Would You Pay More For A Product To Help Workers

[Rshermr]

You're unwilling to try. And that's sad. But oh well. Like i said, the greed and hate is coming back around on so many. Now the Middle Class Taxpayers will have to pick up the tab on Walmart's and McDonalds' Slaves. They're gonna find out that it really does hurt being a disrespected Slave. It is Karmic Justice.

I don't see the need to try. I've never put my hand on a chopping block and driven an axe blade down through the fingers but even though I've never done it I'm still reasonably certain I can accurately predict the outcome.

Your idea would actually hurt workers, not help them. If I can purchase a product or service for $100 but I then go ahead and pay $150 for that product or service then I have just screwed the people who would have received that $50. Your idea robs Peter to pay Paul and results in fewer goods and services being purchased.

You've said more than once in this thread that other people are basically shilling for corporations but in reality you are the one who is letting them off the hook. Let's use the two you just mentioned: Walmart and McDonalds. Both of them could pay their employees more than they are right now, they don't need me or anyone else to overpay yet they don't. Why do you think overpaying would result in the extra money trickling down to the workers? Those companies pay what they pay because they know they can do it and the taxpayers will pick up the slack. Your idea is to ask me to pay more and then you say that if I don't pay more then I will still pay more anyway because of the government assistance. According to you I'm screwed no matter what. Here's my idea: bill these corporations for the benefits claimed by their employees. It really is that simple and unlike your plan, I don't have to take it in the shorts no matter what.

Is ignorance rally bliss, me boy. Try actually reading something that explains the problem that economists everywhere are seeing. Income redistribution is a real thing. It has been going on for years. What you do not want to know, me boy, is that it has been, since the late 1970's, been goint at an accelerating rate toward the wealthy. Easy to find that is true, should you want to know. Here are a few articles on the subject. I could give you a hundred, no problem. But then I think you do not read about things that do not fit with what you want to believe:y
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

In the U.S., the Rich Are Getting Richer While the Poor Get Poorer -- Fusion.

The Rich Are Getting Richer And Everyone Else Is Getting Hosed - Business Insider

http://www.epi.org/publication/the_rich_get_richer/

Haves and have nots: America's rich get richer

A Look at the Numbers: How the Rich Get Richer | Mother Jones

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/the-rich-get-even-richer.html?_r=0

In This Recovery, the Rich Get Richer | Smart Charts, What Matters Today | BillMoyers.com

Why the Rich Are Getting Richer | Foreign Affairs

Now, if you are in the top .5%, or if you just want to believe what you want to believe, then you will be happy to know that the middle class is and has been getting screwed for years. If not, then you are just plain stupid. Because you are getting screwed and liking it.

 

[Rshermr]

You're unwilling to try. And that's sad. But oh well. Like i said, the greed and hate is coming back around on so many. Now the Middle Class Taxpayers will have to pick up the tab on Walmart's and McDonalds' Slaves. They're gonna find out that it really does hurt being a disrespected Slave. It is Karmic Justice.

I don't see the need to try. I've never put my hand on a chopping block and driven an axe blade down through the fingers but even though I've never done it I'm still reasonably certain I can accurately predict the outcome.

Your idea would actually hurt workers, not help them. If I can purchase a product or service for $100 but I then go ahead and pay $150 for that product or service then I have just screwed the people who would have received that $50. Your idea robs Peter to pay Paul and results in fewer goods and services being purchased.

You've said more than once in this thread that other people are basically shilling for corporations but in reality you are the one who is letting them off the hook. Let's use the two you just mentioned: Walmart and McDonalds. Both of them could pay their employees more than they are right now, they don't need me or anyone else to overpay yet they don't. Why do you think overpaying would result in the extra money trickling down to the workers? Those companies pay what they pay because they know they can do it and the taxpayers will pick up the slack. Your idea is to ask me to pay more and then you say that if I don't pay more then I will still pay more anyway because of the government assistance. According to you I'm screwed no matter what. Here's my idea: bill these corporations for the benefits claimed by their employees. It really is that simple and unlike your plan, I don't have to take it in the shorts no matter what.

Is ignorance rally bliss, me boy. Try actually reading something that explains the problem that economists everywhere are seeing. Income redistribution is a real thing. It has been going on for years. What you do not want to know, me boy, is that it has been, since the late 1970's, been goint at an accelerating rate toward the wealthy. Easy to find that is true, should you want to know. Here are a few articles on the subject. I could give you a hundred, no problem. But then I think you do not read about things that do not fit with what you want to believe:y
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

In the U.S., the Rich Are Getting Richer While the Poor Get Poorer -- Fusion.

The Rich Are Getting Richer And Everyone Else Is Getting Hosed - Business Insider

State of Working America preview: The rich get richer | Economic Policy Institute

Haves and have nots: America's rich get richer

A Look at the Numbers: How the Rich Get Richer | Mother Jones

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/the-rich-get-even-richer.html?_r=0

In This Recovery, the Rich Get Richer | Smart Charts, What Matters Today | BillMoyers.com

Why the Rich Are Getting Richer | Foreign Affairs

Now, if you are in the top .5%, or if you just want to believe what you want to believe, then you will be happy to know that the middle class is and has been getting screwed for years. If not, then you are just plain stupid. Because you are getting screwed and liking it.

 

[Rshermr]

Would you pay more for a product if you knew it would help Workers?

Would it make a difference? If the upped the price there is no way to be sure the workers would benefit from it. It is up to the company to decide how the profits are split.
Who would decide that little fact? Does the government now come in and say that 50% of the profits must now be divided up between employees? No,it is up to the company to decide how they use their profits.

Does the government now come in and say that 50% of the profits must now be divided up between employees?

Employee wages are already many times the profits, at a typical company.

UAL was owned by the unions, they still managed to go bankrupt.
I guess they should have paid themselves more?
The author of this silly thread should start his own business and pay the workers as much as he wants, instead of whining on USMB.

Employee wages are already many times the profits, at a typical company.
What profits??? Gross??? Of course not. Net??? Maybe. Depends on how labor intensive the product/service is. But then, you see, that is what production is about. If you need labor, then the labor costs are fairly high. And your point is meaningless. But then, you did post a statement that has no link to prove it. Have one???

