Do you shop at Walmart?

[Koios]

.

We could give in to the liberals and just pass a law that all retail and all business should feature very high wages and very high prices. IT would make them so happy.

In the end a liberal simply lacks the IQ to understand capitalism.

Or we could mandate a decent minimum wage and the drooling idiot trailer trash Righties could still shop there affordability since higher wage minimums do not track to higher inflation, which all who have IQs north of a potato should know.

HUH? Higher wages( i.e. more money in the supply) is not inflationary?
Facepalm.
Look, labor is the highest percentage of the cost of doing business. Therefore higher abor costs either eat into the bottom line or prices are increased by the seller.
At the end of the day, if you libs want to live by 'the rising tide" axiom, you must live by it 100%
In other words, a sudden increase in wages mandated by the government may be a temporary fix, but would more likely resemble a fiscal sugar rush. Eventually, prices would increase to make up for the higher labor costs.
Then we'd have to endure the cries of "NO FAIR" from you fiscal geniuses on the political left

Correct. No correlation. Check history on it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No. Circa $12 / hour.

How can your workers support a family of 9 on $12 an hour? Even if they could, you need to add another $10 an hour so he can send it home to Mexico.

After all, a business is only there to care for the workers, comrade.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Meanwhile businesses are out to make profit and reduce costs where possible in service of that goal.

No Comrade, only the greedy, running dog capitalists do that. You as a business tycoon, run your billion dollar industries only to benefit the poor and downtrodden.

So wage minimums and other policies protect businesses from imploding under the weight of their own greed, by not allowing them to destroy the middle class their businesses depend upon.

BWAHAHAHAHA

You literally make me laugh out loud. You really are 14, aren't you?

 

[Koios]

No. Circa $12 / hour.

How can your workers support a family of 9 on $12 an hour? Even if they could, you need to add another $10 an hour so he can send it home to Mexico.

After all, a business is only there to care for the workers, comrade.

By combining two minimum wage incomes, a mom and dad will have very near the median household income in the US. About $49 grand a year, combined. It's not a life filled with luxuries, but neither is it a life of poverty.

Thanks for asking.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Mandating a higher wage gives people a brief burst of higher buying power, which soon evaporates as all the people around them work the higher figures into their parts of the economy.

And out go more jobs from the U.S. because the U.S. just became that much less competitive with the rest of the world.

Adolescents like Koios have no grasp of economics and finance. That raising the minimum wage will simply spur inflation is a concept far too sophisticated for the sophomoric thinking he engages in.

To the mind of a child, if McDonalds is forced to pay $12 an hour, then the greedy owners will just make a little less profit. Adults understand that McDonalds will simply raise their prices, a lot - since the baker, butcher, warehouse, et al, also had to increase wages. Prices across the board will shoot up. Purchasing power will seek equilibrium - in other words, a dollars worth of work will seek to purchase the same goods after the inflated wage as before. The price of goods and services will simply rise to reach this state.

 

[Koios]

Mandating a higher wage gives people a brief burst of higher buying power, which soon evaporates as all the people around them work the higher figures into their parts of the economy.

And out go more jobs from the U.S. because the U.S. just became that much less competitive with the rest of the world.

Adolescents like Koios have no grasp of economics and finance. That raising the minimum wage will simply spur inflation is a concept far too sophisticated for the sophomoric thinking he engages in.

To the mind of a child, if McDonalds is forced to pay $12 an hour, then the greedy owners will just make a little less profit. Adults understand that McDonalds will simply raise their prices, a lot - since the baker, butcher, warehouse, et al, also had to increase wages. Prices across the board will shoot up. Purchasing power will seek equilibrium - in other words, a dollars worth of work will seek to purchase the same goods after the inflated wage as before. The price of goods and services will simply rise to reach this state.

Then school me on the impact of a $12 minimum wage on the unit labor cost in the US. Can you, *****?

If so, I'm all ******* ears.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is a good point too. Except that Walmart is adapting and has a vigorous and user friendly website and on line sales that are competing very well with Amazon.

Excellent point. Smart retailers are adapting to the reality of online commerce. What the children often don't grasp is that the advantage of big box concerns is greatly diminished in cyberspace. Ebay and Craigs List have created a renewed community for small retailers and craftsmen.

And Walmart has the added advantage of giving you the option of having the stuff delivered or picked up at the store. To compete Amazon is adding more and products to compete with the retail stores and has the added advantage of including an Ebay kind of service. I notice the last couple of years Amazon is also partnering with a lot of other retailers no doubt to compensate for their lack of warehouse space compared to Walmart and other big box retailers.

