November 18, 2013 |
Wal-Mart doesn’t pay its employees enough of a wage so that they can afford to buy quality food for Thanksgiving. So one store in Cleveland had a novel idea: launch a food drive for its own employees. It’s targeted at the low-wage workers who could afford to donate food to other, even more low-wage workers.
Just who is getting such good pay at Wally World, that they can donate food to the "needy" employees that they work with? Just pay a decent wage Walmart!
http://www.alternet.org/wal-mart-holds- … I.newsvine
There is a simple answer to the rise and rise of the hypermarket chains taking over the world.
STOP SHOPPING THERE!
If there are no customers there would be no business.
Support your local businesses.
This won't happen though because ever since the inception of the supermarket we have been conned into thinking bigger is better and the lie that we have choice, quality and best price.
Supermarket chains have smashed small businesses into submission here in the UK with lots of town centres looking like something from doomsday films. Tesco, Sainsbury and recently Waitrose have moved into those town centres with their convenience stores now the way has been cleared.
Funny how that works, isn't it? Everybody grips about the low pay from WalMart and then runs inside to take advantage of the low pricing that low salaries help make possible.
Contributing, as they do so, to the success of WalMart and cementing in even deeper the concept that low wages/low pricing is what the public wants.
Do you also lament the demise of buggy whip factories?
Have you considered that it may be possible that the failed small businesses did not have an operational plan that could stand up to competition?
Do you not think the availability of multiple versions/brands of a product is more choice than one version/brand?
The world of people is all about convenience; from running water in the house vs. a trip to the yard hand pump, to one store/trip for multiple items vs. multiple stores/trips to complete a shopping list.
And, with a little research you will find small business vs. superstore success stories where the small business reacted with a new operational strategy that could compete in a new business environment.
The buggy whip factories are alive and well masquerading as out of town superstores and their suppliers.
There have been many small businesses that have had an alternative operational plan, hence the rise of the coffee shop streets here in our city.
There is nothing wrong with convenience, driving 5 miles out of town for 12 items is indeed convenient for the big suppliers now they have crushed your local store. Still not sure whether I would buy fruit that have flown more miles than I have though.
Having an operational plan to stand up to a box store competitor? I saw two mom and pop hardware stores go out of business as soon as Home Depot opened their doors on the other end of town. Maybe they should of added millions upon millions of dollars of inventory to their 10,000 square foot store to compete. Good one!
No, since they were not able to compete with the big box's prices and selections, maybe they should have promoted a community ordinance forbidding people from patronizing the big box because obviously the better prices and selections were a subversive plan to trick people.
Or, maybe they should have changed their business model to a niche' market they could survive in.
An excellent example in our region is a chain of "Ace" Hardware stores. These are small independently owned franchise stores. Their prices are higher, and their selection less, yet they are thriving.
The reason? Instead of trying to stock absolutely every possible thing available in the hardware world - to go head-to-head with the big box, they focused on stocking the most frequently and commonly needed items - they gave up trying to compete for the "builder's" market, and focused on capturing the "home handyman" and "I need it fast and convenient" market.
Their second marketing focus was super helpful, knowledgeable, and friendly customer service people on the store floor - always asking if they can help.
It has worked. "Ace" hardware stores are expanding right alongside the big box store.
I am sure you could find similar examples in your area - if you just looked. Instead of parroting a lament of poor business people that live or die by a single rigid business model. Like the buggy whip factories.
How many specialised coffee shops can you have in one town? And of course if they are too successful the big box stores will just open their own.
I don't know why we have a minimum wage because apparently any business that pays such is evil incarnate.
There seems to be this misunderstanding that businesses should not be in the business of making a profit. I hope that everyone knows that businesses that do not make a profit begin laying off people, not hiring and eventually going out of business. Not sure how that would help anyone or are all those screaming for higher than minimum wage betting they will not be the ones laid off?
If you truly take issue with Wal-Mart or McDonald's or any corporation paying the minimum wage then you should be working to change it at the legislative level.
For some, Wal-Mart could be their 2nd job, they could be a two income family so they very well could be better off than some of their fellow employees and able to donate some food.
There is no true outrage or there would be no customers at Wal-Mart & McDonalds. Fact is if they gave in and did as everyone would like, they wouldn't have customers because it is about convenience and cost.
Have you never considered how much low wage employers like Walmart and McDonalds cost you as a tax payer? If not I suggest you find out.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
It is funny how some of the smaller chains pay higher wages and better benefits whilst the big greedy operators (who have governments in their pockets obviously) cant or wont pay a living wage or give job security to its workforce.
Not to sure how it works in the US but here in the UK the big low paying companies flourish on the fact that the workforces wages shortfall will be made up by the taxpayer in the form of welfare benefits. (usually by other low and middle income earners)
As far as I'm aware, in the USA the taxpayer subsidizes the low paid workers as well.