You take the simplistic look of a con, me boy. Lower wages makes everything better in your mind. But here is a Harvard Business Review that disproves your hypothesis. Hope this is not to far from your agenda for you to consider:

Wal-Mart’s legendary obsession with cost containment shows up in countless ways, including aggressive control of employee benefits and wages. Managing labor costs isn’t a crazy idea, of course. But stingy pay and benefits don’t necessarily translate into lower costs in the long run.

Consider Costco and Wal-Mart’s Sam’s Club, which compete fiercely on low-price merchandise. Among warehouse retailers, Costco—with 338 stores and 67,600 full-time employees in the United States—is number one, accounting for about 50% of the market. Sam’s Club—with 551 stores and 110,200 employees in the United States—is number two, with about 40% of the market.

Though the businesses are direct competitors and quite similar overall, a remarkable disparity shows up in their wage and benefits structures. The average wage at Costco is $17 an hour. Wal-Mart does not break out the pay of its Sam’s Club workers, but a full-time worker at Wal-Mart makes $10.11 an hour on average, and a variety of sources suggest that Sam’s Club’s pay scale is similar to Wal-Mart’s. A 2005 New York Times article by Steven Greenhouse reported that at $17 an hour, Costco’s average pay is 72% higher than Sam’s Club’s ($9.86 an hour). Interviews that a colleague and I conducted with a dozen Sam’s Club employees in San Francisco and Denver put the average hourly wage at about $10. And a 2004 BusinessWeek article by Stanley Holmes and Wendy Zellner estimated Sam’s Club’s average hourly wage at $11.52.

On the benefits side, 82% of Costco employees have health-insurance coverage, compared with less than half at Wal-Mart. And Costco workers pay just 8% of their health premiums, whereas Wal-Mart workers pay 33% of theirs. Ninety-one percent of Costco’s employees are covered by retirement plans, with the company contributing an annual average of $1,330 per employee, while 64 percent of employees at Sam’s Club are covered, with the company contributing an annual average of $747 per employee.

Costco’s practices are clearly more expensive, but they have an offsetting cost-containment effect: Turnover is unusually low, at 17% overall and just 6% after one year’s employment. In contrast, turnover at Wal-Mart is 44% a year, close to the industry average. In skilled and semi-skilled jobs, the fully loaded cost of replacing a worker who leaves (excluding lost productivity) is typically 1.5 to 2.5 times the worker’s annual salary. To be conservative, let’s assume that the total cost of replacing an hourly employee at Costco or Sam’s Club is only 60% of his or her annual salary. If a Costco employee quits, the cost of replacing him or her is therefore $21,216. If a Sam’s Club employee leaves, the cost is $12,617. At first glance, it may seem that the low-wage approach at Sam’s Club would result in lower turnover costs. But if its turnover rate is the same as Wal-Mart’s, Sam’s Club loses more than twice as many people as Costco does: 44% versus 17%. By this calculation, the total annual cost to Costco of employee churn is $244 million, whereas the total annual cost to Sam’s Club is $612 million. That’s $5,274 per Sam’s Club employee, versus $3,628 per Costco employee.
In return for its generous wages and benefits, Costco gets one of the most loyal and productive workforces in all of retailing, and, probably not coincidentally, the lowest shrinkage (employee theft) figures in the industry. While Sam’s Club and Costco generated $37 billion and $43 billion, respectively, in U.S. sales last year, Costco did it with 38% fewer employees—admittedly, in part by selling to higher-income shoppers and offering more high-end goods. As a result, Costco generated $21,805 in U.S. operating profit per hourly employee, compared with $11,615 at Sam’s Club. Costco’s stable, productive workforce more than offsets its higher costs.

These figures challenge the common assumption that labor rates equal labor costs. Costco’s approach shows that when it comes to wages and benefits, a cost-leadership strategy need not be a race to the bottom.
The High Cost of Low Wages - Harvard Business Review

Kinda makes that whole cut the wages theory of the cons look rather stupid, eh?

 

[Rshermr]

Would you pay more for a product if you knew it would help Workers?

Would it make a difference? If the upped the price there is no way to be sure the workers would benefit from it. It is up to the company to decide how the profits are split.
Who would decide that little fact? Does the government now come in and say that 50% of the profits must now be divided up between employees? No,it is up to the company to decide how they use their profits.

Does the government now come in and say that 50% of the profits must now be divided up between employees?

Employee wages are already many times the profits, at a typical company.

UAL was owned by the unions, they still managed to go bankrupt.
I guess they should have paid themselves more?
The author of this silly thread should start his own business and pay the workers as much as he wants, instead of whining on USMB.

The author of this silly thread should start his own business and pay the workers as much as he wants, instead of whining on USMB.
Yup. That's it. Keep those wages low. Makes the stockholders soooooooo happy. Passes the koch test, of course. Always good to pass the koch test if you are a con. But then, never read this sort of thing:
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

In the U.S., the Rich Are Getting Richer While the Poor Get Poorer -- Fusion.

The Rich Are Getting Richer And Everyone Else Is Getting Hosed - Business Insider

State of Working America preview: The rich get richer | Economic Policy Institute

Haves and have nots: America's rich get richer

A Look at the Numbers: How the Rich Get Richer | Mother Jones

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/the-rich-get-even-richer.html?_r=0

In This Recovery, the Rich Get Richer | Smart Charts, What Matters Today | BillMoyers.com

Why the Rich Are Getting Richer | Foreign Affairs

Keep that income redistribution thing going. From the middle class to the wealthy. Make the rich richer, because that is what the cons believe is the thing to do. Hell, the bat shit crazy con web sites ALL say it is the best thing since sliced bread. And those nasty workers, and double nasty unions, why, why would you ever care about them. With luck, we can make the earnings of the working class as low as in china, and the cons can all do a little happy dance. Libertarian mecca. With no concept that they are pushing for the destruction of the us economy. But then, the upper half percent of so will be soooooo happy.

But then, if you have an agenda, why look at reality.

 

[lakeview]

You're unwilling to try. And that's sad. But oh well. Like i said, the greed and hate is coming back around on so many. Now the Middle Class Taxpayers will have to pick up the tab on Walmart's and McDonalds' Slaves. They're gonna find out that it really does hurt being a disrespected Slave. It is Karmic Justice.