Exactly. Stores will fade to depots at some point. It's interesting, back in the 70's here in California, there was a store called "Best" that had a similar model. No product was on shelves. You would select what you want, get a ticket, and take it to the delivery counter, who would get the product out of stock. An early version of distributed commerce.

But just as the transportation industry morphed from wagon and buggy into trains, planes, and automobile and so much of farming has transformed from labor intensive to almost fully automated and the mom and pop stores morphed into big shopping centers, malls, and big box stores, the whole system no doubt will change again as we move through this century into the next. And some will resist and resent that too.

And now Ebay and Craigslist have given mom and pops a rebirth and the ability to compete with those same big box stores.

The market always sorts things out - if we just leave it alone.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What in the HELL are you yammering about?
Look here genius. THere will always be a section of the population that will not ever shop on line.

There are some old geezers who resist change, but in the scheme things they are irrelevant. They'll be dead in 20 years and the newer generation has no prejudice against computers.

These are people who have the need to do business with a person, look at an item before they buy, and have a place where if the item does not meet their needs or is broken, to return it for credit or refund.
Besides, when has there been a law passed prohibiting companies with physical plants from doing business on line?

Small showrooms will always be around. I find voice chat with customer care on sites to be quite pleasant. The market, not law, drives these changes.

 

[editec]

I voted yes even though I seldom do.

Of course as long as there's a strike on, I won't be a scab consumer.

But I am NOT one of those folks who fault WALMART for the state of affairs involving FREE TRADE.

I blame CONGRESS and EVERY president since AND including FDR for that catastropic misjudgement.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sure I shop at K-Mart (that's how its called here)

So many well known cosmetics brands at such a cheap price .... it's all good! YUM!

Out in California, K-Mart is just scary. Most of the stores have long since closed, and those that are left are in the lowest socio-economic neighborhoods. There is very little that would get me to enter a K-Mart. Walmart is downright upscale in comparison.

 

[Uncensored2008]

While I am loathe not to pay people who work for me a decent salary, who decides what a "living wage" is? A living wage for an 18 year old living at home is not the same thing as a living wage for a 22 year old trying to work her way through college.

Managers set wages based on the going market in the area they are trying to hire. They offer the wages that are necessary to get the desired level of work. They try not to pay any more than they have to in order to get that desired level of work.

If an employee can't live on Walmart wages as a stock boy then perhaps they need to apply for a different position either with Walmart or another company. They should not just demand Walmart pay them $20/hr if Walmart can find employees that want to work for them for $10/hr.

Immie

I'm going to drop a bombshell that will shock everyone here. I'm a corporate executive - I can just hear the jaws drop....

Okay, so everyone figured that out a long time ago.. Anyway, I fight to increase the wages of my people, because I value them. I work with my team to find ways to cut costs, generally through Kaizen and lean initiatives, so that when review time comes around, I can make a solid case to secure bigger raises for them.

This idea that bosses don't want their employees to make a decent wage is absurd, divorced from reality.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Pay above market value=devaluing the money supply=lower buying power.

Correct, nice to see SOMEONE with a grasp of economics - it's rare here.

 

[Koios]

While I am loathe not to pay people who work for me a decent salary, who decides what a "living wage" is? A living wage for an 18 year old living at home is not the same thing as a living wage for a 22 year old trying to work her way through college.

Managers set wages based on the going market in the area they are trying to hire. They offer the wages that are necessary to get the desired level of work. They try not to pay any more than they have to in order to get that desired level of work.

If an employee can't live on Walmart wages as a stock boy then perhaps they need to apply for a different position either with Walmart or another company. They should not just demand Walmart pay them $20/hr if Walmart can find employees that want to work for them for $10/hr.

Immie

I'm going to drop a bombshell that will shock everyone here. I'm a corporate executive - I can just hear the jaws drop....

Okay, so everyone figured that out a long time ago.. Anyway, I fight to increase the wages of my people, because I value them. I work with my team to find ways to cut costs, generally through Kaizen and lean initiatives, so that when review time comes around, I can make a solid case to secure bigger raises for them.

This idea that bosses don't want their employees to make a decent wage is absurd, divorced from reality.

Then you do not understand the core value of Kaizen, obviously. So having also been trained in TPS, maybe I can fill you in.

Good Change (zen kai) is a great concept. Involve people, in a socio-technical way, to shave seconds off production with an emphasis on improved-quality. Make it better, and faster if possible, shaving costs. But better rules. And the socio benefit is team cohesiveness, making people feel more connected to the company, and thus provide a benefit in working there that transcends monetary reward, exclusively. Get the most from your people, with minimal pay, truth be told. But that's supposed to be a secret known only to we execs, who cost-justify the training and meeting cost.

