Why Walmart is the leader in low wages?

[nadinbrzezinski]

Been thinking about it, and it applies to the rest of the industry. It is a cultural underbelly in our culture.

It is couched in business talk, but that is the excuse.

This is older than the United States, and poor laws of the old country are part of it.

Ready? The poor are poor because they deserve it. They don't work hard enough, and if we paid them more, they will spend in drink and gamble it away. That is not moral. That ladies and gentleman is at the core of our attitudes versus the working poor. Not necessarily you or me...but that is it in a nutshell. Oh and the very wealthy, they are saved already, this is the core of Calvinism and puritanical thought, so buzz off.

Hell, the core of the really ugly conservative critique of public services is right there as well.

I did not say it was nice, now did I? But as we demand living wages, which is what we should demand, remember this ugly reality.

[xchrom]

1. du rec. nt

[dkf]

2. Who do you demand higher wages from when they automate your job away?

Technology has always been the true threat to labor. Even the apple workers in China will be replaced with robots.

The only solution is to own capital. Labor will be less and less necessary to the equation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Whoosh!!!!!

I am sure we had machines in the 1500s when the first vagrancy laws were passed, to deal with over population by forced transportation. It's online, find it. They did not couch the true intent back then.

[Fumesucker]

9. But in an economy where your labor is of no value it is impossible to build capital.

Unless you are a member of the lucky sperm club you're screwed.

[dkf]

13. Ideas, innovation, and things that cannot be replaced by technology will be of value.

But pure labor without much added value and without a lot of muscle or specific skill won't be worth much.

A robot won't be able to deliver your furniture. But not all people are capable of hauling a couch around either.

[Fumesucker]

17. Ideas are a dime a dozen in hundred dozen lots

Innovation is often stifled unless it is invented in the right place by the right people.

What can be replaced with technology is by no means a stationary target. Who needs furniture delivery when your walls and floor extrude furniture as needed and subsume it when you are done?

[dkf]

19. Well if you are talking about a society that far advanced we probably need a small sliver

Of the workforce.

I wonder what the point of it all will be in that case. Live to enjoy I guess.

[Fumesucker]

21. Some smallish percentage of the population will be creative no matter what

Most people really don't want to be bothered though.

I'm reminded of the quote about small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events and great minds discuss ideas.

What were we talking about again?

[leftyohiolib]

3. re: walmart's pricing

re: walmart's pricing

Well it turns out that Walmart's prices are low — but not necessarily lower than everybody else.

Arch-rival Target, who has continued to make gains at Walmart's expense, may actually beat out Walmart when it comes to lower prices, according to recent studies.

Customer Growth Partners, a retail consulting firm, compared the two retail giants' prices on 35 brand-name items across three categories in stores located in Indiana, New York and North Carolina. Based on consolidated results, Target beat Walmart by about two dollars.

The Consumerist blog, owned by the Consumers Union, quotes the president of Customer Growth Partners as saying, "For the first time in four years, our price comparisons between the two has shown that Target has a slight edge over Walmart. Target stepped up its game during the recession... The company caught up with Walmart on making its supply chain more efficient so it could bring down prices on items people frequently buy."

source: http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2011/04/27/Target-Walmart-Prices.aspx

those who dont know history (and those who do ) are doomed to relive it anyway-- me

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. I am talking of the excuses

Not to pay higher wages, insert retailer of choice here. Wally World matters since they set the pace of work force due to size.

[dkf]

20. I never find all that great deals at Walmart and I like the clothes at Target much better.

And if Walmart employees are so disgruntled that they want me to stay away, I have no problem with that. Beats me why my declining to shop there is good for them.

[WinkyDink]

33. Anti-union, are you?

[BlueCaliDem]

45. That's pretty damn clear.

And that for a Democrat, Labor being the backbone of the Democratic Party! Amazing, isn't it?

[MJJP21]

54. If

If I'm not mistaken someone did a piece on Target awhile back and employees of Target are compensated much better than Walmart.

[liberal N proud]

5. You hear it from nearly all conservatives rich, poor and in between.

It must be drilled into them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. In church no less

There was a definite shift from the poor are the blessed (and somewhat shame for having money in the Middle Ages) and the Reformation.

