Lets force Walmart, at gunpoint, to give $5/hour raise because we are so caring

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Technology doesn't always replace workers brother

true enough, so most farming is still done by hand without modern farm mega equipment!! Technology is really not that important!! The liberal has assured us!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

$15 minimum:
1) makes it illegal to employ people not worth minimum wage
2) raise prices for poor people who often shop where minimum wage folks work
3) speeds up automation and replacement of minimum wage jobs
4) teaches people that you get ahead with govt violence rather than being worth more
5) raises prices, reduces demand, and thus reduces employment
6) makes American workers even less competitive with foreign workers
7) makes a huge % of work force (42%) minimum age workers with no incentive to improve their skills.

1. A minimum wage isn't compulsory hiring??? Duh?
2. Have Walmart's prices increased?
3. No it hasn't. See JPM and the number of tellers vs ATMs
4 and 7. Yep. We are just going to abolish colleges. No one will even sign up for school anymore. The almighty $15 is so great no one will ever see use in advancing themselves. Jesus that is stupid
5. Prices don't always increase. Learn some econ
6. Ridiculous. Other countries pay living wages now. Also, the differing minimum wages within this country don't have this impact. Companies haven't been fleeing Seattle or New York for Alabama

Prove Walmarts price didn't increase... Give me a link


.

You need to prove they did go up. You're the one alleging a change in the status quo.

A liberal cant grasp the concept that higher wages and raw material costs will cause higher prices. A Rolls Royce is priced higher than a VW because its costs more to make. Simple right, but not to a liberal.

 

[Winston]

Liberals would destroy Walmart just as Stalin destroyed soviet economy:

Walmart by the numbers:

Revenue $482 Billion
profit $14 Billion
$5 raise $11 billion
profit after raise $ 3

Cut retail profits by 80% and cause another liberal Great Depression tomorrow!! And lets never be tricked, this is but one of 10001 interventions a liberal will want because the liberal will lack the ability to understand capitalism!!

Wow. Amazing that Walmart could afford a five dollar raise for everyone and still turn a profit. So lets take a moment and look at the microeconomics of the five dollar raise. Quite literally, we are taking away eleven billion dollars from the stockholders and giving it to the workers. With our current economy, which would be better?

Obviously, with the eleven billion in the hands of the workers. More than likely, they would spend every single dime of that eleven billion. They would increase DEMAND. And DEMAND is what drives the economy. It is doubtful the stockholders would spend any of the eleven billion, let alone the majority. And nope, they wouldn't invest a penny of it either. What the hell are they going to invest it in, what could they produce without DEMAND.

So, they would SAVE it. Or worse, they would use it to SEEK RENTS. Both do not result in an expansion of the frontier curve. In fact, both result in the exact opposite, a CONTRACTION. As the economy shuffles money away from consumption to pay either the interest on the saved money, or the RENTS. The end result, the rich get richer and the rest of the population has to kick harder just to stay afloat.

The sad part, all this is covered by the time you get to Fall break in an intro Macroeconomics course. Or at least it used to be. Now, I guess the students spend that time reading Atlas Shrugged.

 

[Winston]

Liberals would destroy Walmart just as Stalin destroyed soviet economy:

Walmart by the numbers:

Revenue $482 Billion
profit $14 Billion
$5 raise $11 billion
profit after raise $ 3

Cut retail profits by 80% and cause another liberal Great Depression tomorrow!! And lets never be tricked, this is but one of 10001 interventions a liberal will want because the liberal will lack the ability to understand capitalism!!

Wow. Amazing that Walmart could afford a five dollar raise for everyone and still turn a profit. So lets take a moment and look at the microeconomics of the five dollar raise. Quite literally, we are taking away eleven billion dollars from the stockholders and giving it to the workers. With our current economy, which would be better?

Obviously, with the eleven billion in the hands of the workers. More than likely, they would spend every single dime of that eleven billion. They would increase DEMAND. And DEMAND is what drives the economy. It is doubtful the stockholders would spend any of the eleven billion, let alone the majority. And nope, they wouldn't invest a penny of it either. What the hell are they going to invest it in, what could they produce without DEMAND.