Yeah?

 

[Immanuel]

While I am loathe not to pay people who work for me a decent salary, who decides what a "living wage" is? A living wage for an 18 year old living at home is not the same thing as a living wage for a 22 year old trying to work her way through college.

Managers set wages based on the going market in the area they are trying to hire. They offer the wages that are necessary to get the desired level of work. They try not to pay any more than they have to in order to get that desired level of work.

If an employee can't live on Walmart wages as a stock boy then perhaps they need to apply for a different position either with Walmart or another company. They should not just demand Walmart pay them $20/hr if Walmart can find employees that want to work for them for $10/hr.

Immie

I'm going to drop a bombshell that will shock everyone here. I'm a corporate executive - I can just hear the jaws drop....

Okay, so everyone figured that out a long time ago.. Anyway, I fight to increase the wages of my people, because I value them. I work with my team to find ways to cut costs, generally through Kaizen and lean initiatives, so that when review time comes around, I can make a solid case to secure bigger raises for them.

This idea that bosses don't want their employees to make a decent wage is absurd, divorced from reality.

I completely agree. Managers know that good employees are hard to find and keeping them is a priority, many times because the manager's success (meaning earnings) depend heavily upon those working for him.

This idea that management does not care is another union fabrication.

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

While I am loathe not to pay people who work for me a decent salary, who decides what a "living wage" is? A living wage for an 18 year old living at home is not the same thing as a living wage for a 22 year old trying to work her way through college.

Managers set wages based on the going market in the area they are trying to hire. They offer the wages that are necessary to get the desired level of work. They try not to pay any more than they have to in order to get that desired level of work.

If an employee can't live on Walmart wages as a stock boy then perhaps they need to apply for a different position either with Walmart or another company. They should not just demand Walmart pay them $20/hr if Walmart can find employees that want to work for them for $10/hr.

Immie

I'm going to drop a bombshell that will shock everyone here. I'm a corporate executive - I can just hear the jaws drop....

Okay, so everyone figured that out a long time ago.. Anyway, I fight to increase the wages of my people, because I value them. I work with my team to find ways to cut costs, generally through Kaizen and lean initiatives, so that when review time comes around, I can make a solid case to secure bigger raises for them.

This idea that bosses don't want their employees to make a decent wage is absurd, divorced from reality.

I can believe that because of your savvy of how the economy works.

Most employers don't pay low wages because of any contempt or disrespect or unconcern held for their employees. The smart employer wants a loyal, competent, and happy work force. In times of recession and high unemployment, achieving profits requires accommodation of a much smaller money pool to be spread around among all commercial enterprise. Prices are usually lower and/or there are more discounts or other incentives encouraging people to buy. And there is less money for raises and more benefits.

In a booming economy, there is a much larger money pool to tap into, there is full employment, and it becomes a seller's market for the laborer who can command a higher price for his/her experience and qualifiications. And yes, that generally forces the costs of everything higher, but there is much more ability to pay the higher prices.

Artificially high wages do little to help the economy because they tend to reduce opportunity for employment, and you have more people out of work and draining energy from the economy. Want Walmart to pay its people better and provide more benefits? Encourage the President and Congress to promote tax and regulation policy that encourages the free market to expand and grow across the board and achieve full employment.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Because in America, everyone deserves to live in a mansion... didn't you know that?

Immie

Mansions are nice!

what...

aren't they?

Of course they are... but I don't deserve to live in one if I am not going to work my ass off to earn it.

Also, who the hell wants to live in a mansion anyway? Too much damned upkeep to enjoy life! Oh wait, maybe we all deserve servants as well?

Immie

Same here. I don't give a rat's ass how much money I had. I cannot stand large houses. What the hell am I going to do with all that space?. Land airplanes in it?.
My ideal home is a 2500 square foot ranch with a full basement man cave. Mrs Spoon can hang out and watch "real housewives" in the main chamber all she likes.
As long as i have the man cave, the fridge, wet bar and workshop I'm good.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Or we could mandate a decent minimum wage and the drooling idiot trailer trash Righties could still shop there affordability since higher wage minimums do not track to higher inflation, which all who have IQs north of a potato should know.

HUH? Higher wages( i.e. more money in the supply) is not inflationary?
Facepalm.
Look, labor is the highest percentage of the cost of doing business. Therefore higher abor costs either eat into the bottom line or prices are increased by the seller.
At the end of the day, if you libs want to live by 'the rising tide" axiom, you must live by it 100%
In other words, a sudden increase in wages mandated by the government may be a temporary fix, but would more likely resemble a fiscal sugar rush. Eventually, prices would increase to make up for the higher labor costs.
Then we'd have to endure the cries of "NO FAIR" from you fiscal geniuses on the political left

Correct. No correlation. Check history on it.