[arcane1]

7. But we have to pay CEOs as much as possible, so they will work harder...

or something

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. That old saying of eyes of the needle

Is very much not spoken...

[jody]

11. Disagree, Walmart is more competitive because it uses labor more efficiently, buys from suppliers at

cheaper prices, distributes products cheaper, and manages its inventories more effectively than competitors.

To focus exclusively on labor costs is to ignore other business processes that made Walmart dominant and will allow any competitor to replace Walmart by selling products that customers demand at cheaper prices and offering better service.

Would you have it any other way?

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Yes I would have it another way

Living wages in retail, like Demos and others suggest...

Watch, business language, like you just did, will fight this. The working poor deserve full eight hour shifts and a living wage. They deserve the dignity of being able to feed their families without food stamps, and to afford health care, without medical or any other state program.

You disagree?

[jody]

15. You do understand that if government imposed your "living wage" aka minimum wage that

ceteris paribus and mutatis mutandis an economy will return to its present state.

Perhaps a solution is to reduce the supply of labor, a very effective way to reduce unemployment but as China et al have discovered it will take persistent, draconian policies and decades to achieve. The attendant side effects on society such as an aging population are also unpleasant.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. I suggest you read this carefully

http://www.demos.org/publication/retails-hidden-potential-how-raising-wages-would-benefit-workers-industry-and-overall-ec

[jody]

61. Please read my statement again very carefully. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. What you used are heritage foundation talking points

There is evidence in this world, see oh Norway for example, where having living wages is a very good proof of concept.

It requires regulations and it requires a certain belief that yes, as Adam Smith wrote, if you leave it up to businesses owners, they will pay as little as possible. What you push without realizing it i hope, is the scourge of his day, maximum wage laws...after all, that way we can keep costs under control.



I will repeat what I wrote last night. Adam Smith would approve of Norway and Sweden and a few other European economies, the US...not so much.

[jody]

67. ROFL! I was going to reply with a challenge worthy of academic discourse but I realize it would

fall on deaf ears.

You might not realize it but Adam Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" and "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" are not the ultimate in economic thought.

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. They did set the theory of value though

And heritage types love supply and demand and the invisible hand. They love to ignore the caveats though.

Suffice it to say, Paul Krugman, I suspect...would agree with living wages as well. That is based on his body of work. Last time I checked he earned a noble prize in economics this Millenium.

[WinkyDink]

34. "Would you have it any other way?" Why, yes, yes I would prefer something other than Walmart Capi-

talistic hegemony.

[jody]

62. Anyone including you is free to compete with Walmart and force it out of business with lower prices

and better service.

Go for it and I along with millions of people will flock to your stores.

[blondie58]

50. well i don't know about usung labor more efficiently,

But I do know that they will tell their suppliers what they will pay for an item. If it can't be matched, they will buy it from another (Chinese?) Supplier

[jody]

63. Do you object to the stores from which you purchase products, buying from their lowest supplier and

selling to you at prices you can afford?

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. I love heritage foundation talking points in the afternoon.

[jody]

83. LOL you could enhance your education by studying something other than the "heritage foundation" to

which your knowledge seems limited.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. So now you are reduced to personal attacks?

Typical of right wing cranks that repeat talking points from a well known right wing think tank funded by the Koch brothers

[jody]

88. More laughs, have a blissful evening. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. You are the one who assumed I had little training in the social sciences

Snuckum, among other personal attacks.

[FarCenter]

14. Walmart started out in rural areas where wages and living costs are both lower than average

However, in looking around (e.g. Glassdoor), it doesn't seem that they are paying less than other comparable retail employers. People who run cash registers in checkout lines or who break down cartons and stock shelves don't make much money anywhere.

[dkf]

16. The poor are poor because they don't have the skills we pay a premium for.

That doesn't mean they "deserve it". It means a person hiring can pick from so many people that they can hire the person who is willing to be paid less.

The more irreplaceable and non-interchangeable you are, the more money you will make because you have leverage. The easier it is to replace you the less money you make.

