General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)
jmowreader
(50,553 posts)Walmart Stores, Inc.(they have several brands) has over 2 million employees worldwide. They paid their CEO approximately $15 million ($14.7 million, to be exact) in 2012. That includes stock options. The maximum cash executive compensation you can deduct from your taxes is $1 million per employee, so the cheap bastards probably paid him $700,000 in cash and the rest in stock options.
Let's throw out a nice round number and say every C-level employee combined makes $200 million. That's $100 per employee. If they were to go into their headquarters in Arkansas and their purchasing office in China (yes, Walmart's global purchasing office is in China...since most of their suppliers are there, it saves airfare), take every employee who works straight salary, and reduce their pay to zero, it wouldn't be nearly enough to pay for healthcare for two million people.
Here is the problem: This is retail. Retail does not make huge profits. The top-line number is huge. With the size of the business, it can't be any other way. Then deduct cost of merchandise, energy, taxes, huge buildings, their trucking fleet...in reality, they CAN'T afford healthcare for their employees and it's not because they're greedy pigs, it's because they don't have the money.
The root cause is America's addiction to too-cheap prices. If Walmart were to raise the price of every item they sold by a dime, they could afford healthcare for all their part-timers.(Full-timers already have it.) But if they did this, they'd lose half their business. I have a little example from The Home Depot. In about 2006, we had roof sheathing for $5.99 per sheet. We bought it for $5.97 per sheet and the only way we got it that cheap was Corporate found out Louisiana-Pacific was going to furlough an OSB plant for three months, so we went in and offered to buy their entire production if they'd keep the plant open. Oh. My. Lord. We had OSB coming out orifices created specifically for the occasion because these assholes added an extra shift. It was so bad we were selling it to other lumberyards, which is something Home Depot doesn't usually do. Anyway, we're sitting here with the cheapest OSB in over a year. Some of our customers thanked us for cutting their costs so much by telling us they wouldn't buy until the price came down some more.(We did get special dispensation to sell it at cost if you bought five bunks at once, and several people did.) But seriously: if Walmart decided to raise prices enough to cover healthcare for its employees, the nightly news would be covered with "how could they do this to their struggling customers" stories, and public condemnation would force them to fuck their employees further by cutting prices lower than they are now.
And this is the strange-to-me thing: the people who will scream loudest are the most religious. The Bible admonishes us to help our neighbor; modern Christians will generally only do it if their neighbors go to the same church.
aggiesal
(8,910 posts)who needs to raise prices?
The 5 heirs to Walmart make more then 80% of our population combined.
Over 70% of their employees can qualify for government aid if they
want it, and 47% of the siblings of Walmart employees are on
food stamps.
Let the heirs just pay for a living wage and healthcare!
Healthcare NOT Wealthcare.
brush
(53,764 posts)I wouldn't shop there even if they locked me in . . . like they used to their overnight workers who cleaned the stores (allegedly so they wouldn't shoplift). Hope they don't still do this.
Can you imagine if a fire broke out? Shitty company is right.
Just pay the workers a decent wage with healthcare so they don't have to apply for food stamps and medicaid (they call it outsourcing costs or some other bs wording).
Hope no one on DU shops there. And tell everyone you know not to also because of the greed of the heirs.
jmowreader
(50,553 posts)That outrageous number everyone quotes here is their total wealth. If you poke around online, you will find that the Walton heirs' wealth increased from 2007 to 2010 from $73.3 billion to $89.5 billion. That is an outrageous chunk of change, but divided among their 2.2 million employees it's only $94.40 per pay period. It would help their employees a lot, but ninety-five extra dollars a pay period would not bring them up to a living wage nor would it allow them to buy health insurance.
Walmart's business model is designed to inadvertently fuck its employees by not bringing in enough money to pay them properly. And the thing is, the public thinks it's just great so many WM employees are on public assistance...go to one, glance in people's carts and see how many buy nothing but the cheapest things on the shelves.(Then for extra entertainment go online and look up the price on the new F350 pickups they load that cheap crap into...)