So, they would SAVE it. Or worse, they would use it to SEEK RENTS. Both do not result in an expansion of the frontier curve. In fact, both result in the exact opposite, a CONTRACTION. As the economy shuffles money away from consumption to pay either the interest on the saved money, or the RENTS. The end result, the rich get richer and the rest of the population has to kick harder just to stay afloat.

The sad part, all this is covered by the time you get to Fall break in an intro Macroeconomics course. Or at least it used to be. Now, I guess the students spend that time reading Atlas Shrugged.

Well hell, two seconds on google. Walmart is spending 15 billion every two years buying back stock. In a truly "free market" that is illegal. It was in the United States until Ronald Reagan waltzed in to office. That eleven billion a year is getting cheaper by the minute.

Walmart Board Approves New $15 Billion Share Repurchase Program

 

[Wyatt earp]

Liberals would destroy Walmart just as Stalin destroyed soviet economy:

Walmart by the numbers:

Revenue $482 Billion
profit $14 Billion
$5 raise $11 billion
profit after raise $ 3

Cut retail profits by 80% and cause another liberal Great Depression tomorrow!! And lets never be tricked, this is but one of 10001 interventions a liberal will want because the liberal will lack the ability to understand capitalism!!

Wow. Amazing that Walmart could afford a five dollar raise for everyone and still turn a profit. So lets take a moment and look at the microeconomics of the five dollar raise. Quite literally, we are taking away eleven billion dollars from the stockholders and giving it to the workers. With our current economy, which would be better?

Obviously, with the eleven billion in the hands of the workers. More than likely, they would spend every single dime of that eleven billion. They would increase DEMAND. And DEMAND is what drives the economy. It is doubtful the stockholders would spend any of the eleven billion, let alone the majority. And nope, they wouldn't invest a penny of it either. What the hell are they going to invest it in, what could they produce without DEMAND.

So, they would SAVE it. Or worse, they would use it to SEEK RENTS. Both do not result in an expansion of the frontier curve. In fact, both result in the exact opposite, a CONTRACTION. As the economy shuffles money away from consumption to pay either the interest on the saved money, or the RENTS. The end result, the rich get richer and the rest of the population has to kick harder just to stay afloat.

The sad part, all this is covered by the time you get to Fall break in an intro Macroeconomics course. Or at least it used to be. Now, I guess the students spend that time reading Atlas Shrugged.

Demand on what?

Cocaine?

Weed?

Heroin?

Budlight instead of natural light?

More cheap shit made in china?



.

 

[Winston]

Liberals would destroy Walmart just as Stalin destroyed soviet economy:

Walmart by the numbers:

Revenue $482 Billion
profit $14 Billion
$5 raise $11 billion
profit after raise $ 3

Cut retail profits by 80% and cause another liberal Great Depression tomorrow!! And lets never be tricked, this is but one of 10001 interventions a liberal will want because the liberal will lack the ability to understand capitalism!!

Wow. Amazing that Walmart could afford a five dollar raise for everyone and still turn a profit. So lets take a moment and look at the microeconomics of the five dollar raise. Quite literally, we are taking away eleven billion dollars from the stockholders and giving it to the workers. With our current economy, which would be better?

Obviously, with the eleven billion in the hands of the workers. More than likely, they would spend every single dime of that eleven billion. They would increase DEMAND. And DEMAND is what drives the economy. It is doubtful the stockholders would spend any of the eleven billion, let alone the majority. And nope, they wouldn't invest a penny of it either. What the hell are they going to invest it in, what could they produce without DEMAND.

So, they would SAVE it. Or worse, they would use it to SEEK RENTS. Both do not result in an expansion of the frontier curve. In fact, both result in the exact opposite, a CONTRACTION. As the economy shuffles money away from consumption to pay either the interest on the saved money, or the RENTS. The end result, the rich get richer and the rest of the population has to kick harder just to stay afloat.