[jody]

18. aka supply versus demand. nt

[dkf]

23. Exactly. I know it's an unappealing thought that we aren't treasured as individuals,

But if you want to work in a corporation, the person doing the cuts doesn't know you, and has no idea about your existence.

If you want to work for a small business, they may love you as an individual but have no revenues to keep you.

That corporate guy has as much feeling as you do when you decide to change cell carriers.

[jody]

65. Funny how some ignore those basic facts when watching professional athletes perform and receive

fabulous salaries.

[jeff47]

24. It's a two-way street

There's lots of employers complaining they can't find good employees....but those employers refuse to pay higher wages.

You get what you pay for. Including employees.

So you get employers paying crappy wages, keeping people in poverty. Those same employers then complain that their employees have the problems of the poor.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Thank you for the new age version of the OP

Did you know many folks with bachelors and master degrees work at Walmart too? No, not out of choice, in more than a few areas they are like the only employer and I am not talking management either

[dkf]

37. Degree in what? Is that something an employer would benefit from and is looking for?

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. You really need to do some homework

And stop peddling Heritage bullshit. But even people with business degrees do not earn enough at Walmart and lower management is also drawing food stamps. You subsidize the business model. They are on the public dole, I mean Walmart the company.

[jody]

66. I've read your posts to this thread and you evade the obvious by trying to dismiss the post with

such things as "do some homework".

Apparently you have studied little economics which like other fields in social studies is not and may never become susceptible to the scientific method.

"A little learning is a dang'rous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."

Nothing you or I say will change the basic fact that each of us is born with different potential physical and intellectual abilities.

Genetic inheritance determine perhaps 60-70% of each person's potential and the environment in which each of us grows up shapes the remaining 30% of one's development.

IMO two problems face every society, first implement an economic system that maximize pofits from using scarce resources, particularly intellectual, to create products and services that satisfy society's demands and second allocate those profits to maximize benefits to society.

[OxQQme]

76. erm, pardon me jody

You said, < " first implement an economic system that maximize pofits".>

My question: Where is the 'tipping point' at which there are no more profits?

Why is "The Profit System" good for global society?

Isn't that a me/we point of view, ie; "ME get more"?

[jody]

78. How would you simplify the economic challenges that every society faces? What is the relevance of

"tipping point" that you introduce since your statement implies it may not be discoverable?

Unless there is a profit, then those who can not or do not contribute to producing that profit will be left with empty bowls.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Now you insert eugenics?

How "progressive" of you. No wonder you love these talking points.

[jody]

81. Another evasion, soon readers will conclude you are incapable of answering simple questions. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. No, not an evasion

An observation. Soon readers will conclude you are a right wing crank.

[jody]

86. Only idots would reach that conclusion. Why don't you address the thoughtful posts to your OP? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. Another personal attack

Useful tactic, but not always.

[jody]

89. Goodbye. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. Putting me on ignore?

Good

[WinkyDink]

35. So, it's okay if eventually the only employees are Amazonian aborigines?

[dkf]

40. What does it matter if its "okay" or not?

Is it okay that we can't control global warming because we can't stop the Chinese from doing as they will?

The point is to understand what the situation is and adapt as necessary. Sure you can think some larger power will make things all great, but as an individual you'd be better off not expecting it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Master, give me less.

That is really a shitty attitude you got there.

[raccoon]

97. Check out some of the postings on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1880890

Some employers want all kinds of degrees and experience--and don't want to pay jack squat.

[2ndAmForComputers]

98. That's why there should be labor laws in place to protect the people.

Minimum wage, maternity leave, vacations, collective bargaining, healthcare, unemployment benefits, workplace regulations, the works.

They are necessary exactly because the mechanisms you describe are real.

Don't you agree?

[flvegan]

100. Really? Prove up your claim.

Are you saying that the "poor" are such because they don't have the skills we pay a minimum for elsewhere?

And since when does paying a non-premium for skills create "poor" outside of your outsourcing apologist bullshit support (yeah, I'm reading into it, but it's relevant).

[dkf]

101. It's common sense. Why else would a person get paid less?

Or are you saying they choose to be poor?

