WalMart Employees aren't properly compensated?

EdsonNascimento

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.)

markin ball

EdsonNascimento wrote:

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.)

Not really.

Prices are set at what the market will bear. Not how much it costs to produce + some arbitrary profit percentage figure.

EdsonNascimento

markin ball wrote:

Not really.

Prices are set at what the market will bear. Not how much it costs to produce + some arbitrary profit percentage figure.

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.

whygohome

I simply have to disagree with the OP/Edson. It is inaccurate to paint Wal-Mart in a wholly (holy? It is the new American Church) negative light. I have to admit that they do offer low-priced products to individuals who cannot the higher prices that they may find at the local grocery store. Deep down I have a severe hatred for Wal0Mart, Target, Wegman's and other stores like them. In my opinion and experience--I am doing a study in my town and I am clearly seeing the negative effects of a Wegman's and Wal-Mart on Main Street and family-owned, individual-owned shops.

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.

EmBleve

whygohome wrote:

I simply have to disagree with the OP/Edson. It is inaccurate to paint Wal-Mart in a wholly (holy? It is the new American Church) negative light. I have to admit that they do offer low-priced products to individuals who cannot the higher prices that they may find at the local grocery store. Deep down I have a severe hatred for Wal0Mart, Target, Wegman's and other stores like them. In my opinion and experience--I am doing a study in my town and I am clearly seeing the negative effects of a Wegman's and Wal-Mart on Main Street and family-owned, individual-owned shops.

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.

This is a great post...and I want to live in your dream.

Chip McFlennigan

I feel bad for the single, 20-something mothers with 6 kids by 5 different men who are forced to work in horrific conditions in Wal*Mart for terrible wages.

know1

If the so-called "mom and pop" stores were to make a comeback and put the hurt on Wal-Mart, wouldn't they just be doing the same thing to Wal-Mart that Wal-Mart did to them?

I'm not sure why "mom and pop" is so revered. I'm sure there were good stores and bad stores.

whygohome

know1 wrote:

If the so-called "mom and pop" stores were to make a comeback and put the hurt on Wal-Mart, wouldn't they just be doing the same thing to Wal-Mart that Wal-Mart did to them?

I'm not sure why "mom and pop" is so revered. I'm sure there were good stores and bad stores.

No. No. No, not at all. I, I'm just speechless...sorry.

whygohome

johnny america wrote:

I feel bad for the single, 20-something mothers with 6 kids by 5 different men who are forced to work in horrific conditions in Wal*Mart for terrible wages.

That is a fantastic generalization that you have made. And, as we all know, generalizations are the foundation for truth.

markin ball

If we don't like Wal-Mart, we can quit shopping there. If we loved those mom and pop stores so much they would be back in business. We as consumers have a lot of power in this situation.

whygohome

markin ball wrote:

If we don't like Wal-Mart, we can quit shopping there. If we loved those mom and pop stores so much they would be back in business. We as consumers have a lot of power in this situation.

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....

gimmesometruth27

wal mart has not gotten a single dollar from me in 11 years.

i am proud to say that.

Chip McFlennigan

whygohome wrote:

johnny america wrote:

I feel bad for the single, 20-something mothers with 6 kids by 5 different men who are forced to work in horrific conditions in Wal*Mart for terrible wages.

That is a fantastic generalization that you have made. And, as we all know, generalizations are the foundation for truth.

Actually, it was a joke. Stop being so sensitive.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

wal mart has not gotten a single dollar from me in 11 years.

i am proud to say that.

have kids.....will Walmart.

whygohome

johnny america wrote:

whygohome wrote:

johnny america wrote:

I feel bad for the single, 20-something mothers with 6 kids by 5 different men who are forced to work in horrific conditions in Wal*Mart for terrible wages.

That is a fantastic generalization that you have made. And, as we all know, generalizations are the foundation for truth.

Actually, it was a joke. Stop being so sensitive.

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.

Chip McFlennigan

whygohome wrote:

Again, my apologies.

We cool ot

brandon10

Dirty Frankfurter wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

wal mart has not gotten a single dollar from me in 11 years.

i am proud to say that.

have kids.....will Walmart.

Will never Walmart......It's just an unattractive place with shitty products.

gimmesometruth27

brandon10 wrote:

Dirty Frankfurter wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

wal mart has not gotten a single dollar from me in 11 years.

i am proud to say that.

have kids.....will Walmart.

Will never Walmart......It's just an unattractive place with shitty products.

and shitty customer service, and too much shit just laying in the aisles. i swore off walmart 11 years ago. that has been the easiest promise to keep that i have ever made to anyone.

markin ball

The environment is just so crappy there. It ain't worth saving a few pennies here and there.

whygohome

brandon10 wrote:

Dirty Frankfurter wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

wal mart has not gotten a single dollar from me in 11 years.

i am proud to say that.

have kids.....will Walmart.

Will never Walmart......It's just an unattractive place with shitty products.

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!!!

Hugh Freaking Dillon

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

brandon10 wrote:

Will never Walmart......It's just an unattractive place with shitty products.

and shitty customer service, and too much shit just laying in the aisles. i swore off walmart 11 years ago. that has been the easiest promise to keep that i have ever made to anyone.

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.