No there is not any such thing as a free lunch. True of health care as well eh? lol
Yep the taxpayers are subsidizing anyone that has minimum wage (whether Wal-mart or anywhere else) as their primary income. I don't mind that actually. They are out there working. Doing what they can.
Where is your outrage that the taxpayer pays for alcoholics, drug users (repeatedly I might add, no matter how many times they relapse or go into rehab) completely. They even get disability.
What I said still holds true. Wal-Mart has how many millions of employees? Multiply that times 8 and then try to imagine where they are going to recoup their losses. Prices. Now the customer base that goes there for the low prices is no more. Now there are people without jobs that the taxpayer is supporting, not subsidizing.
Your assessment that the bulk of US taxes comes from middle class is eroneous as well. The top 10% earners in America wind up paying 70% of all taxes collected.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-d … come-taxes
Wal-mart profits = $17.5 billion 2012 a 24.7% gross profit margin on sales.
With close to 2.2 million employees worldwide, Walmart has faced a torrent of lawsuits and issues with regards to its workforce. These issues involve low wages, poor working conditions, inadequate health care, as well as issues involving the company's strong anti-union policies. Critics point to Walmart's high turnover rate as evidence of an unhappy workforce, although other factors may be involved. Approximately 70% of its employees leave within the first year. Despite the turnover rate the company still is able to affect unemployment rates. This was found in a study by Oklahoma State University which states, "Walmart is found to have substantially lowered the relative unemployment rates of blacks in those counties where it is present, but to have had only a limited impact on relative incomes after the influences of other socio-economic variables were taken into account
What is their net profit margin? You know, the one that actually counts lol
Roughly (and the numbers are actually from 2011) raising the minimum wage for their employees would cost Wal-Mart 3.2 billion per year.
Further, Wal-Marts full-time work force averages over $12 an hour. We are talking about part-time workers here. Sure I understand there will be some making less and some making more because that is how averages work.
The point is anyway, that if you want to change it you are looking at legislation. If the majority of America was so outraged, there would be no customers at Wal-mart. Period. That is just a fact.
Everyone these days just wants to have their cake and eat it too. Give me my prices & convenience of my Wal-mart but let me get online and talk about how evil they are.
Edit: Found it. Net income for Wal-mart in 2012 was roughly $16 billion. Using current numbers, increasing their hourly wage to $12 an hour for every employee would cost over $4 billion. So you want them to throw out an entire quarter of net earnings.
How much would they actually have without their minimum paid workers?
How many of them still have any job at all if Wal-mart loses 1/4 its income?
How many potential jobs will be lost if all the re-investment monies are paid out in salaries? As in 1/4 net income?
Nope. Only the training they receive. And training to WalMart employees is really minimal.
Beg to differ. Any forward thinking business sees its employees as an investment, just as the business invests in plant and machinery.
A stack of protein and water is not an investment.
The training put into that employee is what makes it valuable. The knowledge and skills to add to the business. The company pays considerable monies to install that training, and that's an investment. While the company also pays money for a salary, that it is not an investment - it is a trade for labor.
You and I obviously have a totally different understanding of an investment.
To me an investment is any money laid out with the intent of it being returned with a profit.
Great! That leaves out any salary compensation, then as that is paid out AFTER any profits are received and is a straight trade of money for labor.
Which leaves training, in the hopes of making the employee more profitable, which is what I said.
Probably most of them as management goes into a tizzy of cost cutting, trying to please the owners of the chain and give them a reasonable ROI. Salaries are easier to cut than employees.
I understand what you're saying, and you could be correct, but we're talking about part-time workers. I'd wager they'd do what most everywhere I've ever worked has done.
Dump a percentage of part-time workers and ask more of management and full time.
They wouldn't lose a penny of their income, in fact they would probably increase it - more money in the economy would be more money to spend at Wal-Mart.
You probably mean profit. You do realise that companies are realising record profits at the moment but they are sitting on their capital rather than spending it on the means of production and increasing their capital still further.
Wal-mart's last quarter earnings beg to differ with you about record profits.
If you are talking gross profit, that is different. That doesn't translate to a company remaining solvent however. Certain expenditures must be paid in order to do business, those come out of any profit margin.
Then there is always re-investment capital that you have to keep on hand.
The main point I was attempting to make, however, is that if one really wants to change minimum wage, it is done at the legislative level. I wonder how many griping about it are actively seeking such change. It isn't even necessarily a Federal level, though certainly it can be done there as well, but each state can set its own minimum wage standard.
Furthermore, if everyone was so outraged, there would be a recognizable and sizeable drop in customers at Wal-mart. There has not been, at least not any more than any other retailer in this current economic climate.
If you're going to stand up for something, then really stand up for it. Most, given the evidence, are only giving it lip service.
Why at the legislative level? Maybe because the majority of people won't support it (we know this because they vote with their pocketbooks whenever they visit WalMart)?