I don't see the need to try. I've never put my hand on a chopping block and driven an axe blade down through the fingers but even though I've never done it I'm still reasonably certain I can accurately predict the outcome.

Your idea would actually hurt workers, not help them. If I can purchase a product or service for $100 but I then go ahead and pay $150 for that product or service then I have just screwed the people who would have received that $50. Your idea robs Peter to pay Paul and results in fewer goods and services being purchased.

You've said more than once in this thread that other people are basically shilling for corporations but in reality you are the one who is letting them off the hook. Let's use the two you just mentioned: Walmart and McDonalds. Both of them could pay their employees more than they are right now, they don't need me or anyone else to overpay yet they don't. Why do you think overpaying would result in the extra money trickling down to the workers? Those companies pay what they pay because they know they can do it and the taxpayers will pick up the slack. Your idea is to ask me to pay more and then you say that if I don't pay more then I will still pay more anyway because of the government assistance. According to you I'm screwed no matter what. Here's my idea: bill these corporations for the benefits claimed by their employees. It really is that simple and unlike your plan, I don't have to take it in the shorts no matter what.

Is ignorance rally bliss, me boy. Try actually reading something that explains the problem that economists everywhere are seeing. Income redistribution is a real thing..

I'm going to stop you right here. You obviously either did not understand what I've been saying or deliberately did not want to understand. I get it, you don't like the 1% and you are concerned that so much wealth has been gained by such a small part of our population and by the way, I agree with you, that has happened and it's not good for our economy. I didn't advocate anything that helps the wealthy at the expense of the worker but of course if you had acknowledged what I had really said instead of what you wanted me to have said you wouldn't have then had the opportunity to inject your politics into a discussion about economics...again.

Wages in some segments of our economy are currently artificially low. When an equilibrium point is moved there has to be some force in place to hold it in its new position. In this case the force is government assistance going to people who have jobs. Paying extra won't do anything to fix that because it's not lack of corporate income that's causing this, pay as much as you want to, it won't change the wages one bit because retail price isn't part of the equation.

The OP is about paying more to help workers and that is the topic I'm dealing with. I agree with your general observations and beliefs about income inequality but that's for a different thread that isn't as focused on one topic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Would it make a difference? If the upped the price there is no way to be sure the workers would benefit from it. It is up to the company to decide how the profits are split.
Who would decide that little fact? Does the government now come in and say that 50% of the profits must now be divided up between employees? No,it is up to the company to decide how they use their profits.

Does the government now come in and say that 50% of the profits must now be divided up between employees?

Employee wages are already many times the profits, at a typical company.

UAL was owned by the unions, they still managed to go bankrupt.
I guess they should have paid themselves more?
The author of this silly thread should start his own business and pay the workers as much as he wants, instead of whining on USMB.

Employee wages are already many times the profits, at a typical company.
What profits??? Gross??? Of course not. Net??? Maybe. Depends on how labor intensive the product/service is. But then, you see, that is what production is about. If you need labor, then the labor costs are fairly high. And your point is meaningless. But then, you did post a statement that has no link to prove it. Have one???

You take the simplistic look of a con, me boy. Lower wages makes everything better in your mind. But here is a Harvard Business Review that disproves your hypothesis. Hope this is not to far from your agenda for you to consider:

Wal-Mart’s legendary obsession with cost containment shows up in countless ways, including aggressive control of employee benefits and wages. Managing labor costs isn’t a crazy idea, of course. But stingy pay and benefits don’t necessarily translate into lower costs in the long run.

Consider Costco and Wal-Mart’s Sam’s Club, which compete fiercely on low-price merchandise. Among warehouse retailers, Costco—with 338 stores and 67,600 full-time employees in the United States—is number one, accounting for about 50% of the market. Sam’s Club—with 551 stores and 110,200 employees in the United States—is number two, with about 40% of the market.

Though the businesses are direct competitors and quite similar overall, a remarkable disparity shows up in their wage and benefits structures. The average wage at Costco is $17 an hour. Wal-Mart does not break out the pay of its Sam’s Club workers, but a full-time worker at Wal-Mart makes $10.11 an hour on average, and a variety of sources suggest that Sam’s Club’s pay scale is similar to Wal-Mart’s. A 2005 New York Times article by Steven Greenhouse reported that at $17 an hour, Costco’s average pay is 72% higher than Sam’s Club’s ($9.86 an hour). Interviews that a colleague and I conducted with a dozen Sam’s Club employees in San Francisco and Denver put the average hourly wage at about $10. And a 2004 BusinessWeek article by Stanley Holmes and Wendy Zellner estimated Sam’s Club’s average hourly wage at $11.52.

On the benefits side, 82% of Costco employees have health-insurance coverage, compared with less than half at Wal-Mart. And Costco workers pay just 8% of their health premiums, whereas Wal-Mart workers pay 33% of theirs. Ninety-one percent of Costco’s employees are covered by retirement plans, with the company contributing an annual average of $1,330 per employee, while 64 percent of employees at Sam’s Club are covered, with the company contributing an annual average of $747 per employee.

Costco’s practices are clearly more expensive, but they have an offsetting cost-containment effect: Turnover is unusually low, at 17% overall and just 6% after one year’s employment. In contrast, turnover at Wal-Mart is 44% a year, close to the industry average. In skilled and semi-skilled jobs, the fully loaded cost of replacing a worker who leaves (excluding lost productivity) is typically 1.5 to 2.5 times the worker’s annual salary. To be conservative, let’s assume that the total cost of replacing an hourly employee at Costco or Sam’s Club is only 60% of his or her annual salary. If a Costco employee quits, the cost of replacing him or her is therefore $21,216. If a Sam’s Club employee leaves, the cost is $12,617. At first glance, it may seem that the low-wage approach at Sam’s Club would result in lower turnover costs. But if its turnover rate is the same as Wal-Mart’s, Sam’s Club loses more than twice as many people as Costco does: 44% versus 17%. By this calculation, the total annual cost to Costco of employee churn is $244 million, whereas the total annual cost to Sam’s Club is $612 million. That’s $5,274 per Sam’s Club employee, versus $3,628 per Costco employee.
In return for its generous wages and benefits, Costco gets one of the most loyal and productive workforces in all of retailing, and, probably not coincidentally, the lowest shrinkage (employee theft) figures in the industry. While Sam’s Club and Costco generated $37 billion and $43 billion, respectively, in U.S. sales last year, Costco did it with 38% fewer employees—admittedly, in part by selling to higher-income shoppers and offering more high-end goods. As a result, Costco generated $21,805 in U.S. operating profit per hourly employee, compared with $11,615 at Sam’s Club. Costco’s stable, productive workforce more than offsets its higher costs.