[flvegan]

102. You know what, I'm going to leave this here.

Just because.

LOL!

[jwirr]

22. You are so correct.

[Gman]

25. Absolutely. The discussion is framed in corporate and capitalistic terms

And organized labor always Frames it in worker terms. If you find yourself arguing in the opponents definition you lose.

[freshwest]

26. Nailed it nadin. Class warfare from the top is ancient and we must unite against it in our hearts.

They suceed because they trot out their lies about the different colors and variations of being poor - and people buy that and turn on each other. Equality means that one hopes for all what one wishes for oneself. A golden rule of mass proportions.

When the firefighter risks his own life going into the building to save a life, it is about life being valuable, knowing that they love living as well. Going to bat for people we do not know as a principle, an underlying sense of shared humanity, is what saves us. Lacking that respect for those we don't know, destroys us.

This is the basis of the Rush, Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly of the media. Disrespectful for differences and feelings of others, to destroy the body politic and the people. It starts with that first dismissal of the infinite variety of human and otherwise expression of life. The demand for all to agree with them on their bully pulpits or face extermination.

[dkf]

28. If anything it is class warfare from within. People choose where they shop and what they buy.

Why should Walmart be blamed if you decided to shop at Walmart? You should have spent your money elsewhere.

The problem is people are hypocrites. They engage in actions and then blame others for the results.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Well, aren't we special...

[WinkyDink]

38. So the problems of Capitalism lie with the CONSUMER! All-righty, then.

[99Forever]

27. Actually, it's deeper than that.

Quite simply, the 1% mentality is that the rest of us are subhuman creatures, here only to provide for their pleasure.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Realize in the Elizabethan age most were poor

Which is the state they would prefer us to live in

[WinkyDink]

39. I think they'd prefer that we did not live. Period. Too many people.

[freshwest]

36. Only if we buy into it with our egos. That's our fault, not theirs. We don't have to buy it.

[99Forever]

53. "We?"

I'm not quite sure what it is you are saying.

"We" choose to be treated like crap?

... and it's my ego's fault that I do?

[freshwest]

55. 'We' is a general term. 'We' are not trapped and weak. 'Crap' is a challenge, not a life sentence.

How others choose to treat us, is their problem, not ours. There is a level of cooperation involved, no matter how one fits into the dynamic.

How we define ourselves determines our level of freedom. 'Ego'tism is the game being played, the desire to be better than someone else for temporary security.

If anyone does not understand where I am coming from, it's still all cool. We are all at different, but valid places from their point of view.

EOM.

[99Forever]

56. Ahhh yes...

... the ol' "pick yourself up by your bootstraps" meme.

Got it.

What do you suggest to those who don't have,and never will have boots in this rigged game?

[freshwest]

58. You don't know me, or how badly I was beaten down. For some of us, there is only up.

So we focus on that, but never tear down our brothers and sister, or those we don't know. I don't believe in the bootstraps meme you want to tar me with, I believe in unity and pulling each other up.

Peace Out.

[SheilaT]

43. One part of the problem is that most people

are convinced that they absolutely must pay the lowest price possible for anything they buy. They disregard the quality issue at the outset -- you get what you pay for. And they are oblivious to the wages issue.

This is combined with several decades of WalMart claiming they have the lowest prices of anyone, which has never been totally true, and is apparently a lot less true today than ever.

I am amazed when I cannot persuade liberal progressives I know to not go to WalMart. They throw back the low prices b.s. I ask them wouldn't they rather make a direct contribution to the Republican party? And they'll say things like they help out the Democratic party in other ways.

I can recall when WalMart actually had decent stuff. By the time I stopped going there, I'd noticed a huge decline in quality as well as the cleanliness of the store I was going to.

And there is also huge opposition on the part of many who should know better, to raising the minimum wage. Over and over again they'll repeat the nonsense about how minimum wage drives prices up. Well, every time we go for years without an increase in minimum wage, I don't see prices of most things not increasing.

It's depressing.

[pandr32]

44. It is not just the leader in low wages

http://www.politicolnews.com/walmarts-warships-sink-us-economy/

[ancianita]

46. It's probably only the leader because it has the MOST employees at low salaries.

If you can call them that.



