WalMart Employees aren't properly compensated?

Kel Varnsen

I don't have problems buying stuff at walmart. Most of the stuff I buy there is the same stuff I would buy if I bought it at the grocery store or somewhere else. I mean the Wii games they sell are the same Wii games. The greeting cards are the same, the Special K is the same, the Purex is the same and the Armor All is the same. Do people think there is someone in the back of a Walmart store watering down bottles of Windex so that they can sell it for cheaper?

Kel Varnsen

whygohome wrote:

By Ed Smith's math, the CEO of Walmart earns more in
an hour than his employees will earn in a year.

I don't really have a problem with this, for a few reasons. First off how many hours a week does the average Walmart employee work per week? I would bet it would be less than 20. I have seen a few news specials and documentaries on CEO and I wouldn't be surprised if the CEO of walmart was working 60 hours a week, and pretty much had to be on call 24 hours a day if company business needed him. Plus what are the qualifications for being an average walmart employee? Do you even need to have finished highschool? I bet a CEO has considerably higher education than the average walmart employee. And how long does the average employee stay at walmart? I wouldn't be surprised if it was around a year or two, I doubt many people stay at walmart as a long term employment kind of thing. But when you hire a CEO I think they expect him to be around for awhile. Lastly and probably the most important issue is replaceability. How easy is it to replace the average walmart worker if they quit or get fired. Pretty easily I would say. But there is probably only a very small pool of people out there that could replace the CEO of Walmart.

EdsonNascimento

EmBleve wrote:

I did. I just didn't know what you meant by that quote.

That is 1 line out of a much longer description. All that line is referencing is that by basic economic theory, employees should actually be paid less. Minimum wage (Gov't intervention) and the desire to hire "more" (relative term here) competent help (company "benevolence") create the higher wage. I think I even used (not that I'm advocating that) in the commentary. It is theory vs. reality that the statement is grounded in.

Like I said, please re-read in its ENTIRETY and I think it was fairly clear what the context of that (half of a) sentence is.

EmBleve

EdsonNascimento wrote:

EmBleve wrote:

I did. I just didn't know what you meant by that quote.

That is 1 line out of a much longer description. All that line is referencing is that by basic economic theory, employees should actually be paid less. Minimum wage (Gov't intervention) and the desire to hire "more" (relative term here) competent help (company "benevolence") create the higher wage. I think I even used (not that I'm advocating that) in the commentary. It is theory vs. reality that the statement is grounded in.

Like I said, please re-read in its ENTIRETY and I think it was fairly clear what the context of that (half of a) sentence is.

I did read the whole thing, and I just did not understand that statement in comparison to the rest of what you said. I understood the rest of it. What I highlighted above pretty much explains it more clearly to me. Thank you. (I'm not a business-minded person, if you couldn't tell. Smart in alot of other ways, but business is not one of them).

_

How can we reasonably expect people to just get jobs elsewhere or shop elsewhere if they live in a small town where Wal-Mart drove out the other businesses? And why should we assume that treating employees like shit is good for business? Take Costco vs. Sam's (a Wal-Mart company), for instance. They are both very successful businesses, but Costco treats its employees WAY better.