These figures challenge the common assumption that labor rates equal labor costs. Costco’s approach shows that when it comes to wages and benefits, a cost-leadership strategy need not be a race to the bottom.
The High Cost of Low Wages - Harvard Business Review

Kinda makes that whole cut the wages theory of the cons look rather stupid, eh?

What profits??? Gross??? Of course not. Net??? Maybe. Depends on how labor intensive the product/service is. But then, you see, that is what production is about. If you need labor, then the labor costs are fairly high. And your point is meaningless.

WalMart's net income is about 4% of sales. Are employee wages more than 4% of sales?
Why is that meaningless?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Would it make a difference? If the upped the price there is no way to be sure the workers would benefit from it. It is up to the company to decide how the profits are split.
Who would decide that little fact? Does the government now come in and say that 50% of the profits must now be divided up between employees? No,it is up to the company to decide how they use their profits.

Does the government now come in and say that 50% of the profits must now be divided up between employees?

Employee wages are already many times the profits, at a typical company.

UAL was owned by the unions, they still managed to go bankrupt.
I guess they should have paid themselves more?
The author of this silly thread should start his own business and pay the workers as much as he wants, instead of whining on USMB.

The author of this silly thread should start his own business and pay the workers as much as he wants, instead of whining on USMB.
Yup. That's it. Keep those wages low. Makes the stockholders soooooooo happy. Passes the koch test, of course. Always good to pass the koch test if you are a con. But then, never read this sort of thing:
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

In the U.S., the Rich Are Getting Richer While the Poor Get Poorer -- Fusion.

The Rich Are Getting Richer And Everyone Else Is Getting Hosed - Business Insider

State of Working America preview: The rich get richer | Economic Policy Institute

Haves and have nots: America's rich get richer

A Look at the Numbers: How the Rich Get Richer | Mother Jones

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/the-rich-get-even-richer.html?_r=0

In This Recovery, the Rich Get Richer | Smart Charts, What Matters Today | BillMoyers.com

Why the Rich Are Getting Richer | Foreign Affairs

Keep that income redistribution thing going. From the middle class to the wealthy. Make the rich richer, because that is what the cons believe is the thing to do. Hell, the bat shit crazy con web sites ALL say it is the best thing since sliced bread. And those nasty workers, and double nasty unions, why, why would you ever care about them. With luck, we can make the earnings of the working class as low as in china, and the cons can all do a little happy dance. Libertarian mecca. With no concept that they are pushing for the destruction of the us economy. But then, the upper half percent of so will be soooooo happy.

But then, if you have an agenda, why look at reality.

Yup. That's it. Keep those wages low. Makes the stockholders soooooooo happy.

The union owners of UAL kept the employee wages low?
Those greedy union bastards!

 

[bendog]

imo, the OP was more in line with the logic of Truman's Fair Deal. If your neighbor makes more, he can buy more of what you make, and then you'll make more. However, in today's multi national society, where mulitinationals can anonymously contribute as much as they want to political campaigns, it's not politically possible. The theory behind Obamacare was a simple premise by Krugman ... sell the public on a tax on capital to provide a public benefit ... like HC. But, of course democrats being democrats, it was hopelessly mismanaged by a desire to micromanage personal economic choice.

Low wages will ultimately hurt a consumer economy and then you have German Austerity that could sink a continent and perhaps the world

Germany's Export Obsession Is Dooming Europe to a Depression - Matthew O'Brien - The Atlantic

 

[expat_panama]

...Low wages will ultimately hurt a consumer economy...

Anyone can decide to believe anything they want, but three's no getting around the fact that it's goofy to say low prices for labor would hurt the general economy any more than say, low prices for food.

 

[bendog]

Well, low prices for commodities tend to lead to fewer commodities tending to lead to rising prices. Labor is simply not a market that is flixble to alterations in supply and demand because .... we don't have enough jobs for non-technically skilled workers. So, if wages fall overall, people buy less.

See, eg, Spain.

 

[Rshermr]

Does the government now come in and say that 50% of the profits must now be divided up between employees?

Employee wages are already many times the profits, at a typical company.

UAL was owned by the unions, they still managed to go bankrupt.
I guess they should have paid themselves more?
The author of this silly thread should start his own business and pay the workers as much as he wants, instead of whining on USMB.

Employee wages are already many times the profits, at a typical company.
What profits??? Gross??? Of course not. Net??? Maybe. Depends on how labor intensive the product/service is. But then, you see, that is what production is about. If you need labor, then the labor costs are fairly high. And your point is meaningless. But then, you did post a statement that has no link to prove it. Have one???

You take the simplistic look of a con, me boy. Lower wages makes everything better in your mind. But here is a Harvard Business Review that disproves your hypothesis. Hope this is not to far from your agenda for you to consider:

Wal-Mart’s legendary obsession with cost containment shows up in countless ways, including aggressive control of employee benefits and wages. Managing labor costs isn’t a crazy idea, of course. But stingy pay and benefits don’t necessarily translate into lower costs in the long run.

Consider Costco and Wal-Mart’s Sam’s Club, which compete fiercely on low-price merchandise. Among warehouse retailers, Costco—with 338 stores and 67,600 full-time employees in the United States—is number one, accounting for about 50% of the market. Sam’s Club—with 551 stores and 110,200 employees in the United States—is number two, with about 40% of the market.

Though the businesses are direct competitors and quite similar overall, a remarkable disparity shows up in their wage and benefits structures. The average wage at Costco is $17 an hour. Wal-Mart does not break out the pay of its Sam’s Club workers, but a full-time worker at Wal-Mart makes $10.11 an hour on average, and a variety of sources suggest that Sam’s Club’s pay scale is similar to Wal-Mart’s. A 2005 New York Times article by Steven Greenhouse reported that at $17 an hour, Costco’s average pay is 72% higher than Sam’s Club’s ($9.86 an hour). Interviews that a colleague and I conducted with a dozen Sam’s Club employees in San Francisco and Denver put the average hourly wage at about $10. And a 2004 BusinessWeek article by Stanley Holmes and Wendy Zellner estimated Sam’s Club’s average hourly wage at $11.52.