There is one thing I see never coming up in this conversation. Wal-Mart can raise the wages without hurting its profits. Simply fix the wage gap between the top and bottom. I hope people understand that part time jobs are no longer just for high school and collage kids. There are more adults over 21 working at Wal-Mart. Just walk around the store and look. Many of the statements made here are obviously blind and stated on theory with no real thought.
This article is laden with good sense and should be read by anybody who thinks the minimum wage is an unfair restriction on businesses
http://www.businessinsider.com/companie … ore-2013-8
Does the age of the employee then determine the value of the work done? Because our government would take serious offense at that idea...
How much does each employee working for Wal Mart (for example) make for the company?
Does that set the value of the work performed? Or maybe profit is made by a conglomerate of ALL workers, from janitor to CEO?
If so, I do think you will have a really hard time deciding how much profit a shelf stocker produces, or a door greeter. Or any single WalMart employee.
OK, level it out. Total employees (world wide) 2.2 million. Global sales $400 billion and profit of about 25%
Work it out.
Sounds like you're heading to the claim that every employee supplies identical profit to the company. An obviously false ploy to share the wealth, but one many socialists seem fond of.
I'm not making that claim but I asked you a question which you have avoided answering. I thought I'd throw a few numbers around to help you to answer.
You can figure the average profit of a company for each employee. You can figure it for each customer or for each member of parliament.
None of which has any use in the real world, and does not indicate what any employee has provided in the way of profit. So why do you want that number if it is worthless for your point?
No, it was your point - that minimum paid workers weren't worth any more than the minimum wage.
I asked you to back up that claim which you now seem to be stating is impossible!
Why make a claim that you admit cannot be substantiated?
?? We've lost our communication again.
I thought that minimum wage was the amount that govt. said was the minimum ANY job is worth. If the job were worth more, WalMart would not be finding 2 million people willing to sell under value.
Scanning back through, I find only questions I asked, not claims made. Except that a job's value is not dependent on the age of the worker - that's not what you refer to is it?
I find it incomprehensible that you have such a low opinion of your fellow man that you do not believe 2.2 million people would rather take an under paid job than have no job at all.
Of course I wasn't referring to age. I'm still waiting for your evidence that Wal Mart (for instance) can not afford to pay its workers more though.
Maybe I follow: when a company can hire 2 million minimum wage workers, mostly in first world countries, then that's what the job is worth. Not something some government decides the employee is worth, without regard to the job being performed.
But left to their own devices Wal Mart wouldn't pay less?
If they can pay this expensive minimum wage and still make 25% profit on $400 billion I find it hard to believe that any worker is only worth the minimum wage let alone the majority of workers.
That's because you insist there is some kind of artificial definition of "worth" outside the market place.
There isn't. What a buyer and seller agree on is "worth" - not what John Holden says it is. But even more important, employers are paying to get a job done, not to support an employee. Who the employee is, what their circumstances are, none of that sets the worth of a job. The only real "worth" of a worker is the value of what (s)he produces.
So how much of the value that a worker provides is he worth?
In any fair exchange, they absolutely get it.
You aren't confusing the value of X, sitting on the factory floor, with the value of X transported to a discovered buyer are you?
So you've got a gang of ten men producing widget making machines - they get the whole value of the machine less the costs or the materials!
The value of the machine, less cost of materials, yes. And less the value of the tools and other machines used to produce it as they played a part. And the building it was constructed in as that played a part. And the value of the capital used as that played a part.
And when it's all over, the net value of the labor involved of the machine, sitting on the floor, unsold. A value that was agreed upon before work ever began.
So the owners of all that take no profit? Right.
Owners perhaps find a buyer, adding value. They certainly provided the value of the capital necessary to buy building and parts. They may provide other services as well; until a traded corporation is the business involved almost all owners provide some value beyond capital to a business. A value that is often seen in the cost or value of what is being produced.
The owner of the last business I worked for (electrical contractor) found all the buyers, did all the bidding, took care of all taxes and purchases as well as all permits outside personal ones for each employee (required by state). He provided all operating cash to pay employees before ever seeing a dime himself, and he provided all the more expensive tools. He also put in more hours than anyone else in the company; that the majority of his hours were behind a desk does not diminish the value of those hours.
So owners will take the value they've added, yes. It is called "profit", yes. Even owners that have provided nothing but capital are entitled to something as all that goes into the value (cost) of a product/service.
In short, the workers do not get all the improved value of the materials they have used.
There, that was easy wasn't it?
Well, of course not! That would be like putting your 10 workers to work but only paying one of them the entire amount due all!
Everyone with a finger in the pie gets a cut - that should be most plain to a socialist!
No, it wouldn't be anything like that.
Capital is cheap, nothing like the 25% the bosses take.
Capital is cheap, yes, but that has zero to do with what portion of a product's increased value is due to capital.
Owners take (maybe) a 5 or 10% profit, while paying salaries is the largest single cost for most businesses. Labor thus receives far, far more than owners.
