If Walmart Paid Its Employees a Living Wage, How Much Would Prices Go Up?
 

I don't understand this push to legislate pay rates. Think you're worth more than Wal Mart wage, prove it.

Or something that cost 500$ is now 505$.
But still funny rise, why they dont do it for their employes?

Don't get me wrong - I'm no fan of Wal-Mart.

But why do they always target (no pun intended) Wal-Mart as an example?

They make it sound as if Wal-Mart is the only employer that doesn't pay its employees a 'living wage'.

Supply and demand. Why do they need to pay more when there is a waiting list for their shit-low-paying jobs?

"Despite pushback from the city council, Walmart will open its first two stores in D.C. next month. But getting a job there will prove difficult since the chain received 38 applications for each job opening"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...o-harvard.html


.

Min wage here in Australia is about $20 USD a hour does not seem to of affected us much, dodged the recession, housing prices going up, unemployment 4-7%

I love how the rabble have latched onto the political invention of a "living wage"
Yes rabble, it's walmart's fault you're not successful

The min wage in the UK has meant that supermarkets simply have less staff and now use selfe service.

It has meant some firms (such as call centers) to ask you to go in early to set up, and to stay if you get a call.

Some firms will pay you x hours but expect you to work more.

To cover costs supermarkets put up costs on food. The poor (such as elderly) end up paying out more.

The extra wage has got many landlords to put up rent so peopole fiond they are no better off.

Young who would have got a low pay job (but as they live at home its more than somone who has rent to pay) now cannot get on the first leg of ladder of work.

Meanwhile countries such as china cut prices and take jobs away.

however it makes the middle class happy as they think its great.

They should send them to universities to teach students about Jacques Derrida, Zizek, Marx etc. They would make more sense than regular professors.

Why does government give food stamps and not $ directly?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

profits would shrink :helpme they would dump your ass if they are not making the right level.

One of the main reasons is that many of these lower paying jobs don't come with health insurance. The same people that qualify for food stamps also likely qualify for medicaid or some other state health insurance, especially if they have a kid. Others will also quality for housing assistance and daycare assistance.

If Wal-Mart paid them enough to get above this poverty level these people would no longer qualify for these things and they would seek them elsewhere. The first place they would look would be their current employer Wal-Mart. Never mind the daycare or the housing assistance, If there was suddenly massive pressure on Wal-Mart to give these people health insurance it would raise their costs even more. They are big enough that they likely could do it and still make plenty of profit while only raising prices a tiny bit, but they have no interest in rocking the boat.

Bottom people feel entitled, you must GIVE them higher salaries... That is why they never rise above them in the first place.

So that people would actually buy food? :winkwink:

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I always wanted to try this stuff, sounds like a legendary item in US.

why would Wal-Mart pay more ???

employees can go and get food stamps to survive :2 cents:

NOTE: when I went there in Feb ( Florida ) to buy a 70.. tv, the clerk couldn.t care less about taking the order !!!! I ened up ordering it on line .

The McDonald's employee handbook actually has information in it about how to apply for food stamps and other government assistance.

I think Wal-Mart also knows that people come there for the cheap prices, not the customer service.

If they raised wages the might attract better overall employees, but those people may well be smart, more driven, and/or focused and would possibly want more opportunity and more from the company. Like I said before, they don't want to rock the boat. They have a good thing going and are raking in the profits.

Google "Wal-Mart and dead peasant insurance".

Ultimately, American taxpayers are footing the bill for a lower minimum wage. The government is a vortex sucking up tax monies needed to subsidize the social services that these workers qualify for, whether it's Walmart or McD's or wherever. However, even if min wage was raised and these min wage employees also received company health ins and did not qualify for other assistance, I don't think taxes would be lowered as an offset.

I agree. The government would find a way to spend that money one way or another.

Some random thought - with higher salaries and more motivated people they would sell more as there would be less instances with "uninterested" clerks like this one.
So in all the calculations about the price increase they could include increased number of sales as well (which would mean smaller price increase than stated).