The true problem is really what WalMart costs the rest of Americans.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. We need to do what Adam Smith suggested...

Chapter ten of the Wealth he argued for living wages. This is the part business school graduates never learn. (They never read the holy book)

[ancianita]

48. Agreed. Here's a map of WalMart salaries relative to minimum wages in states.

One can only conclude that state leadership don't believe in living wages, either. Yet they're all about the Constitution, conveniently forgetting about the "promote the general welfare" clause.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703960004575427143390869962.html#project%3DWALCITY1008%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive

[TexasBushwhacker]

95. The number of hours counts too

Walmart says 2/3 of its workers are full time, but they count anything over 29 hours as full time. So the worker at Kohls getting 38 hours a week at $8 an hour will make more than the Walmart worker who only gets 30 hours. If they tell people their hours will be low when they hire them, that's fine. They're making an informed choice. But if they just start cutting hours to eek out some more profits, that's not fair to the workers. They should be able to count on a minimum number of hours.

[countmyvote4real]

49. Too true.

[HopeHoops]

51. That's a myth. K-Mart is CONSISTENTLY lower in prices than WalMart.

WalMart jacks up the base price so they can claim the be cutting prices by X%. It's a ruse and morons fall for it. The only time they actually DO have lower prices is when they're trying to run another company out of business. They'll sell below cost just long enough to do the damage and then jack them up to more than what the competitors were charging. It's evil on every level.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. I am talking of a general attitude by the rich to keep the poor

Well, poor.

[HopeHoops]

59. No argument there. That's their entire purpose. Suck money out of the system.

The poor can just fuck off and die for all they care.

[jody]

68. "morons fall for it"? You condemn DUers who buy from WalMart over K-Mart for that reason. nt

[HopeHoops]

70. Well, WalMart does run a scam with the prices and people fall for it - DUers or not.

It's still a scam.

[jody]

71. Any idea how many of those morons are DUers? nt

[HopeHoops]

72. I doubt very many. It just doesn't fit the member profiles. Most are freepers.

[jody]

73. Don't all DUers who buy from WalMart qualify as morons in some little way? nt

[HopeHoops]

96. Well I know I do.

[jody]

99. As do I. Prices are competitive, service excellent, and excellent selection from items stocked. nt

[libodem]

52. yep

Pretty sure the rich just figure we don't know how to live.

[backscatter712]

60. K&R! Calvinism certainly is part of it.

Gives people an excuse to look down their noses at the poor instead of helping them.

[union_maid]

69. The problem is that they have become such a big employer

Most of retail has been always been poorly compensated. There are, and have been, exceptions, supermarkets being one, at least in this area. The downgrading of those union jobs is a really unfortunate situation. Mostly, though retail rank and file jobs have been low paid jobs with rare and tiny raises. But they were not the jobs the breadwinners of families held for the most part. Now, all too often, they're all that's available. And that is the biggest part of the story of the decline of the American middle class.

[Major Nikon]

74. This betrays a much simpler reason

Wal-mart's rise coincides with the right's highly successful campaign of denigrating unions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. Yes, but I am talking of the philosophical underpinnings of this

We even have some of their fans on this thread.

Go figure!

[Major Nikon]

92. I honestly don't think they put that much thought into it

Greed is the only philosophy. If you can reduce people to government subsidized wage slaves, so much the better for profits. Greed, as an instrument of political policy, eventually turns the economic bell curve into an L.

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. It is not the though process

Is a belief system. The poor are lazy, if they wanted better, they'd get better jobs.

It is circular in logic as well. We even have some of it's believers on this thread. It is contagious and people literally get it fed in American legends. (By bootstraps is a good example), as well as religios belief, of the reformation churches. This is Calvinist doctrine.

[libdem4life]

75. I think you are being kind. The healthcare issue..let them die in the streets...is even more cynical

to me, if possible, than the low wages conversation...they can get part-time labor without health care. Work them until they drop...and if it's before they've worked 50 years, oh well.

We need a modern day Mother Jones.

[Brickbat]

94. Because people expect it. More specifically, they're not fighting it when it's given to them.