Even the Great WalMart Controversy shows this: at minimum wage (far less than average WalMart wage) 2.2 million employees will earn very near 36 Billion, or well over double the 17 Billion profit distributed to owners. And that's ALL owners combined, not just the top one or two.
As a general statement how can a younger less experienced person put out the same value of work as an older more experienced one? I am not sure how our government would take offense to that.
Not to bash our president, but people seemed to think he was as capable as Hillary Clinton, despite his two years as a senator and total lack of real leadership experience. I'd not have voted for either of them, but if I was looking solely for experience and age, I'd have had to lean toward Hillary. Easy to offend a government with such a statement when said government IS young and inexperienced.
It is against the law (except for rare cases of minors working specific jobs) to set pay based on race, sex, age, etc.
You cannot pay based on the age of the worker.
You seem to be saying that because the worker is older the pay needs to go up, but the underlying concept of setting pay by age of the worker is illegal.
Again what I said is there is a tie between age and experience as a general statement. You are simply ignoring what I said. At no point did I say older people should be payed more.
The point is that minimum wage was set for basic jobs that require no experience or prior training. When you have people that have been in the work force for 5 years and plenty of on site experience that are still making minimum wage. Then we have an issue. Namely when the big guys at the top continue to make more money each year. Goes back to the wage gap between low level employees and the corporate heads.
Why do you have an issue and why would you raise the wage?
You are right back to saying that age determines the value of the work performed, but it does not.
You said yourself the job is worth only minimum wage. That a nuclear physicist is a door greeter doesn't make the work more difficult, doesn't make it more valuable and doesn't mean the employee should be paid more.
Which is exactly what I said; that an older worker, over 21, is now filling a post that an inexperienced kid of 18 can handle fine is not a reason to pay more. You cannot pay based on age.
Again I said nothing about age. You keep saying that.
I never said it was worth minimum wage.
No, you insinuate that it needs to go up because people over 21 are now holding the positions that used to be held by youngsters.
"I hope people understand that part time jobs are no longer just for high school and collage kids. There are more adults over 21 working at Wal-Mart."
If that isn't the thrust of those two sentences then what DO they mean in the context of a paragraph saying that low wages need to go up?
I was point out the jobs are not just held by kids and they are adults living on their own.
I am insinuating nothing you are making assumptions.
Do you know anyone that can live on minimum wage? Thus why the wage needs raised and again this can be done by fixing the wage gap, which you as this forum has done, are not addressing. Well done attempts to redirect and take things out of context.
Yes, I do know that people can live on minimum wage. A single person, with a roommate or 3, no car, expensive cell phone or cable TV can live fine on it.
But whatever does that have to do with the value of the work performed? That number is set by market competition, not some government official saying that the value of work performed depends on the person doing the work!
Are you seriously saying that some politician somewhere is competent to determine what every individual in every job is worthy of being paid?
No, which is why they don't do that. They are however fully competent to work out what the minimum the average worker needs to live on.
I assume you use politician as short hand for civil servant or what ever you call the back ground government that never changes which ever party is in power.
No, they can't even do that. Not honestly, anyway.
Partly because every person has different circumstances and needs a different amount to live on and partly because they are constitutionally unable to stop there. They just MUST go on and add luxury after luxury, all the time lying through their teeth and calling it just a "living wage".
OK, you're right. Average.
But what does that have to do with the market value of a job to be done?
Absolutely nothing. It is the minimum somebody can be expected to live on.
Then the person needs to provide it themselves. Or the society. Or most anyone except a business that is there to buy a product, not provide charity.
But you are happy with the person providing charity to the business!
I take it you didn't bother to read the link I posted.
I read it, and there is truth in it. There is also glossed over and disregarded side that they don't want to talk about.
Companies aren't worried about their employees: how many employees put out a conscientious effort to increase profits for the company? Companies fire (lay off) at the drop of a hat; how many employees have any loyalty to their company and will stay through bad times? It all works both ways, and the employee end is just as bad now as the company end. Who started it all? Does it matter? It's how it is and neither side is going to change much.
I absolutely agree that investment is very low: US business climate is very poor right now. The uncertainties as to their future legal obligations to employees are such as to prevent anyone from hiring if they don't have to.
Now you have done it!
You have resurrected the "Living Wage" controversy!
Sorry to butt in, but... you said no one is addressing the wage gap...
Is the wage gap you refer to one the one between minimum wage worker and CEO - only? Or would it include all job categories in-between?
Such as; shelf-stocker to shift supervisor, to assist. dept. manager to dept. manager, to assist. store manager to store manager - and so on up to CEO.
Each job "upgrade" requires more knowledge and capabilities, so each step up the ladder also represents an increased value to the company and thus also includes a wage "upgrade"
Is it the wage gap between each upward step that you are referring to? Or just the visual of a minimum wage worker's paycheck vs. the CEO's paycheck?
Or could it be stated in more simple terms - blue collar vs. white collar wage gap?
I ask you as per my last post did I say any of these things.
Second your example is not a life, that is survival.