On the benefits side, 82% of Costco employees have health-insurance coverage, compared with less than half at Wal-Mart. And Costco workers pay just 8% of their health premiums, whereas Wal-Mart workers pay 33% of theirs. Ninety-one percent of Costco’s employees are covered by retirement plans, with the company contributing an annual average of $1,330 per employee, while 64 percent of employees at Sam’s Club are covered, with the company contributing an annual average of $747 per employee.

Costco’s practices are clearly more expensive, but they have an offsetting cost-containment effect: Turnover is unusually low, at 17% overall and just 6% after one year’s employment. In contrast, turnover at Wal-Mart is 44% a year, close to the industry average. In skilled and semi-skilled jobs, the fully loaded cost of replacing a worker who leaves (excluding lost productivity) is typically 1.5 to 2.5 times the worker’s annual salary. To be conservative, let’s assume that the total cost of replacing an hourly employee at Costco or Sam’s Club is only 60% of his or her annual salary. If a Costco employee quits, the cost of replacing him or her is therefore $21,216. If a Sam’s Club employee leaves, the cost is $12,617. At first glance, it may seem that the low-wage approach at Sam’s Club would result in lower turnover costs. But if its turnover rate is the same as Wal-Mart’s, Sam’s Club loses more than twice as many people as Costco does: 44% versus 17%. By this calculation, the total annual cost to Costco of employee churn is $244 million, whereas the total annual cost to Sam’s Club is $612 million. That’s $5,274 per Sam’s Club employee, versus $3,628 per Costco employee.
In return for its generous wages and benefits, Costco gets one of the most loyal and productive workforces in all of retailing, and, probably not coincidentally, the lowest shrinkage (employee theft) figures in the industry. While Sam’s Club and Costco generated $37 billion and $43 billion, respectively, in U.S. sales last year, Costco did it with 38% fewer employees—admittedly, in part by selling to higher-income shoppers and offering more high-end goods. As a result, Costco generated $21,805 in U.S. operating profit per hourly employee, compared with $11,615 at Sam’s Club. Costco’s stable, productive workforce more than offsets its higher costs.

These figures challenge the common assumption that labor rates equal labor costs. Costco’s approach shows that when it comes to wages and benefits, a cost-leadership strategy need not be a race to the bottom.
The High Cost of Low Wages - Harvard Business Review

Kinda makes that whole cut the wages theory of the cons look rather stupid, eh?

What profits??? Gross??? Of course not. Net??? Maybe. Depends on how labor intensive the product/service is. But then, you see, that is what production is about. If you need labor, then the labor costs are fairly high. And your point is meaningless.

WalMart's net income is about 4% of sales. Are employee wages more than 4% of sales?
Why is that meaningless?

Because wallyworld is a high volume retail store, largely selling low margin items. Groceries, etc. To, you see huge gross sales with relative small net profit. Lets see how that poor Wallyworld works from a profitability standpoint and from how they pay their employees:

WalMart posted profits of $15.4 billion in 2011, and it enriched 6 WalMart heirs and heiresses whose combined worth is greater than the bottom 41% of American families (48.8 million households). Part of WalMart’s profits come from paying employees below poverty level wages, and to keep WalMart associates from going hungry and falling ill, taxpayers provided food stamps and Medicaid to make up the difference.

Because WalMart pays their employees slave wages, workers are forced to rely on food stamps and Medicaid which is how WalMart siphons money from taxpayers. The taxpayer dollars allow WalMart to pay their workers an average of $8.81 an hour without having them starving and homeless. Last week, WalMart Vice President of Communications, David Tovar, attempted to downplay their associates’ concerns about low pay, and reassure shoppers that WalMart has “got great associates” who are “going to do a great job for us this holiday season.” Tovar claimed WalMart was “working hard every day to provide more opportunities for associates” that included providing “a 10 percent discount card.” With the current poverty level for a family of four at $23,050, the typical WalMart employee is paid $22,100 a year, and because associates get a 10% discount to buy WalMart products, they are investing their below poverty pay checks back into the company that reported a 9% percent increase in third-quarter net income, earning $3.63 billion.

WalMart earns record profits while supporting Republicans who want to slash their employees' food stamps

So, yup, I see no problem with wallyworld paying more. Though I am sure you do, since wallmart is one of the very largest contributors to the republican party. So, I am sure you have no issue with their low wages, and the fact that employees have to get their health care outside the company, and we get to pay it. Yup, a real honest to goodness american example of capitalism. Sponging off of the taxpayers in order to fatten their profits.

But then again, Costco pays much better in the same market, and does not treat it's employees like slaves. Funny you ignored that.

 

[Rshermr]

...Low wages will ultimately hurt a consumer economy...

Anyone can decide to believe anything they want, but three's no getting around the fact that it's goofy to say low prices for labor would hurt the general economy any more than say, low prices for food.

Here is the thing, expat, that seems to elude you. PEOPLE BUY STUFF. Like FOOD. However, FOOD BUYS NOTHING. It has no buying power.

Which, of course, why what you say makes absolutly no sense. I know you do not believe in increasing aggregate demand to improve an economy, but then, you wouldn't. Because it does not fit your agenda. But that was really, really, really STUPID.

 

[Rshermr]

Does the government now come in and say that 50% of the profits must now be divided up between employees?

Employee wages are already many times the profits, at a typical company.

UAL was owned by the unions, they still managed to go bankrupt.
I guess they should have paid themselves more?
The author of this silly thread should start his own business and pay the workers as much as he wants, instead of whining on USMB.

The author of this silly thread should start his own business and pay the workers as much as he wants, instead of whining on USMB.
Yup. That's it. Keep those wages low. Makes the stockholders soooooooo happy. Passes the koch test, of course. Always good to pass the koch test if you are a con. But then, never read this sort of thing:
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

In the U.S., the Rich Are Getting Richer While the Poor Get Poorer -- Fusion.