They're at the point where anything they do to try to help the employees would fuck them harder. They could close stores but that would reduce revenue. They could lay off half their employees but that would cause thousands of problems. They could put prices where they should be and fickle shoppers would buy in other places. The CEO makes $8 per employee. In terms of his cash compensation his per-employee salary would get him a Walmart cola out of the vending machine.
It's nice to slam Walmart but they make five percent profit and employ 2 million people. This is the left wing version of "all the government needs to do is stop spending."
aggiesal
(8,910 posts)Well I'll ask the experts at Business Insider
The following is from their article dated late 2011.
Walmart, for example, which employs about 1% of the working adults in America, made [Font Color=Red]$25 billion[/font] of operating profit last year.
If Walmart gave each of its [Font Color=Red]1.4 million U.S. "associates" a $5,000 raise[/font], this would only cost it [Font Color=Red]$7 billion[/font], That would leave it with an operating profit of a healthy [Font Color=Red]$18 billion[/font]. And because the [Font Color=Red]$7 billion[/font] of additional compensation expense would reduce Walmart's tax bill, the impact on its bottom line would be even less.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-raises-2011-12#ixzz2UopjOWLq
Maybe it's you that doesn't understand the problem?
jmowreader
(50,553 posts)$25 billion in profit on $419 billion in sales is...oh, 5.9 percent.
Now let's play with Business Insider's numbers. And to do this, try a fun site I found: livingwage.mit.edu which will show you the living wage in any area of the country. I used one adult with one child for my family size and found that the "average" living wage in the US for that kind of family is about $18.50 per hour.
A lot of Walmart's jobs are minimum wage, but let's say our hypothetical Walmart associate pulls down $10 per hour. Giving each of their employees a $5000/year raise would amount to an hourly increase of $2.40 per hour, or less than $12.50 total pay. (On a weekly basis it's $96.) Subtract $12.50 from the $18.50 "living wage" and you're six bucks an hour shy. And as Samuel L. Jackson might say, "I don't care how you cut it, that's a whole lot shy."
Let's go at it from another direction: To give a $10 per hour employee enough of a raise that they make a living wage would cost $17,680 per year per employee. To give 1.4 million people enough of a raise to make them all living wage employees would cost $24.75 billion - almost their entire 2010 profit! (In actuality, some Walmart associates do earn a living wage, a lot of them don't even make close to $10 per hour, the number that constitutes a living wage varies depending on your family composition and where you live, and there are more employees now so these numbers aren't accurate, but they give a decent picture of the problem.)
When you have this much of a disparity between what is and what should be, diverting a little bit of profit, lowering the CEO's salary ($10 per US employee) or other band-aid measures simply will not fix the problem. They are going to have to take in more money without increasing their expenses, and distribute the surplus cash to their employees. The only possible way to do this is to raise prices. Increasing sales is a double-edged sword: more money comes in, but more also goes out because, mirabile dictu, you've gotta buy the additional product before you can sell it to people, you've got to dispatch more trucks to haul it to the stores, you've got to have more stores to sell it out of and more people to work in them, which means your profit margin doesn't actually change.
The real answer is to get some actual industry in this country so no one ever has to say "I work retail because it's the only job in town." But that's an issue for another time.
aggiesal
(8,910 posts)Statistics show that 70+% of Walmart "Associates" qualify for government assistance.
And that presumably the 20+% that don't, actually make a living wage.
For worst case purposes, let's just say that 80% qualify for government assistance.
Of the 1.4 million that work at Walmart, that's 1.12 million "Associates" that need help.
Let's multiply that number by the living wage of $18.50/Hr (remembering that not all of
of them work full time), would cost Walmart $19.8 Billion.
$25B - $19.8B = $5.2B
[Font Color=Green]$5.2B profit isn't good enough?[/font]
But let's be honest, all 1.4 million don't work full time.
An employee at Walmart needs to work an [Font Color=Red]average[/font] of at least 34 hours a week in order to be eligible for health benefits after 180 days on the job. Part-timers are eligible after a year, and only if they work an [Font Color=Red]average[/font] of 30 hours a week.