The wage gap is in most companies not till you get to a very high level. Yes I agree that a move up requires usually more knowledge and capability, that would make sense for a pay raise. The problem goes back to the original statement that to raise wages has to cut in profit.
It seems they have been losing customers to Costco and Macy's.
Are you saying a $12 billion net earnings is not enough to make share holders happy while giving employees a better wage, not to mention taking the heat off Walmart's bad press and reputation?
How about $8 billion?
How about $4 billion?
How much is that per share? Per average shareholder?
Is the ROI over 10% for those shareholders? Does a reasonable ROI mean they need to cut wages, not increase them?
The OSU study - what does that mean? I'm reading that unemployment goes down, but the income does not change. Which means that WalMart has taken all those people off the charity rolls even though they have not provided any more money than govt. did.
Which would mean that WalMart has done a very valuable service to society by getting those people off the entitlement list.
No country in the world provides free healthcare for all its population, so what is your point?
I have no mock outrage at supporting those unable to work whether it be through illness (such as drug or alcohol addiction) or by them being stockpiled by capitalists to depress wages.
I take it that you will never again be outraged by people on welfare to support their income? And of course you are happy with the billions of your money given to the farmers and agri-business.
My assessment! I've never claimed such a thing! Though I will ask what percentage of US wealth do the top 10% of earners own.
Top 10% own 45%. Top 1% own 18% and pay 39% of all taxes collected.
It is right there in the link provided. You're correct however, that it wasn't your assessment. My apologies. It was silver's post.
I never expressed outrage at people on welfare to "subsidize" their income. I disagree with those on welfare who have never in their lives held a job, are not seeking one and have no reason they cannot work. I disagree that alcolism & drug addiction is a disability in the same sense as an illness or blindness. That's just me. First time, sure, I wouldn't argue with that, but over and over and over, no. At some point, you have to take responsibility for your choices and your actions.
No country in the world? Really? Isn't that what universal health care is exactly? Through value added taxes? I agree that it then becomes more of a two tier system because you can still purchase private insurance policies which push you to the head of the waiting line and afford you higher quality care, however, base health care is free for all is it not? Financed by taxes on those who work, regardless of wages?
You're at variance with most, if not all, the medical profession who do recognise alcoholism and drug addiction as an illness.
I'm amused by your reasoning that if something is funded by taxation it is free.
Do you ever directly respond to the points made or continue to twist things into something that wasn't said?
It is free for those who are not contributing isn't it? Paid for off the backs of those who do, regardless of wages? Which is actually what I said.
Do all doctors agree it is a disease? um...no, they don't. It is called Substance ABUSE because that is what it is. It is abusing something. All doctors said smoking was safe 30 odd years ago too. Cigarettes were once physician tested approved.
Last year coffee was bad for me, this year it's good for me.
No, you made no mention of non-contributors. How many actually make no contribution at all to the tax pot? A few babes in arms and that's about it.
Substance abuse is considered a mental illness - google it if you don't believe me.
The tablets are working again John.
Substance abuse is a mental illness.............................I wonder if eating 20 Big Macs a day could be considered substance abuse? Maybe its just mental illness!
Why should I as a taxpayer be funding the bank accounts of Wal-Mart shareholders when I don't shop there, or even if I do shop there. So if I was a middle income earner paying a fair amount of tax would that mean that I am actually paying more for the products that I purchase from Wal-Mart by the very nature that I am also subsidising their workforce, a workforce that they have to have to do their business and that they are able to keep on low wages because others will make up the short fall.
Its a vicious circle really isn't it
Well it's certainly vicious!
BTW you do realise that ASDA is now owned by Wal Mart?
Don't you think it strange that those who scream about their taxes being used to support the under privileged happily agree to their taxes being used to subsidise the over privileged?
I try and avoid ASDA John, although it does have the cheapest petrol in Britain at the moment.
I do like ALDI though and they pay fair wages too so I have heard.
I am not in favour of the rich receiving anything from the taxpayer pot, but then again I don't think they should pay a higher percentage than anyone else, they should just pay.
I have never been in favour of high earners receiving any type of welfare benefits either, I think it is ridiculous that a couple earning £100k a year can claim something towards child care.
And physicians approved cigarettes too. Unlike you I don't take for gospel everything that comes out of an organization, whatever it may be.
It is you know. Obesity is also considered an illness and while some obesity does have its cause in medical conditions, ALL obesity is now considered the same as drug addiction.
What high earners are drawing from the welfare pot? Our high end for welfare benefits is pretty low here in the US.
Except for the health care subsidies which run into $92,000.
We do not have any national tax here so it is more than just babes in arms that are non-contributers to the tax pot. Near 50% of the population pays no federal income taxes at all.
In the US, quite a few make no net contribution. Over half of the citizenry, in fact.
Of course, there is that "net" thing - when you take more out in bennies than you put it, then you are not contributing.
What, no sales taxes?
We have them in the UK which also has universal healthcare and as sassysue was discussing countries with "free" healthcare it is entirely relevant.
