WalMart Employees aren't properly compensated?
EdsonNascimento
Posts: 5,522
I wanted to respond to this from another thread that was (properly) closed for "derailment."
I hope we can have a civil exchange of ideas without resorting to simplistic, rascist points that actually only serve to make folks that disagree with you emboldened in their position.
I would like to ask 2 simple questions - how and why?
I was going to leave it at that, but I'll cut to the chase and explain why such jobs are actually overpaid through government intervention and company benevolence (yes, I said that).
First, how many millions of people would do those jobs in a second if they doubled the compensation? I think many a more highly qualified worker making only slightly more than those folks would enjoy that. I am not saying those folks are not hard working or that their jobs don't have both physical and psychological demands. But, I would dare say that many a person would joyfully take on a job at WalMart in exchange for their employment if compensation were higher.
So, there's the simple economics 101 concept of supply and demand that drives down the compensation for those jobs. Without minimum wage and company's desires to balance expenses with talent, I would say appropriate compensation according to simple economics is actually lower (not advocating for that, just pointing the economic concept out).
Now, in exchange for lower compensation, WalMart will attract less talent (yes, there are folks that just simply enjoy working there and compensation has nothing to do with why they work. But, I believe we are talking about folks that are working there for other reasons). If they raised their salaries, folks might say - screw this college education, I'll just make a career there (again, nothing wrong with working there, just working on the real world application of the theory here). The problem with that would be that the lesser talent would be pushed out. This is the simple concept that Unions seem to be struggling with right now (higher pay for less employees or less pay for more employees). The only difference is they protect longevity instead of talent which I personally think is abhorent.
So, the salary in a free market ends up where it is for a number of very legitemate reasons. While it would be nice to pay more, where do you think that extra expense ends up? The price of goods. Then, we need to pay people more. That's how inflation occurs with no real benefit to those we've raised salaries for. It's obviously much more complicated than that, but what it really comes down to once again - if those workers feel they are underpaid for their talent level, they should feel free to locate a job that will compensate them more. If/when WalMart is not able to employ people for their stores that they feel provide adequate enough service, they will raise compensation to get there. That's the beauty of free market economy. Everyone has incentives no matter how nefarious their intentions are (i.e. If someone only cares about profit, they still have to emply people to make that profit. And if they pay too little, their profits will suffer.)
I hope we can have a civil exchange of ideas without resorting to simplistic, rascist points that actually only serve to make folks that disagree with you emboldened in their position.
I would like to ask 2 simple questions - how and why?
I was going to leave it at that, but I'll cut to the chase and explain why such jobs are actually overpaid through government intervention and company benevolence (yes, I said that).
First, how many millions of people would do those jobs in a second if they doubled the compensation? I think many a more highly qualified worker making only slightly more than those folks would enjoy that. I am not saying those folks are not hard working or that their jobs don't have both physical and psychological demands. But, I would dare say that many a person would joyfully take on a job at WalMart in exchange for their employment if compensation were higher.
So, there's the simple economics 101 concept of supply and demand that drives down the compensation for those jobs. Without minimum wage and company's desires to balance expenses with talent, I would say appropriate compensation according to simple economics is actually lower (not advocating for that, just pointing the economic concept out).
Now, in exchange for lower compensation, WalMart will attract less talent (yes, there are folks that just simply enjoy working there and compensation has nothing to do with why they work. But, I believe we are talking about folks that are working there for other reasons). If they raised their salaries, folks might say - screw this college education, I'll just make a career there (again, nothing wrong with working there, just working on the real world application of the theory here). The problem with that would be that the lesser talent would be pushed out. This is the simple concept that Unions seem to be struggling with right now (higher pay for less employees or less pay for more employees). The only difference is they protect longevity instead of talent which I personally think is abhorent.
So, the salary in a free market ends up where it is for a number of very legitemate reasons. While it would be nice to pay more, where do you think that extra expense ends up? The price of goods. Then, we need to pay people more. That's how inflation occurs with no real benefit to those we've raised salaries for. It's obviously much more complicated than that, but what it really comes down to once again - if those workers feel they are underpaid for their talent level, they should feel free to locate a job that will compensate them more. If/when WalMart is not able to employ people for their stores that they feel provide adequate enough service, they will raise compensation to get there. That's the beauty of free market economy. Everyone has incentives no matter how nefarious their intentions are (i.e. If someone only cares about profit, they still have to emply people to make that profit. And if they pay too little, their profits will suffer.)