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/01/24/walmart-bill-simon-employees-full-time/
So, Walmart hire more people to work less hours, [Font Color=Red]to keep from paying them overtime and benefits including health.[/font]
“Investment analysts and store managers [Font Color=Red]say Walmart executives have told them[/font] the company wants to transform its work force to 40 percent part-time from [Font Color=Red]20 percent[/font]. “
http://fryingpannews.org/2012/04/10/walmart-a-portrait-by-the-numbers/
This was taken from an article dated Aprill 2012 (over 1 year ago). That means there may already be 40% part-timers of Walmart's workforce.
Assuming that part timers are not part of the 20+% that do not need government assistance, then the 40% have to be
accounted in the 70+% that do need government assistance.
So they only work on average less then 30 Hrs. per week.
40% is 560,000.
560,000 working 29 Hours per week for 52 weeks is only 1,508 hours per year per part-timer.
560,000 that work full time of 2080 hours per year.
So it would cost $9.9B to pay 560,000 full time "Associates" a livable wage, and
$7.178B to pay part time "Associates" a livable wage.
For a total of $17.08B
$25B - $17.08B = $7.9B
Again [Font Color=Green]$7.9B profit isn't good enough?[/font]
And I'm taking worst case, so the profit margin will only go up when actual numbers are used.
The more I read your replies and how much you advocate for Walmart,
the more I believe [Font Color=Red]you work for Walmart in a meaningful position[/font].
Otherwise, I have no clue why you're defending them so strongly.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)
A HERETIC I AM
(24,365 posts)Wal-Mart is a publicly traded company.
They MUST disclose it, in detail.
The following applies to ANY publicly traded company.
Simple enough to find - go to their website
Scroll to the bottom and click "Investors"
Look for the Annual Report and/or the "Proxy Statement" links. The Proxy Statement is where you will find the executive compensation, in this case, page 55.
For those who don't want to bother, here it is;
CEO of Wal-Mart: Michael T. Duke
2013 Salary $1,315,731
Stock Awards $13,649,520
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation $4,373,180
Change in Pension Value and NonQualified
Deferred Compensation Earnings. $710,664
All Other Compensation $ 644,450
Total $ 20,693,545
Edit; BTW, Mr. Duke also holds 1,790,339 shares of Wal-Mart stock. WMT is currently trading in the $75.00/share range.
1790339 X 75 = 134,275,425.
His net worth in Wal-Mart stock alone is $134,275,425
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)Oh, yes you can!!!
DotGone
(182 posts)Jokes aside, you can't at the WMs around here due to vagrancy ordinances. Gotta keep the po' and housing challenged out of sight.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)If you live in a 500,000 bus.
xxqqqzme
(14,887 posts)at the close of the Tavis Smilely program bragging they have committed 2 billion dollars to stamping out hunger in the US. I think if they just paid their employees a living wage instead that would have a bigger impact.
Incitatus
(5,317 posts)That's barely a drop in the bucket for them. Less than .02% of revenue. Then there's the question are they valuing their food donations at what it costs them or retail cost?
jmowreader
(50,553 posts)It's probably supplier cost, tho.
xxqqqzme
(14,887 posts)They don't mention that in the ad, although I have often wondered what the span was.
Thanks
Incitatus
(5,317 posts)NEW YORK — Wal-Mart Stores Inc. plans to significantly ramp up its donations to the nation's food banks to total $2 billion over the next five years, the retail giant said Wednesday.......
But the bulk of the donations will consist of more than 1.1 billion pounds of food that doesn't sell or can't be sold because it's close to expiration dates, for example. About half will be fresh fruit, vegetables, dairy and meat – items that food banks say they're seeing more demand for.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/12/walmart-to-invest-2-billi_n_573402.html
This isn't a program they are doing out of kindness and altruism, their business practices and employee treatment speak to those traits.
It's good that the needy will get some assistance, but I see this as a PR move to make them appear less evil despite the harm they do.