The sad part, all this is covered by the time you get to Fall break in an intro Macroeconomics course. Or at least it used to be. Now, I guess the students spend that time reading Atlas Shrugged.

Demand on what?

Cocaine?

Weed?

Heroin?

Budlight instead of natural light?

More cheap shit made in china?



.

Look, I know this is hard but you can do it. So, we got 15 billion dollars every two years going to purchase already existing Walmart stock. The company takes 15 billion dollars in profits and purchases 15 billion dollars of their company stock and then BUILDS A BIG BONFIRE AND BURNS THE STOCK.

OK, now we are going to take that same 15 billion dollars and give it to the employees in the form of higher wages. Yep, they are going to buy more cocaine, and more pot, and more heroin after they take all the pain meds. Yep, they going to up their beer game from PBR to Sierra Nevada. They are going to buy more cheap shit from China, and more cars, and furniture, and appliances, and all kinds of SHIT. At least if someone decides to make or provide those things.

So tell me, which of those two scenarios do you think is better for the economy? Better yet, tell me which one has a possibility of providing more than 3% GDP growth. I will give you a hint. Walmart has been doing the stock buyback for almost four years, how's that growth been looking?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Liberals would destroy Walmart just as Stalin destroyed soviet economy:

Walmart by the numbers:

Revenue $482 Billion
profit $14 Billion
$5 raise $11 billion
profit after raise $ 3

Cut retail profits by 80% and cause another liberal Great Depression tomorrow!! And lets never be tricked, this is but one of 10001 interventions a liberal will want because the liberal will lack the ability to understand capitalism!!

Wow. Amazing that Walmart could afford a five dollar raise for everyone and still turn a profit. So lets take a moment and look at the microeconomics of the five dollar raise. Quite literally, we are taking away eleven billion dollars from the stockholders and giving it to the workers. With our current economy, which would be better?

Obviously, with the eleven billion in the hands of the workers. More than likely, they would spend every single dime of that eleven billion. They would increase DEMAND. And DEMAND is what drives the economy. It is doubtful the stockholders would spend any of the eleven billion, let alone the majority. And nope, they wouldn't invest a penny of it either. What the hell are they going to invest it in, what could they produce without DEMAND.

So, they would SAVE it. Or worse, they would use it to SEEK RENTS. Both do not result in an expansion of the frontier curve. In fact, both result in the exact opposite, a CONTRACTION. As the economy shuffles money away from consumption to pay either the interest on the saved money, or the RENTS. The end result, the rich get richer and the rest of the population has to kick harder just to stay afloat.

The sad part, all this is covered by the time you get to Fall break in an intro Macroeconomics course. Or at least it used to be. Now, I guess the students spend that time reading Atlas Shrugged.

Demand on what?

Cocaine?

Weed?

Heroin?

Budlight instead of natural light?

More cheap shit made in china?



.

Look, I know this is hard but you can do it. So, we got 15 billion dollars every two years going to purchase already existing Walmart stock. The company takes 15 billion dollars in profits and purchases 15 billion dollars of their company stock and then BUILDS A BIG BONFIRE AND BURNS THE STOCK.

OK, now we are going to take that same 15 billion dollars and give it to the employees in the form of higher wages. Yep, they are going to buy more cocaine, and more pot, and more heroin after they take all the pain meds. Yep, they going to up their beer game from PBR to Sierra Nevada. They are going to buy more cheap shit from China, and more cars, and furniture, and appliances, and all kinds of SHIT. At least if someone decides to make or provide those things.

So tell me, which of those two scenarios do you think is better for the economy? Better yet, tell me which one has a possibility of providing more than 3% GDP growth. I will give you a hint. Walmart has been doing the stock buyback for almost four years, how's that growth been looking?

Don't try to spin it.. Again answer my question... Anyways Walmart already gave them a raise, this is not about Walmart this is about foolish liberal economics thinking a across the board nationally raising the MW to $15 bucks an hour is going to do anything good.. Except just trickle up poor.

.