Not that I am for wage increase, just saying that issue advocated could use this bullet point as well :)

It's probably a little more complex than what's in that video, with more variables they're not taking in to account -- but it mostly makes sense. You all can cry about how the government shouldn't intervene in pay rates, but your tax dollars are paying for these people who work for billionaires too cheap to make adjustments that could get people out of the hand-out line.

Corporations like McDonald's and Walmart are happy to let YOU pay to support their workers because to them they're just subhuman drones to fund their new yacht purchase.

And that would be natural because country is in debt.

That's the thing I don't understand. It seems like they really lack long-term vision. Treating your employees like family that you actually care about will create employees who will happily go the extra mile for you, and that will keep you in business for long time. It doesn't help your image to have all of this bad press of how you're basically a modern day slaver.

obviously management of one of the biggest companies in the world doesn't know what they are doing... they are all obviously clueless idiots, and just became so successful by dumb luck... :error

Thanks to obabacare pretty soon min wage workers won't even get 30 hours a week on their paychecks.

They're the beneficiaries of people on the bottom rung living in desperate times. I didn't say they weren't smart...they're just bastards. You know the difference between being a good person and a bastard, right?

I guess it all depends on the company, the number of employees and what the company does. Even if Wal-Mart paid a wage that took people above the poverty line they would likely still have a pretty high level of turnover. Many people use places like this and jobs like these as stepping stones.

They could raise the wage and pay like Costco does and they would likely keep people around and it could increase sales, but the question I would wonder is: would the increase in sales be enough to justify the higher wages and benefits?

I think Wal-Mart is going to have big sales numbers no matter what. People want a bargain and that is what they offer.

I think your sarcasm is good here.
Just take a look at all/most major supermarkets/retailers. Most of them are paying low wages so it seems that it is the better business model than "treating employees like family". :2 cents:

For the most part American consumers have turned into cheap fucks. You can't sell to cheap fucks with well paid employees.

Even if the country weren't in debt I would bet the politicians would find a way to spend that money as opposed to actually cutting taxes.

Tax payers foot the bill for the low min wage

Not a bad idea. :winkwink:

I was always taught that prices were based on supply and demand, not the bottom-line of the corporation. Now, if they increased min wage with the cost of living, we would have more money... we would buy more things we otherwise would not due to budgeting... many things would likely be cheaper.

Unless of course the prices were based on the corporations bottom-line.

But if the majority of America were "well paid employees" maybe they wouldn't be "cheap fucks"... :2 cents:

this is a stepping stone job :2 cents: students retirees part time. if you want a job like this for life warehouse is the way. lots of jobs there

These days 'cheap fucks' is a euphemism for survival mode.

Cost of living is rising faster than our pay increases. Hell, we just got hit with a 40% increase with our Enbridge natural gas...translates to $400 more per year. Along with that our hydro is going up. Our city just approved a 9.4% increase in water & sewer rates. Gas companies are bending us over at the pumps on a daily basis.

Beef prices are soaring this summer due to last year's drought and cattle farmers cleared out much of their cattle inventory.

I can't blame consumers for being 'cheap fucks' these days. Necessity does what it has to.

either way you are paying. Low pay means workers go on food stamps, and/or Medicaid. But as long as it's the tax payer footing the bill..it's all good!

Funny, cause tax-payers don't "foot-the-bill" for the exemptions and cuts these type corporations drain our economy of each and every fucking year!

Many points to note:

Raise min wage to 15-20, everywhere. Its the only way people will survive and prosper. Not only that, wouldn't you try harder at your job to not lose that good wage? As their quality of life increases.. so does their expenditures and the need for that wage.

Sure, businesses will have less employees, but the remaining ones will work harder and provide better service instead of needing 12 monkeys, you can have 6 skilled employees.

That higher wage will result in more spending, so other businesses that could not prosper before, will have a chance to prosper and keep running. In the end, it will all balance out as economy strengthens. Sure, for 5-6 years after the raise, it will net a lot of job losses but when it rebounds, it'll be better.

Another way to help your economy would be smarter family planning. Our planet, resources and economies can NO LONGER support 3-4 kids per household with allt he latest gadgets and big un-needed new homes. Be responsible. Less population & less excess = more money for the population and better job wages.