Maybe they are also getting a tax deduction for donating the food that they were going to have to throw away. idk
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)for unsalable merchandise. It's an accounting trick to reduce their taxes.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)The stores are shabby, dirty, and poorly laid out, their staff is surly and overworked, the goods for sale are shabby and poorly made, if cheap, and I walked out in disgust both times.
moondust
(19,972 posts)Last edited Thu May 30, 2013, 03:19 PM - Edit history (1)
I have no idea what the Walton heirs actually do with their time, but I don't see any reason why they couldn't just hire somebody to manage and grow their inherited fortunes and then only get out of bed once in a while to sign a few papers.
Of course you technically wouldn't have to get out of bed to even do that.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Real upstanding member of society, that one.
denverbill
(11,489 posts)After all, a billion dollars isn't what it used to be. Hiring a $100,000/year chauffer would cost $1 billion over 10,000 years.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)And she killed someone while driving in another case. But of course, she gets treated a bit differently than the rest of us.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)
sinkingfeeling
(51,444 posts)Fayetteville, AR, 7AM CDT.
http://news.walmart.com/events/shareholders-meeting-2013
Too bad Elton John is lowering himself to provide the entertainment.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)First the OxyMoron's wedding*, now this. 
TheDebbieDee
(11,119 posts)The last I read in the gossip mags, Elton and husband had bought the kids and their nannies their OWN apartment to stay in.
Besides, Wal-mart's money is as good as any other companies money. And who knows, maybe Elton John will donate some of those dollars to a deserving charity........
Rex
(65,616 posts)treat their employees.
lark
(23,091 posts)They do give their ee healthcare but the benefits are very sparse and the cost is very high.
Initech
(100,063 posts)It was talking about how great their mid level management jobs were and "success". Really? You work for a corporation that is one of the most heartless and soulless entities on the planet. They make more profit than 169 countries and don't give a shit about you. 
antigop
(12,778 posts)Christy Walton:
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mmk45hiif/christy-walton-2/
Net worth: $28.2 billion
Country: U.S.
Source of wealth: Wal-Mart
Christy Walton's net worth reached new highs as Wal-Mart stock jumped in 2012. She remains the richest woman in the United States. Christy inherited her wealth when husband John Walton, a former Green Beret and Vietnam war medic, died in an airplane crash in 2005.
Alice Walton:
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mmk45hiif/alice-walton/
Country: U.S.
Source of wealth: Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart heiress Alice Walton gave $1.7 million to a Washington D.C. charter schools initiative alongside fellow billionaires Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer. The Walton family's most generous philanthropist, her ambitious Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in Bentonville, Ark., opened in 2011 featuring works donated from her personal collection--which is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)
Tafiti
(1,723 posts)A scumbag's crown, if you will.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)I frequently harangue friends who insist on going there.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Those of us who live in the country don't have choices.
I have to drive 20 miles to buy groceries at ANY grocery store.
Kroger and Brookshire Brothers don't have many items, oftentimes.
jmowreader
(50,553 posts)I would love to see how many anti-Walmart people live in large cities vice how many live in small towns. The numbers would astound.
I was driving through the middle of Arkansas on I-40 one fine day and noticed this little town with a Brand New Walmart. I had to kill an hour anyway, so I pulled off the Interstate. This town had...this is no shit...a little independently-owned truck stop, a diner, a motel with maybe 12 rooms (think the Bates Motel with no house for Norman's mama) and the Walmart. And before the Walmart went in, there was no shopping for an hour in any direction.
The thing is, ALL retail is fucked up in some fashion, including the sainted Costco. They can afford to pay well and offer great benefits because their business model doesn't require very many employees. A Costco building is bigger than a Walmart building but it's probably got a tenth the staff. And they're not open 24/7. Oh, and Costco made it far easier for Washington teens to get hard liquor. A couple years ago they got a privatized liquor sales initiative on the ballot. Those of us who were against it pointed out the obvious: it will increase alcohol problems of every kind. The price of booze will go up. Teens will be able to get booze easier. The range of selections will go down. And convenience stores will sell liquor. The voters "rejected the lies"... all of which have come true.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Are those not the people who tell us we should only drive a hybrid car, take mass transit, walk or bike, and that we should only shop at the proper politically correct stores? What my friend Tracy the protester calls "goddamn hippie vegans". Holier than thou.