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Not really.
Prices are set at what the market will bear. Not how much it costs to produce + some arbitrary profit percentage figure.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
Agreed that it's not quite so simple. That is why WalMart doesn't simply raise salaries.
And yes, market forces have a huge bearing on prices, and by extension, then have bearing on the salaries paid. There is some circularity to it. That's why you end up with the salaries being determined by market forces as much as anything else. However, given the ability to lower expense (if they could and wanted to, not saying they will or should), there's a chance they could lower prices and increase profits (i.e. sell more at a lower price, but same margin).
But if salaries were to go up, they would either raise prices to what the market would bear or stop selling certain products that were no longer profitable. So, there is also a cause and effect there.
Sorry for the tangent.
I feel that I have a good grasp on economics, and I understand Edson's point. I can elucidate my hatred in economic terms, and I can outline the negative effects of these stores quite clearly.
I don't want to do that though; economic jargon simply does not play a role in my response. I simply feel that the way Wal-Mart treats its employees is inhumane. That is clearly seen in the explanation of why they treat their employees the way they do as explained by Edson. it is all about profit; it is all about the new American gods--yes, we now live in a polytheistic nation--consumerism, materialism, and the all-mighty $$$$.
I really don't care abut economic principles when I see a multi-billion corporation fail to offer their employees health insurance and a livable wage. The fervent disciples of the free-marketer/capitalist system will disagree with me, but it is repulsive to see the CEOs and boards of these companies rake in tens of millions of dollars a year, while (some of/most of) their employees get paid less than 18K a year. There is no sense of decency. No humanity.
Look at what has happened to our society. We are slaves to companies like Wal-Mart, Big Oil, and the system that has the power to drive us into the ground--it almost did. We defend Wall St. and the banking and finance industries because of our blind faith the the new religion of capitalism and its tenets of the free-market and profit. America has taken a good idea and severely warped it. Greed kills, RIP USA.
This statement: "That's the beauty of free market economy. Everyone has incentives no matter how nefarious their intentions are (i.e. If someone only cares about profit, they still have to emply people to make that profit. And if they pay too little, their profits will suffer.)" is very, very scary.
Sorry for going off topic a bit...............I just woke up and I had a dream that I lived in a cabin in Vermont, no neighbors in sight, mountains in my backyard.
I'm not sure why "mom and pop" is so revered. I'm sure there were good stores and bad stores.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
No. No. No, not at all. I, I'm just speechless...sorry.
That is a fantastic generalization that you have made. And, as we all know, generalizations are the foundation for truth.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
We have no power; to have power, you would need a brain. We are consumer zombies. We are stupid, materialistic, selfish, greedy, gluttonous zombies.
Dawn of the Dead explains it all....
i am proud to say that.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Actually, it was a joke. Stop being so sensitive.
have kids.....will Walmart.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
My apologies. There are no voice inflections and there is no body language to pick up on in the cyber-world. And, there are people on this board who feel that way.
Again, my apologies.
Will never Walmart......It's just an unattractive place with shitty products.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"With our thoughts we make the world"
We are starting a boycott! It's been at least 7 years for me. i think the last thing I bought there were some flowers and plants for my mom's yard. And of course, most of them died soon after palnting--crappy plants and flowers made in China!!!
maybe it's different "up here". I don't go often, but when I have gone, I haven't had any issues. And returning something has never been a problem. of course, I wouldn't buy anything of significance there, like electronics or anything, but kids clothes are good.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'm at about 14-15.
I have made in the USA sweatshirts from that period that I bought from there that have held up. I bought the same brand a few years ago from Target and noticed that after a few washings all of the tightness was gone out of the sleeve ends and waist. I looked and found it made in Mexico. Same thing happened to Carhartt.
That was when I began my personal crusade to fight cheap products that had manufacturing shipped out of the US to profit more.
Also at that time Wal*Mart accounted for over 10% of the total goods from China that were imported into the ENTIRE U.S.!
I hate Wal-Mart.
I don't live in a town where there is nowhere else to go. I live in a town where it is worth it to spend more for quality products. Walmart has shit electronics, shit clothes, shit sporting equipment...shit everything. Sorry you live in such a shitty town. I mean that from the bottom of my heart.
I also don't understand only buying goods made in America. I think there are a lot of countries and people around the world who likely NEED money worse than America does. I think people are people....who cares where they are located?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I'm just trying to see where WalMart fits amongst other similar employers.