The Rich Are Getting Richer And Everyone Else Is Getting Hosed - Business Insider

State of Working America preview: The rich get richer | Economic Policy Institute

Haves and have nots: America's rich get richer

A Look at the Numbers: How the Rich Get Richer | Mother Jones

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/the-rich-get-even-richer.html?_r=0

In This Recovery, the Rich Get Richer | Smart Charts, What Matters Today | BillMoyers.com

Why the Rich Are Getting Richer | Foreign Affairs

Keep that income redistribution thing going. From the middle class to the wealthy. Make the rich richer, because that is what the cons believe is the thing to do. Hell, the bat shit crazy con web sites ALL say it is the best thing since sliced bread. And those nasty workers, and double nasty unions, why, why would you ever care about them. With luck, we can make the earnings of the working class as low as in china, and the cons can all do a little happy dance. Libertarian mecca. With no concept that they are pushing for the destruction of the us economy. But then, the upper half percent of so will be soooooo happy.

But then, if you have an agenda, why look at reality.

Yup. That's it. Keep those wages low. Makes the stockholders soooooooo happy.

The union owners of UAL kept the employee wages low?
Those greedy union bastards!

Toddster, me boy, you seem to have an obsession with UAL. I know it is all over the bat shit crazy con web sites, but you apparently missed a couple of points.
1. UAL was never union owned. It was employee owned for a few years. You really should not lie, me boy. Makes you look silly.
2. For the majority of it's history, UAL was NOT employee owned, but a standard corporation form that got into heavy trouble based on the enlightened guidance of it's management and board of directors. Employee ownership happened in an effort to SAVE the company.
3, You do not seem to be capable of understanding that talking about ONE of many, many thousands of companies proves nothing.

As all the data shows, the wealthy are getting more so at an increasing rate. I know you do not care, as long as the very, very wealthy get more so. Problem is, most do not feel as you do.

Really, me boy, look up integrity. You will feel sooo much better if you follow the precepts discussed there.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Employee wages are already many times the profits, at a typical company.
What profits??? Gross??? Of course not. Net??? Maybe. Depends on how labor intensive the product/service is. But then, you see, that is what production is about. If you need labor, then the labor costs are fairly high. And your point is meaningless. But then, you did post a statement that has no link to prove it. Have one???

You take the simplistic look of a con, me boy. Lower wages makes everything better in your mind. But here is a Harvard Business Review that disproves your hypothesis. Hope this is not to far from your agenda for you to consider:


Kinda makes that whole cut the wages theory of the cons look rather stupid, eh?

What profits??? Gross??? Of course not. Net??? Maybe. Depends on how labor intensive the product/service is. But then, you see, that is what production is about. If you need labor, then the labor costs are fairly high. And your point is meaningless.

WalMart's net income is about 4% of sales. Are employee wages more than 4% of sales?
Why is that meaningless?

Because wallyworld is a high volume retail store, largely selling low margin items. Groceries, etc. To, you see huge gross sales with relative small net profit. Lets see how that poor Wallyworld works from a profitability standpoint and from how they pay their employees:

WalMart posted profits of $15.4 billion in 2011, and it enriched 6 WalMart heirs and heiresses whose combined worth is greater than the bottom 41% of American families (48.8 million households). Part of WalMart’s profits come from paying employees below poverty level wages, and to keep WalMart associates from going hungry and falling ill, taxpayers provided food stamps and Medicaid to make up the difference.

Because WalMart pays their employees slave wages, workers are forced to rely on food stamps and Medicaid which is how WalMart siphons money from taxpayers. The taxpayer dollars allow WalMart to pay their workers an average of $8.81 an hour without having them starving and homeless. Last week, WalMart Vice President of Communications, David Tovar, attempted to downplay their associates’ concerns about low pay, and reassure shoppers that WalMart has “got great associates” who are “going to do a great job for us this holiday season.” Tovar claimed WalMart was “working hard every day to provide more opportunities for associates” that included providing “a 10 percent discount card.” With the current poverty level for a family of four at $23,050, the typical WalMart employee is paid $22,100 a year, and because associates get a 10% discount to buy WalMart products, they are investing their below poverty pay checks back into the company that reported a 9% percent increase in third-quarter net income, earning $3.63 billion.

WalMart earns record profits while supporting Republicans who want to slash their employees' food stamps

So, yup, I see no problem with wallyworld paying more. Though I am sure you do, since wallmart is one of the very largest contributors to the republican party. So, I am sure you have no issue with their low wages, and the fact that employees have to get their health care outside the company, and we get to pay it. Yup, a real honest to goodness american example of capitalism. Sponging off of the taxpayers in order to fatten their profits.

But then again, Costco pays much better in the same market, and does not treat it's employees like slaves. Funny you ignored that.

Because WalMart pays their employees slave wages, workers are forced to rely on food stamps and Medicaid which is how WalMart siphons money from taxpayers.

That's awful! They should all quit.
Then they'd rely less on food stamps and Medicaid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The author of this silly thread should start his own business and pay the workers as much as he wants, instead of whining on USMB.
Yup. That's it. Keep those wages low. Makes the stockholders soooooooo happy. Passes the koch test, of course. Always good to pass the koch test if you are a con. But then, never read this sort of thing:
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

In the U.S., the Rich Are Getting Richer While the Poor Get Poorer -- Fusion.

The Rich Are Getting Richer And Everyone Else Is Getting Hosed - Business Insider

State of Working America preview: The rich get richer | Economic Policy Institute

Haves and have nots: America's rich get richer

A Look at the Numbers: How the Rich Get Richer | Mother Jones

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/the-rich-get-even-richer.html?_r=0

In This Recovery, the Rich Get Richer | Smart Charts, What Matters Today | BillMoyers.com

Why the Rich Are Getting Richer | Foreign Affairs

Keep that income redistribution thing going. From the middle class to the wealthy. Make the rich richer, because that is what the cons believe is the thing to do. Hell, the bat shit crazy con web sites ALL say it is the best thing since sliced bread. And those nasty workers, and double nasty unions, why, why would you ever care about them. With luck, we can make the earnings of the working class as low as in china, and the cons can all do a little happy dance. Libertarian mecca. With no concept that they are pushing for the destruction of the us economy. But then, the upper half percent of so will be soooooo happy.