No we have no national sales tax. Sales taxes go to the States. We are talking about Federal programs and the Federal government is where the bulk of the money comes from for the welfare pot. Furthermore, we have a thing called Earned Income Credit that pays people back money they've never put into the system at all.
But what has that to do with countries with universal healthcare?
You were the one that went there from Wal-mart and then said that no one gets a free ride. Might be true in your country, not true here.
Nope. You said there was no such thing as a free lunch. Meaning that someone winds up paying for it. I said only it was true of health care as well.
Then you tried to say no one offers free health care, but in essence it is free for those who do not put into the pot. It is only not free for those working to put into the pot.
To which I correctly answered that in the UK where we have universal healthcare very few people never pay any tax at all.
If you put a dollar into the Great Tax Pot and then take two back out, have you paid taxes? Seems a matter of definition and spin: if you want it to seem the poor are doing their part then yes, you paid taxes. If you are a bookkeeper, then it is obvious that you not only did not pay taxes, the "payment" was actually negative.
And to the man in the street that takes 5 minutes to consider the question, and looking for a way to fund their government, those that took out more than they put in did not contribute.
That must also include anyone who works for the government then.
There are very few people who never work and therefore don't make a positive contribution to the tax pot.
In 2012, 18% of working-age households were workless; in only 2% had no one ever worked. More than half of adults in households where no one has ever worked were under 25. UK
Personally John I have sympathy for those who cant get a job and I am sure that is a large percentage of those figures but I will not stand for anyone telling me I have no right to be outraged at those who don't want to work and see the benefits system as a lifestyle choice. There are no figures to show who these are because its not one of the questions asked.
But by the figures you quote the number of people with no desire to work can not be greater than 2%. Your figures do not indicate if that 2% includes those unable to work for any reason.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/arti … lives.html
That wasn't including those who couldn't work John.
Fifth paragraph in - "They include the long-term sick and disabled and housewives who have never worked,"
Not the original 2% figure John 1.4 million is not 2% of the workforce.
Actually I can't see any mention of 2% in the article you quoted.
BTW, you do know that the website "This is Money" is actually a Daily Mail website and you know what I think of the Mail don't you?
But you still quote the Daily Mail when it suits you John!
Nothing wrong with the figures, its the way you interpret them I suppose and I know which way you will always interpret them, as you know the way I do.
I will agree with you that there is absolutely no reason that Wal-Mart and other large companies cant pay more to their lower paid workforce. It does come down to greed for profits. It is no longer acceptable for these companies just to make a profit they seem to need to double or treble profits year on year to keep the shareholders happy. There is no such thing as ethical big business anymore, maybe there never has been!
Erm, no. I just responded to something you quoted and then pointed out that it was a Daily mail site.
I only ever read what the figures say, I don't interpret them or anything else.
As for ethics, no probably the number of truly ethical companies can be counted on the fingers of one hand, but most companies in the past were far more ethical than they are now.
Are you intentionally forgetting about the "net" part of the whole taxation thing? Are you not understanding that taking more out than is put in leaves a negative net contribution?
I understand that doing those things will help your stance, but they really are not very honest, now are they?
This is surprising and India government is laying carpet to Wall mart.There is controversy regarding this issue to allow foreign large retailers in Indian market.
In US senate Wall mart declared ,they spent $ 30/- Million in India to promote business or lobbying ( actually it is bribe or kickbacks) to get license to start business in India.
They could have saved this amount and spend for employees welfare.
Capitalists run global economy or great role model of Capitalism cum Monopoly inclusive sins also
Thank you for your bold statement.
Yes they could have saved that amount, giving each current employe the tremendous sum of $15. And giving up on ever have a store in India or paying an employee in India.
Was the the best for those future Indian employees? To give $15 to each other employee rather than hire them?
I am in full agreement and as you say what should be the future of Indian employee? These large retailers sell product at lower price to bring down small retailers and later raised the prices.
i am not against any retailer but this is the strategy of market players, they buy governments and policies and rules are being made for benefits at the cost of customer.
I've only been around a dozen or so WalMarts on a steady basis, but so far not one has brought down small retailers and later raised the prices. Every one is still the cheapest in the area - no price increases.
If it was costing the customer large sums, no one would shop at WalMart. Instead, it's customer base has made it the largest company in the world.
The CEO of Wal mart, Michael Duke, revived in 2012 total pay of $20.7 million, an increase of 14% over the previous year.
I wonder if his employees received a similar percentage pay rise?
Haven't the faintest, but neither do I have the faintest if that was necessary to keep top help at the top slot. Nor do you.
You haven't the faintest idea about an awful lot you pontificate about, have you?
Do you really imagine that nobody would fill the job if they weren't receiving more pay in an hour than the average worker earns in a year?
The jobs still got filled and the profits were still made when the US economy was booming and the pay gap was a lot smaller.
Doesn't seem you do either, John.