I'm 150 miles from a Costco, either in Houston or Dallas. 150 miles from Whole Foods. We don't have Aldi's or Swapper Jack's (where Homer Simpson shops--ha ha Trader Joe's) at all. We have NONE of the politically correct stores here.
I'm 80 miles from a Target store.
The town I live in has a Subway sandwich store and Dollar General. And several gas stations, all with broken gas pumps.
I have to drive 20 miles to buy groceries.
If I'm lucky, the Kroger has veal maybe once every two months. Usually they don't have it. I did not think I cooked anything exotic, but I can get marzipan at Kroger to make banket (almond pastry).
jmowreader
(50,553 posts)The Aldi I used to go to had eight employees, including the store manager. They had a 7000 square foot building. And they stock shelves by putting whole skids out...said skids being specially packed at the manufacturer.
Here's the big decision: do we think it terrible that a store with lots of employees doesn't pay well, or that a store that pays well has so few employees they only hire when someone retires? Or do we face the real problem: America can't survive as a nation of retail workers.
roody
(10,849 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)i live in a small town (& not a wealthy one) in washington, and we have more choices than walmart. and i don't shop at walmart. not because it's necessarily worse than the others in its practices, but because it's one of the biggest companies on the globe and all its competitors are ants in comparison.
walmart sets the standard for everyone else, competitively. i won't support them.
jmowreader
(50,553 posts)I especially love how the big chains can buy directly from distilleries.
Strange thing about the "more choice" thing: privatizing liquor was supposed to open up the market, allowing stores to carry many more brands. Right now there's a wider selection in the Post Falls, Idaho, state liquor store than at 95 percent of the stores selling liquor in Spokane...because 95 percent of the Spokane stores have part of an aisle devoted to it. Kinda hard to brag about freedom of choice when retailers freely choose to sell three brands of each kind of spirit...yeah you can get Jack, Beam and Maker's Mark but what if you like Old Grand-Dad? (Having said that, which is true for most categories, on the east side of the state the whiskey selection's broader because it's the most popular spirit over here. Stll, Idaho state stores have a wider selection and lower prices.)
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)jmowreader
(50,553 posts)"This initiative was written by a single company, Costco, for its benefit," said Alex Fryer, the spokesman for Protect Our Communities, the group advocating rejection of 1183. "It's a tremendous change for Washington state."
http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2012/06/22/costco-backers-of-liquor-privatization-sue-over-initiative-1183-implementation/
"Costco and its allies wrote the initiative that privatized liquor sales in Washington and spent $20 million convincing voters to approve it , but they’re not happy about some of the results.
The group announced today they are suing the state Liquor Control Board to challenge the rules it made to implement Initiative 1183. The liquor board declined to comment, but it explains its rules here, along with some of the objections."
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)program out there...
as well as an army of tax break lobbyists
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Needless to say we shop separately.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Wal*Mart maintains a "Associates in Critical Need Fund" to assist it employees. In 2012, it provided grants to individuals totaling $10,092,265.
Perhaps someone wiser in the ways of corporations and grants could answer this question: Is Wal*Mart paying its employees dirt wages, then offering assistance in the form of grants thereby raising the employees' income somewhat, and then taking a tax deduction for those grants?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)foundation doing the giving, then the foundation money is more or less tax free and the corporation can get a deduction by donating to the foundation.
charity is a fucking scam. it really is. not that it doesn't do some good, but in the case of big donors, the donors typically get the bigger benefit -- not only because of tax deductions, but because they can manipulate all aspects of society through their giving.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts).
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Cost Co employees average $45,000 a year while Wal-Mart employees average $17,000 a year, but CostCo's profits seem to be better than other box store competition. Here is an article from HuffPost about it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/costco-profits_n_3359033.html
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Cuz I will not step into that place for as long as I'm alive!
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