But then, if you have an agenda, why look at reality.

Yup. That's it. Keep those wages low. Makes the stockholders soooooooo happy.

The union owners of UAL kept the employee wages low?
Those greedy union bastards!

Toddster, me boy, you seem to have an obsession with UAL. I know it is all over the bat shit crazy con web sites, but you apparently missed a couple of points.
1. UAL was never union owned. It was employee owned for a few years. You really should not lie, me boy. Makes you look silly.
2. For the majority of it's history, UAL was NOT employee owned, but a standard corporation form that got into heavy trouble based on the enlightened guidance of it's management and board of directors. Employee ownership happened in an effort to SAVE the company.
3, You do not seem to be capable of understanding that talking about ONE of many, many thousands of companies proves nothing.

As all the data shows, the wealthy are getting more so at an increasing rate. I know you do not care, as long as the very, very wealthy get more so. Problem is, most do not feel as you do.

Really, me boy, look up integrity. You will feel sooo much better if you follow the precepts discussed there.

It was employee owned for a few years.

That's a relief, employees, not greedy rich owners.
How'd the employees do?

 

[freedombecki]

Does the government now come in and say that 50% of the profits must now be divided up between employees?

Employee wages are already many times the profits, at a typical company.

UAL was owned by the unions, they still managed to go bankrupt.
I guess they should have paid themselves more?
The author of this silly thread should start his own business and pay the workers as much as he wants, instead of whining on USMB.

Employee wages are already many times the profits, at a typical company.
What profits??? Gross??? Of course not. Net??? Maybe. Depends on how labor intensive the product/service is. But then, you see, that is what production is about. If you need labor, then the labor costs are fairly high. And your point is meaningless. But then, you did post a statement that has no link to prove it. Have one???

You take the simplistic look of a con, me boy. Lower wages makes everything better in your mind. But here is a Harvard Business Review that disproves your hypothesis. Hope this is not to far from your agenda for you to consider:

Wal-Mart’s legendary obsession with cost containment shows up in countless ways, including aggressive control of employee benefits and wages. Managing labor costs isn’t a crazy idea, of course. But stingy pay and benefits don’t necessarily translate into lower costs in the long run.

Consider Costco and Wal-Mart’s Sam’s Club, which compete fiercely on low-price merchandise. Among warehouse retailers, Costco—with 338 stores and 67,600 full-time employees in the United States—is number one, accounting for about 50% of the market. Sam’s Club—with 551 stores and 110,200 employees in the United States—is number two, with about 40% of the market.

Though the businesses are direct competitors and quite similar overall, a remarkable disparity shows up in their wage and benefits structures. The average wage at Costco is $17 an hour. Wal-Mart does not break out the pay of its Sam’s Club workers, but a full-time worker at Wal-Mart makes $10.11 an hour on average, and a variety of sources suggest that Sam’s Club’s pay scale is similar to Wal-Mart’s. A 2005 New York Times article by Steven Greenhouse reported that at $17 an hour, Costco’s average pay is 72% higher than Sam’s Club’s ($9.86 an hour). Interviews that a colleague and I conducted with a dozen Sam’s Club employees in San Francisco and Denver put the average hourly wage at about $10. And a 2004 BusinessWeek article by Stanley Holmes and Wendy Zellner estimated Sam’s Club’s average hourly wage at $11.52.

On the benefits side, 82% of Costco employees have health-insurance coverage, compared with less than half at Wal-Mart. And Costco workers pay just 8% of their health premiums, whereas Wal-Mart workers pay 33% of theirs. Ninety-one percent of Costco’s employees are covered by retirement plans, with the company contributing an annual average of $1,330 per employee, while 64 percent of employees at Sam’s Club are covered, with the company contributing an annual average of $747 per employee.

Costco’s practices are clearly more expensive, but they have an offsetting cost-containment effect: Turnover is unusually low, at 17% overall and just 6% after one year’s employment. In contrast, turnover at Wal-Mart is 44% a year, close to the industry average. In skilled and semi-skilled jobs, the fully loaded cost of replacing a worker who leaves (excluding lost productivity) is typically 1.5 to 2.5 times the worker’s annual salary. To be conservative, let’s assume that the total cost of replacing an hourly employee at Costco or Sam’s Club is only 60% of his or her annual salary. If a Costco employee quits, the cost of replacing him or her is therefore $21,216. If a Sam’s Club employee leaves, the cost is $12,617. At first glance, it may seem that the low-wage approach at Sam’s Club would result in lower turnover costs. But if its turnover rate is the same as Wal-Mart’s, Sam’s Club loses more than twice as many people as Costco does: 44% versus 17%. By this calculation, the total annual cost to Costco of employee churn is $244 million, whereas the total annual cost to Sam’s Club is $612 million. That’s $5,274 per Sam’s Club employee, versus $3,628 per Costco employee.
In return for its generous wages and benefits, Costco gets one of the most loyal and productive workforces in all of retailing, and, probably not coincidentally, the lowest shrinkage (employee theft) figures in the industry. While Sam’s Club and Costco generated $37 billion and $43 billion, respectively, in U.S. sales last year, Costco did it with 38% fewer employees—admittedly, in part by selling to higher-income shoppers and offering more high-end goods. As a result, Costco generated $21,805 in U.S. operating profit per hourly employee, compared with $11,615 at Sam’s Club. Costco’s stable, productive workforce more than offsets its higher costs.

These figures challenge the common assumption that labor rates equal labor costs. Costco’s approach shows that when it comes to wages and benefits, a cost-leadership strategy need not be a race to the bottom.
The High Cost of Low Wages - Harvard Business Review

Kinda makes that whole cut the wages theory of the cons look rather stupid, eh?

What profits??? Gross??? Of course not. Net??? Maybe. Depends on how labor intensive the product/service is. But then, you see, that is what production is about. If you need labor, then the labor costs are fairly high. And your point is meaningless.

WalMart's net income is about 4% of sales. Are employee wages more than 4% of sales?
Why is that meaningless?

A lot of seniors on fixed incomes like Walmart because of low prices and fixed incomes, with no working to earn wages after retirement age, anyway. I purchased sewing thread items there yesterday that are at-cost prices for mom and pop businesses. Food is a lot cheaper, too.