Yes. I know I am correct. It's simple economics.
Higher cost of doing business = higher consumer prices.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Mandating a higher wage gives people a brief burst of higher buying power, which soon evaporates as all the people around them work the higher figures into their parts of the economy.

And out go more jobs from the U.S. because the U.S. just became that much less competitive with the rest of the world.

Adolescents like Koios have no grasp of economics and finance. That raising the minimum wage will simply spur inflation is a concept far too sophisticated for the sophomoric thinking he engages in.

To the mind of a child, if McDonalds is forced to pay $12 an hour, then the greedy owners will just make a little less profit. Adults understand that McDonalds will simply raise their prices, a lot - since the baker, butcher, warehouse, et al, also had to increase wages. Prices across the board will shoot up. Purchasing power will seek equilibrium - in other words, a dollars worth of work will seek to purchase the same goods after the inflated wage as before. The price of goods and services will simply rise to reach this state.

Then school me on the impact of a $12 minimum wage on the unit labor cost in the US. Can you, *****?

If so, I'm all ******* ears.

Here, I will make this very simple.
I own a hardware store. My labor cost is 30%. Which is on the high end of the margin.
I pay my people minimum wage. None of them work more than 25 hours per week.
My store is open from 7:30 am to 5pm. Closed on Sunday.
Now, koios steps in and says "I mandate you pay your people twelve dollars per hour.The federal government gave me this power"..
Ok., I have two options. I can increase my prices and risk losing customers who will flee to other businesses with more buying power and naturally charge less for similar items.
Or I can raise the wage but to keep my prices the same, I will let go two of my part time workers.
Either way, my business is going to continue. And I will do what I must to achieve that mission.
Now....We have a large manufacturer of pluming fittings. I supply fixture manufacturers.
My staff is mostly contract labor for which I pay $8 per hour. Only my management people are full time company employees.
Koios comes into my factory and says " the government has given me the authority to tell you that you must now raise your pay rate from $8 per hour to $12 per hour.".
Ok, so here are my options. I can increase the price of the things I make to my customers. In which case they are most likely to flee to other companies that may perhaps import their goods from overseas at a lighter price OR, I can reduce the level of staffing in order to keep my prices the same.
One way or another I am going to keep my business open and profitable. I have a family to feed and full time people to consider.
See how this works?
Now, you can deny all you like. You can seek out the pro labor blogs for assistance. It doesn't matter. One plus one equals two and there is nothing you can do about it.

 

[Koios]

HUH? Higher wages( i.e. more money in the supply) is not inflationary?
Facepalm.
Look, labor is the highest percentage of the cost of doing business. Therefore higher abor costs either eat into the bottom line or prices are increased by the seller.
At the end of the day, if you libs want to live by 'the rising tide" axiom, you must live by it 100%
In other words, a sudden increase in wages mandated by the government may be a temporary fix, but would more likely resemble a fiscal sugar rush. Eventually, prices would increase to make up for the higher labor costs.
Then we'd have to endure the cries of "NO FAIR" from you fiscal geniuses on the political left

Correct. No correlation. Check history on it.

Yes. I know I am correct. It's simple economics.
Higher cost of doing business = higher consumer prices.

It's a smidge more complex than that. Sorry to disappoint.

Pricing models are driven by quite a lot more than it costs me X so I gotta sell it for Y. If it were that easy, 6th-graders could set the end-user price target; some basic percentage math and you're in.

But other factors are at play:

Your target market -- how big is it at X dollars per unit?

Competition -- what's similar product / benefit selling for?

Unique selling proposition -- anything ours does that others do not, supporting a higher price?

Brand -- who are we? Anyone we have to be priced above, or below, in keeping with our brand position?

Breakeven -- where's profitability, given sales projections?

Channel partners -- can we squeeze some margin from dealers? Does our new widget have some leverage with them?

Production -- can any one make the new widget more cheaply than our folks?

Just to name a few of the considerations.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What in the HELL are you yammering about?
Look here genius. THere will always be a section of the population that will not ever shop on line.

There are some old geezers who resist change, but in the scheme things they are irrelevant. They'll be dead in 20 years and the newer generation has no prejudice against computers.

These are people who have the need to do business with a person, look at an item before they buy, and have a place where if the item does not meet their needs or is broken, to return it for credit or refund.
Besides, when has there been a law passed prohibiting companies with physical plants from doing business on line?

Small showrooms will always be around. I find voice chat with customer care on sites to be quite pleasant. The market, not law, drives these changes.

Agree. For now though, the brick and mortar presence will still be necessary.