Another way is also to stop being so wasteful. Stop buying shit that breaks or is cheap. Want more jobs and more wages? Buy stuff that lasts and is worth having serviced.

We all created the current situations ourselves...


Settle for what you actually need:

Listen, barring the odd treat or luxury we all deserve, nobody needs that 100k car, that 500k home, that 25k motorcycle.. or paying contractors 100's of 1000's for a reno you don't need. Everyone is always in debt past the day they die. Spend that money wisely. Invest in savings, invest in your children's futures and invest in a home - not something to show off...

$15-$20??? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh not!!!

intelligent response...

Care to elaborate and share opinion as to why you disagree instead of acting 12?

while having the minimum wage at $15-$120/hour would be nice it would cause more problems then positive things. Think of all the people working jobs where they make $15-20/ hour already. If all of a sudden minimum wage was at the level of what they are making they'd be pissed. What would need to happen after that is ALL wages would need to increase. Ok, not all, but all the ones that are currently between $15-$20. If not we would have a lot of very pissed off people thinking "these fucks working at mc donalds make as much as I do yet my job is 1000000 times harder? Fuck that shit!"

Really, based on the skill set of most minimum wage workers is $15 to $20/hour something that they deserve? Yes, I understand that cost of living is a killer, but paying them hourly wages close to $20/hour is insane. People just need to stop living beyond their means and find ways to lower their expenses. Sure, it's hard, but this is the real world where you have to work your ass off to make sure you get what you need of achieve something.

Just my opinion.

Lol, cause the people making less than $8/hr are living beyond their means. :Oh crap

if you make the wage too high :helpme the government loses jobs! welfare cash assistance projects food stamps. im not going any deeper :( there's a black van on the side of my house :1orglaugh no really be right back

wal-mart is one of the biggest and most profitable companies in the world. Of course if they wanted to, they could afford to pay their workers more. I don't see other big companies like google or Honda paying their workers shit money. Yet, the top owners are billionaires and their life style if not changed one bit.
wal-mart is like the Nazi party of the 21 century.

It would be a different story if taxpayers weren't subsidizing lowly paid employees. You shouldn't be able to earn a comfortable wage at a low skilled Walmart job, but you should be able to survive without government support and that crappy feeling of living paycheck to paycheck with no frills (but also no food stamps or tax payer help) should propel those who want more to work harder or smarter. I support a rise in the wage to whatever that level is otherwise it's essentially just a government handout to Walmart.

I pay a much higher minimum wage to my employees. Over the last decade some business ideas haven't worked out that would probably have been profitable at lower wages.. But if a business requires $4/hr to work then maybe it's simply not a valid business concept and a distortion of the market to subsidize it with food stamps.

There would have to be very significant geo-socio-political benefits to subsidizing a business unable to pay a living wage before it should be considered. Maybe, say, energy production - oil drilling etc which allows the whole economy to grow on cheap fuel and is cheaper than foreign wars to secure oil contracts. Maybe a scheme to help employ the disabled or whatever where the government still saves money vs having them on a disabled pension. There are no doubt exceptions, and I'm aware industry often seeks subsidies by waving potential jobs in front of politicians.. even the movie industry. But it shouldn't be a function of the government to distort the market that way, even if mandating a shitty-but-requires-no-government-help wage is another kind of distortion. It at least has a multiplier consumption effect which increases the tax base given all the income from an increased minimum wage is going to be spent straight away on goods and services.
Although there are jobs the market could probably price at $2/hr, I would prefer a society where I don't have to live in a gated community to keep the great unwashed zombie hordes at bay.

I like Henry Ford's take on it, where he wanted to pay his workers enough that they could buy one of his cars and therefore create customers though demand side economics. Every business I've ever started has employed people based on current demand for work outstripping ability to supply or potential demand threatening to.

that wasn't my point. I know $8/hour sucks complete shit and yes, I do agree that the minimum was needs to get raised, but $15-$20/hour? Not likely. $12/hour maybe, but it won't go much higher then that.