A lot of working people's families appreciate the price breaks as work may now consist of more than one part-time jobs to earn enough to supply a family's needs. WalMart is a good deal for poor Americans.

I don't understand why the Democrat billionaires club members aren't enthusiastic supporters of a sales systems that caters to poor Americans. There are many businesses who don't pay as well as Walmart for entry-level jobs, and the Democrat BC turns a blind eye to them, but punishes everything Walmart does.

What will the poor and senior people do if the Democrats create laws targeted just at Walmart, and they lose their steady employment when Walmart has to close down a lot of units in areas in which there are no profits, namely small towns.

 

[midcan5]

Interesting thread, a topic I fight for off line too. I do spend more as much of what we buy is local or American made. We of course can afford to, that many cannot is an effect of a vast number of complex issues, including corporate greed and business agitprop.

I tell people with their Lexus, Mercedes etc, I am one biased American, We drive ads for the American worker.

Apologists for Walmart are a sad bunch, my nephew works there. Billionaires who actually cost Americans money is not a company anyone should admire. Their polices are often immoral, but today morality has reasons that explain away morality. I also know rich people who shop Walmart, greed or is that miserliness, is a human characteristic.

Great post here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/reputation.php?p=8096417 but how many read the statistical information? Ideology and partisanship drive much of American thought today.

See link in signature.

THE AMERICAN LIST | A Continuous Lean.
Shirts Made in USA by the All American Clothing Co
Clothing Made in the USA - American and Unionmade Clothing by All USA Clothing
Travel bags, laptop bags, and backpacks. The best materials and innovative construction since 1972 - TomBihn.com
http://toddshelton.com/
Case Knives - Handcrafting pocket knives in the USA since 1889.
American Apparel - Primary Basics,
Halo Headband Sports Headwear: Head Sweatbands for Athletes


Buy American - support all Americans, including yourself.
Our children, our grandchildren, ourselves require we support each other, buy American.

'Join me, please this labor day weekend'

I was riding home today after a middle distance bicycle ride, tired and a bit out of shape when I started counting cars, America - foreign, American - foreign. It occurred to me if only a small percentage of these people, the people who can afford more than a used clunker, bought American there would be no problems in one of our largest industries today. And lots of people would have a job and lots of businesses would be OK. May even help those incompetent bankers.

So I started giving thumbs up for American and thumbs down for foreign. Hard to distinguish which foreign car is made here, but no need I am a bit of a hard core American when it comes to cars. My '55' Chevy was my first love.

I'm sure the people thought me spastic, as my left hand thumb pointed up, then down, then up as cars drove by. Did anyone figure it out I wondered. Who is this nut! So if the whiners who lost the election can out of the blue, protest taxes, can we not protest something that has been going on for years due to cheaper prices, support structures, and no pensions, but still is having an insidious affect on our industrial base?

So if you own foreign go to you nearest mirror and give yourself a thumbs down, and if you own American and thus support all of us and America, a thumbs up is due and thank you. Take to the streets and express yourself. The bankers thank you too.

Oh, and my bicycle is made in America too.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

That's true. The question is whom should the burden really be on to ensure that decent living. The employers or the individual?

Deeper question that it appears...therefore the answer is complex.
Without writing a novel...my opnion:

On one hand, the individual. No one is more responsible for you - than you. Preparing oneself for the workforce, working hard to get ahead and utilizing proper training can only be done by the individual. - FAULT INDIVIDUAL
Having said that, however, the government has rendered many higher education degrees not worth the paper they are written on. This insane concept of "everyone should go to college" is wasting $billions of taxpayer dollars on grants and subsidies. At the same time overcrowding classrooms with people who have no business being there - BUT - the colleges will not flunk them out because they want the easy paycheck. End result is waaay too many people walking around with degrees that dilutes the value of them....FAULT - GOVERNMENT.
Then there is the relentless drive for corporations to lower labor cost to maintain acceptable profit levels to meet consumer demand for lowest price possible. This is a multifaceted problem. First there was NAFTA, which did exactly what the dismissed Ross Perot said it would do - a mad rush by manufacturers to obtain Mexican cheap labor. - FAULT GOVERNMENT and CORPORATIONS they are in bed with.
Then there is the American consumer. The ever-demanding, never satisfied self-absorbed and blindly stupid American consumer. Americans overwhelmingly choose low price over every other factor. This "WalMart mentality" of only looking at a price - never considering origin of manufacture, rarely considering the quality of the item they are buying - if it is cheaper than the others - we buy it. (not to pick on WalMart, Walmart couldn't exist without the long lines of cart filled sheep buying from them)This has created an atmosphere for businesses to lower cost to meet that demand in every way they possibly can. And what is the easiest and most effective way to cut cost? Labor...absolutely nothing is more effective at lowering per-unit cost than to find slave/near slave labor anywhere they can. -FAULT- INDIVIDUALS

Like I say, it would take a much longer post than this to really address the issue.

 

[expat_panama]

...Labor is simply not a market that is flixble to alterations in supply and demand because .... we don't have enough jobs for non-technically skilled workers...

People who know how to feed themselves understand that the market place is the real world and it's our understandings that are what may be non-functioning. Hearing there are no jobs is like hearing someone trying to sell his house for twice what's offered and complaining that it's the what's market's somehow wrong. Fact is that lots of people would be willing to hire non-tech workers if the price were right.

We need to face reality on its own terms. Sure, we can try and change reality, but we need to see that when our actions are not affecting things then we must deal with facts as they are.

 

[paulitician]

You're unwilling to try. And that's sad. But oh well. Like i said, the greed and hate is coming back around on so many. Now the Middle Class Taxpayers will have to pick up the tab on Walmart's and McDonalds' Slaves. They're gonna find out that it really does hurt being a disrespected Slave. It is Karmic Justice.

I remember the last time I went to McDonalds ... The cashier and staff looked at me like they would rather I die than provide me with good service ... They were unprofessional and disrespectful.
I turned around and walked out the door ... Never been back in one since, and won't be ... Talk about Karmic Justice ... Screw McDonalds and their sorry-assed employees.

.

Another sad result of Slave Labor. They feel worthless and abused. And that obviously effects attitudes and behavior. Happy and prosperous Workers make for better Workers. Everyone benefits.