fray, three economists – David Autor of M.I.T., David Dorn of the Center for Monetary and Financial Studies in Spain, and Gordon Hanson of the University of California, San Diego – have analyzed the employment consequences of globalized trade and technological advance.

In a series of papers they wrote together – “Trade Adjustment: Worker Level Evidence,” “The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States,” and “Untangling Trade and Technology: Evidence from Local Labor Markets” — Autor, Dorn and Hanson find that in the case of trade with China, there are very painful consequences for specific categories of American workers.

Their findings show why voters are wary of free trade agreements.

Relative to the average employee in manufacturing, workers in industries that face stronger competition from imports “garner lower cumulative earnings and are at elevated risk of exiting the labor force and obtaining public disability benefits,” Autor, Dorn and Hanson write.

Continue reading the main story

And if manufacturers are ranked on a scale of 1 to 100 for exposure to import competition from China, between 1992 and 2007, workers in firms high on the exposure scale lost nearly half a year’s pay, compared to workers in firms at the low end of the scale.
And this doesn't even begin to get into the fact that the expansion of domestic free trade into the international arena would INEVITABLY RESULT in the same sort of labor movement that one sees in the USA. Don't like the fact that your kids live in a different state? Well, in a true free trade regime, they might have to go to Bangladesh or Peru to find employment.

Free trade is logically incompatible with national sovereignty, the Constitution, and the maximization of human liberty. This should be obvious, as it is an aspect of globalism and a major objective of those who advocate global government.

[Winehole23]

http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Walmart-on-Tax-Day-Americans-for-Tax-Fairness-1.pdf

[TeyshaBlue]

Beefy link, WH. :tu

[boutons_deux]

already posted

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=229542&p=7243298&viewfull=1#post7243298

[Winehole23]

no one reads your link dumps, boutons. do you have any idea why not?