 

[Winston]

Liberals would destroy Walmart just as Stalin destroyed soviet economy:

Walmart by the numbers:

Revenue $482 Billion
profit $14 Billion
$5 raise $11 billion
profit after raise $ 3

Cut retail profits by 80% and cause another liberal Great Depression tomorrow!! And lets never be tricked, this is but one of 10001 interventions a liberal will want because the liberal will lack the ability to understand capitalism!!

Wow. Amazing that Walmart could afford a five dollar raise for everyone and still turn a profit. So lets take a moment and look at the microeconomics of the five dollar raise. Quite literally, we are taking away eleven billion dollars from the stockholders and giving it to the workers. With our current economy, which would be better?

Obviously, with the eleven billion in the hands of the workers. More than likely, they would spend every single dime of that eleven billion. They would increase DEMAND. And DEMAND is what drives the economy. It is doubtful the stockholders would spend any of the eleven billion, let alone the majority. And nope, they wouldn't invest a penny of it either. What the hell are they going to invest it in, what could they produce without DEMAND.

So, they would SAVE it. Or worse, they would use it to SEEK RENTS. Both do not result in an expansion of the frontier curve. In fact, both result in the exact opposite, a CONTRACTION. As the economy shuffles money away from consumption to pay either the interest on the saved money, or the RENTS. The end result, the rich get richer and the rest of the population has to kick harder just to stay afloat.

The sad part, all this is covered by the time you get to Fall break in an intro Macroeconomics course. Or at least it used to be. Now, I guess the students spend that time reading Atlas Shrugged.

Demand on what?

Cocaine?

Weed?

Heroin?

Budlight instead of natural light?

More cheap shit made in china?



.

Look, I know this is hard but you can do it. So, we got 15 billion dollars every two years going to purchase already existing Walmart stock. The company takes 15 billion dollars in profits and purchases 15 billion dollars of their company stock and then BUILDS A BIG BONFIRE AND BURNS THE STOCK.

OK, now we are going to take that same 15 billion dollars and give it to the employees in the form of higher wages. Yep, they are going to buy more cocaine, and more pot, and more heroin after they take all the pain meds. Yep, they going to up their beer game from PBR to Sierra Nevada. They are going to buy more cheap shit from China, and more cars, and furniture, and appliances, and all kinds of SHIT. At least if someone decides to make or provide those things.

So tell me, which of those two scenarios do you think is better for the economy? Better yet, tell me which one has a possibility of providing more than 3% GDP growth. I will give you a hint. Walmart has been doing the stock buyback for almost four years, how's that growth been looking?

Don't try to spin it.. Again answer my question... Anyways Walmart already gave them a raise, this is not about Walmart this is about foolish liberal economics thinking a across the board nationally raising the MW to $15 bucks an hour is going to do anything good.. Except just trickle up poor.

.

I already answered your question. Obviously, the workers of Walmart would spend the majority of any wage increase. That would be an increase in DEMAND. Walmart was the subject of the OP, and they are an easy target with their stock buyback program and family stock ownership. Pretty easy to justify moving money from stock buybacks and Alice Walton's horses to low wage employees. The fifteen dollar minimum wage is another argument, but I can make it.

First, if you can't produce at least fifteen dollars worth of production I would rather you keep your ass at the house. Hell, I am willing to pay you to stay at the house, and if that makes you happy it's a win/win. The way I see it, better to have you out of the way. And automation, all for it. Those jobs need to be automated.

Minimum wage is supposed to be a floor that reflects the absolute minimum value an hour of labor should PRODUCE. I can promise you something. If an employee is not producing at least FIFTEEN DOLLARS an hour in production TODAY, they don't have a job. It is time our minimum wage reflects that reality.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In a truly "free market" that is illegal.

any reason to think it is or should be illegal to buy back shares in a free market???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Wow. Amazing that Walmart could afford a five dollar raise for everyone and still turn a profit. .

but a tiny profit that would in effect bankrupt the company as it tries to survive against Amazon. Do you really want to unemploy 2.3 million people?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Quite literally, we are taking away eleven billion dollars from the stockholders and giving it to the workers.
.

you mean taking away at gun point-right? All liberal proposals are based on more violence.
If you "take away" the money" from the owners then they have no reason to own and WalMart goes bankrupt. Do you understand now?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Obviously, with the eleven billion in the hands of the workers. More than likely, they would spend every single dime of that eleven billion. They would increase DEMAND. And DEMAND is what drives the economy. .

obviously wrong!!! $11 billion gets spent whether workers or owners have it!! Do you understand??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And DEMAND is what drives the economy.