At that level there is even less loyalty than at the bottom: CEO's come and go at the drop of a hat. Companies either pay a competitive salary or they will not have top talent (and defining that is a definite problem). I would assume that the largest business in the world wants (and needs) the very top of the talent tree here.
So sure, I'd take the job in a heartbeat. I couldn't do it and would not earn a tiny fraction of my salary, but I'd take it. Think that's what WalMart wants?
Of course profits were made when the economy was booming. Do you think that's when you need the best man at the top? When it could virtually go empty and still make a profit?
Why was the economy booming and why is it no longer booming?
"The share of our national income that American corporations are sharing with the people who do the work ("labor") is at an all-time low. The rest of our national income, naturally, is going to owners and senior managers ("capital"), who have it better today than they have ever had it before.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/companie … nkMV"
Simple answer - because ignorant but well meaning politicians tried to share the wealth and guarantee any American a house that wanted one. There are a jillion other contributing causes that that one is at the very root of the recession.
Yes, I read your link. I even agree with most of it, including the unsaid side pointing out that labor is no different; pure greed to get as much as possible while returning as little as possible.
How do you manage to claim that increasing the income of the top 1% is sharing the wealth!
If labour is just as greedy they are spectacularly unsuccessful at it then aren't they? Wages have dropped since the 1970s and have barely risen over the last 50 years.
Giving houses to people that cannot afford to buy them is a classic case of sharing the wealth. What else could it be?
They are not very successful, with the biggest problem being greed. Unions shutting business down because they would not provide wage increases into the red is not real smart.
Too easy to simply fire an employee that won't perform, at least in today's economy. Back in the 80's (as I recall) the shoe was one the other foot with labor able to just about pick and choose whatever they wanted.
I'd question whether real wages have dropped since the 70's though - anecdotal only, but the average worker out there is living a much easier life than was possible in the 70's. Prices, in terms of hours worked to buy X (car, home, whatever) have generally dropped with major exceptions in things that have changed radically. Homes, for example, have nearly doubled in size in the period, while rising only slightly in price.
The average hourly wages paid to rank and file workers (adjusted to 2008 dollars)
Compare that with wage increases since 1990 for senior managers which have shot up by an average of 298.2%.
House prices are up on average about 25% over the last 25 years having dropped from around double over the last four or five years.
Giving houses to people who can not afford them is a classic case of capitalist greed. What else could it be?
It would only be a case of sharing the wealth if the people being "given" the houses were actually allowed to keep them.
You have shown that management wages were extremely sad compared to hourly wages a few years back. But your point is ???
That's what I said - house prices are up 25% while the size is up 100%. Were we buying what we did 25 years ago, the price would be half what it was then.
Giving houses away (making Joe pay for Sally's house) is not capitalistic greed; it is the share the wealth concept of socialism. Joe has earned too much (he's too good at his job) and thus must buy Sally a house.
True, the people getting the houses were expected to pay something for them (a figure not representative of the cost + risk they should have paid), and when they didn't the houses disappeared.
Buying and selling houses is a totally capitalist concept, as are mortgages.
The socialist solution to housing is build and then rent out houses at cost.
Aren't Banks wonderful though! They devise an instrument that allows them to rob their customers, persuade the government to underwrite their inevitable losses and then convince Joe Public that it was all the fault of the government and the victims whilst pocketing their bonuses earned of the losses of the ordinary man.
*shudder* A lifetime of renting - what a wonderful concept. Always in someone else's house, never able to make it your own. Never able to decorate as you choose, never able to make any real changes. Always dependent on government to provide that home, particularly in later years when earned income is insufficient to cover the cost.
I suppose it is a socialist dream though - a huge hold on everyone in the country, a total dependency and 100% sharing the wealth as it is obvious that "cost" does not include construction or capital costs. Those come from taxes; taxes that are "free".
"Rob". As in a mutual agreement after the future homeowner seeks out the bank? That kind of "rob"?
Funny idea of socialised housing you have! Decorate it however you wish, make any real changes you wish, live in it for all your life if you wish and then hand it on to your children if you wish.
And where do you get the idea that costs don't include construction costs?
"Rob" As in convince Joe Public that he really can afford more than he earns.
Sounds to me like you own it. Able to paint, rip out walls, change woodwork and will it to children - that means "own" to me. So why are you paying rent? Because the term "mortgage" is offensive or because govt. wants the mortgage payment to never end?
Where do the construction funds come from if not taxes? Are you now saying you pay the taxes sufficient to build the house, then pay them again in "rent"?
There's a sucker born every minute, and the most rabid of socialists cannot stop that. People WILL take advantage of those that refuse to read or think, and govt. can't stop that either; do it enough times and perhaps they'll learn.
Mortgages are pure capitalism and not all social housing is government owned, in fact very little of it is.
Everybody who pays local taxes pays construction costs. Those who live in the houses pay rent.
So you agree that the greedy banks suckered some people! Well that's a start.