Totally illiterate and liberal of course. Please tell us why demand rather than supply drives the economy or admit you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So, they would SAVE it.

yes save it in a a bank, not in a mattress. The bank would multiply it by 10 and loan it out for businesses, cars, educations, and homes in a sustainable way to grow the economy whereas workers would use it to buy staples which would would merely churn the existing economy, not help it grow. Now do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So, they would SAVE it.

yes save it in a a bank, not in a mattress. The bank would multiply it by 10 and loan it out for businesses, cars, educations, and homes in a sustainable way to grow the economy whereas workers would use it to buy staples which would would merely churn the existing economy, not help it grow. Now do you understand?

and lets never forget that a liberal is a communist without knowing it. Stealing money from Walmart shareholders at gunpoint is just one of 100001 violent intervention that libcommies want.

 

[Winston]

In a truly "free market" that is illegal.

any reason to think it is or should be illegal to buy back shares in a free market???

If a company purchasing it's own stock is not market manipulation I don't know what is. That is just it, in a FREE MARKET, rent seeking activities that don't produce growth are prevented by government regulation. Like stock buybacks were prior to 1982. Free market means free from rent seeking activities, not free from government regulation.

And in Walmart's case it becomes insulting. Over the last ten years Walmart has spent an average 6.5 billion dollars on stock buybacks. In that same time frame Walmart employees have collected 6.2 billion per year in public assistance. Here is a thought, instead of sending tax dollars to Uncle Sam to give to Walmart employees why not wipe our ass with them instead and stop the stock buybacks. Accomplishes the same thing.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If a company purchasing it's own stock is not market manipulation I don't know what is. .

anybody is free to buy stock no idea why one person is manipulating and another is not???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In a truly "free market" that is illegal.

any reason to think it is or should be illegal to buy back shares in a free market???

If a company purchasing it's own stock is not market manipulation I don't know what is. That is just it, in a FREE MARKET, rent seeking activities that don't produce growth are prevented by government regulation. Like stock buybacks were prior to 1982. Free market means free from rent seeking activities, not free from government regulation.

And in Walmart's case it becomes insulting. Over the last ten years Walmart has spent an average 6.5 billion dollars on stock buybacks. In that same time frame Walmart employees have collected 6.2 billion per year in public assistance. Here is a thought, instead of sending tax dollars to Uncle Sam to give to Walmart employees why not wipe our ass with them instead and stop the stock buybacks. Accomplishes the same thing.

you don't seem to understand that this is a free country we don't like to steal money at gunpoint from people who have earned it peacefully

and that if owners see their profits stolen they have no reason to own. 1+1=2

 

[Winston]

So, they would SAVE it.

yes save it in a a bank, not in a mattress. The bank would multiply it by 10 and loan it out for businesses, cars, educations, and homes in a sustainable way to grow the economy whereas workers would use it to buy staples which would would merely churn the existing economy, not help it grow. Now do you understand?

LMAO. Yes SAVE it. And expect what? INTEREST. That creates nothing for the economy. And banks are paying little to no interest and practically giving money away already. Nobody wants it. Companies are piling up the cash reserves. Nobody wants to make more pie, they all want to fight over the pie that is already there. This whole trickle down thing cannot work in this type of environment. Something has to be done to get someone to make more pie. We don't have an investment problem. We don't have a supply problem. We have a DEMAND problem.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. That[ saving] creates nothing for the economy. .

yes save it in a a bank, not in a mattress. The bank would multiply it by 10 and loan it out for businesses, cars, educations, and homes in a sustainable way to grow the economy whereas workers would use it to buy staples which would would merely churn the existing economy, not help it grow. Now do you understand?