You're really confusing me. First everybody rents and nobody owns a home. Then most people own a home, but without a mortgage: it was either a gift or they paid cash, capitalist style. I'd guess that if they paid cash, it was with a huge subsidy as very few people in my experience could ever save that much cash while renting.
For those that own their own home but still pay taxes sufficient to build more homes, what do they get for their taxes? The good feeling that they will forever continue to build homes for other people that refuse to cough up the money to buy?
Actually, it is generally the people who sucker themselves - greed will do that nearly every time. One can very seldom sucker someone into something unless greed is alive and well.
When did I say that everybody rents?
When did I say most people own a home but without a mortgage?
What do tax payers whose taxes are used to bail out bankers who have "lost" money lending to would be home owners who cannot afford their mortgages get for their taxes?
Greed is the foundation of capitalism.
"The socialist solution to housing is build and then rent out houses at cost." Sorry - I took that to mean that the vast majority would rent.
"...not all social housing is government owned, in fact very little of it is." "Mortgages are pure capitalism" Sorry, I took those at face value. Very little housing is government owned and very few have mortgages.
An intact banking system even after the politicians tried to ruin it.
Greed is the foundation of peoples everywhere. Few are satisfied with what they have; that road leads to stagnation every time.
But your stance is pretty obviously that only those with money are greedy, and that is totally false. In the housing bubble, greed was very obvious in those wanting a house but could not buy one so they signed agreements saying they would buy it anyway. Greed.
I thought you were talking about what not what maybe.
very little social housing is owned by central government. Not much these days by local government either.
Plenty have mortgages, which incidentally, also restrict what you can do with your property until 25-30-40 years have passed and you really do own your own home.
When will you understand that government mainly concerns itself with what their paymasters, the capitalists, want from them?
If a thirst for knowledge is greed then I'll concede that point.
Not only those with money but also those without who have been convinced by their capitalist masters that without it they are nothing.
Sorry John but you are getting mixed up with your ideal social housing and what social housing reality is.
I have friends and family who have lived in the same social housing for almost 40yrs, they have paid more in rent than they ever would if they had brought the house with a mortgage. They are unable to make any changes to the house apart from the décor. And some are under threat because their children have now grown up and moved out so the council is looking at their need as to whether they should be removed to make way for someone else to occupy the property.
Social housing is not collective ownership.
We have no truly socialised housing left in the UK now with a very few very minor exceptions..
Birmingham City council still have quite a lot john, apparently there are 30000 awaiting repair.
I must admit many councils have succumbed to the big bucks from housing associations and developers.
Boy, I don't know where you get your numbers, but they are not representative of the world I live in.
I began my work career in the 60's - at the minimum wage of $1.65. As a college graduate in 1974 I earned $5 per hour. I did not see $17 per hour until sometime in the late 80's as middle management. At no time did I feel I was grossly underpaid.
At the same time, average wage in my area, which is poor and pays poorly compared to average US, is just over $21 per hour. That's your "rank and file" labor - semi skilled factory workers, tradesmen, etc. Just 300 miles from here, in a neighboring state, the pay for an electrician is over $35 per hour.
Unskilled or part time labor, of course, is lower.
I'm curious, getting back to the OP, what has actually happened with those bins? Have other employees been putting food in them? What is the outcome? Does anyone know?
I have spoken to some that work in Walmart, and found out that some have contributed, but more importantly,why hasn't Wall-mart itself given its employees food contributions or at least a Thanks giving meal if they work on the holiday?
by Jerad Maplethorpe 12 years ago
Hubpages might take the link down on this page, but this hub contains the main concept I want to discuss: <link snipped>Basically, we need to demand that the big corporations like McDonalds and Wal•Mart pay their employees a respectable wage. These companies are absolutely filthy rich, and...
by WorldCup~2010 11 years ago
We are talking about Wal-Mart at school right now and there are two sides to this story. The bad side is how Wal-Mart is moving all of their manufacturing jobs over seas which ends up having a negative effect here in America. But also, Americans are getting rock bottom prices on most goods Wal-Mart...
by r2moo2 11 years ago
I was just doing a little study on Walmart, as I was updating my Boyfriend Gift Ideas blog, and found out that many companies went bankrupt because of Walmart.As I am in a country, Singapore, which does not seem to have direct influence from Walmart, I want to ask how it has been for you, and your...
by rhamson 7 years ago
The CEO of Gravity, a credit card processing service, cuts his personal pay from a million dollars a year to give the minimum wage earners in his company $70,000 a year. The workers describe the raise as freedom, family starting and house buying ability. Could this be something to spark the economy...
by Barefootfae 9 years ago
Once again there is a call to raise the minimum wage.Now....common sense and a little education will tell you that when you raise the minimum wage, prices go up to compensate. Also, you stand the chance of having a nice little spike in unemployment from the smaller businesses that can no longer...
by Pankaj Pathak 12 years ago
Do you think that Wal-Mart should be banned in India?
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|