Welcome to Wal-Mart

[Apathy]

I just jumped into this topic on page four and don't plan on reading pages 1-3.

 

Let's assume for a minute that workers, particularly those at Wal-Mart, receive lower wages. My first question is lower relative to what? Each and every time we have this discussion on The Huddle (and it's a good discussion), I never see anybody tell us what the "correct" wage should be. Even those advocating higher minimum wages can't seem to agree on what the figure ought to be to secure some holistic equality or even some modicum of standard living. They just contend that what Wal-Mart pays isn't enough.

 

Second, should we be more interested in wages or total compensation? Wages only make up a part of the compensation received by employees, including those at Wal-Mart. And even if you want to argue that the fringe benefits paid by Wal-Mart are not sufficient (see paragraph above and my question about that the right amount is), I'm still not sure anyone, incluging wiegie, can convince me that real wages, and more importantly the changes in real wages, are calculated correctly because they are so dependent on estimates of inflation, and 100 different and reasonable economists can have 100 different opinions about what the true inflation figure is. This could have a significant impact on the perception versus the reality of what people are truly putting in their wallet each day!

 

I'd rather look at standard of living. If I make less money relative to some standard left-minded thinkers want to put forth, I don't really care because I have a higher standard of living than I would have had 30 years ago, when folks didn't have multiples cars much less perhaps one car and I was happy to get three channels in black and white. And oh yeah, our average standard of living far and away exceeds that of every other country! Isn't that made possible, at least in part, by the lower prices Wal-Mart offers compared to other retailers, here and abroad?

 

Fear not, I'm sure that someday, Wal-Mart will go the way of Sears, Montgomery Ward, A&P, and other one-time behemoths that people mistakingly thought would rule the retail world indefinitely. Then, its detractors will have to find some other oppressive retailer to complain about.

[cre8tiff]

I just jumped into this topic on page four and don't plan on reading pages 1-3.

 

Let's assume for a minute that workers, particularly those at Wal-Mart, receive lower wages. My first question is lower relative to what? Each and every time we have this discussion on The Huddle (and it's a good discussion), I never see anybody tell us what the "correct" wage should be. Even those advocating higher minimum wages can't seem to agree on what the figure ought to be to secure some holistic equality or even some modicum of standard living. They just contend that what Wal-Mart pays isn't enough.

 

Second, should we be more interested in wages or total compensation? Wages only make up a part of the compensation received by employees, including those at Wal-Mart. And even if you want to argue that the fringe benefits paid by Wal-Mart are not sufficient (see paragraph above and my question about that the right amount is), I'm still not sure anyone, incluging wiegie, can convince me that real wages, and more importantly the changes in real wages, are calculated correctly because they are so dependent on estimates of inflation, and 100 different and reasonable economists can have 100 different opinions about what the true inflation figure is. This could have a significant impact on the perception versus the reality of what people are truly putting in their wallet each day!

 

I'd rather look at standard of living. If I make less money relative to some standard left-minded thinkers want to put forth, I don't really care because I have a higher standard of living than I would have had 30 years ago, when folks didn't have multiples cars much less perhaps one car and I was happy to get three channels in black and white. And oh yeah, our average standard of living far and away exceeds that of every other country! Isn't that made possible, at least in part, by the lower prices Wal-Mart offers compared to other retailers, here and abroad?

 

Fear not, I'm sure that someday, Wal-Mart will go the way of Sears, Montgomery Ward, A&P, and other one-time behemoths that people mistakingly thought would rule the retail world indefinitely. Then, its detractors will have to find some other oppressive retailer to complain about.

 

1317519[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

In the previous postings, I gave thw wage information you desire, using federal poverty-levels against average hourly and annual wages paid. There are also links to studies of how the numbers of residents at or below the poverty level show a marked increase upon the creation of a local mega-store.

 

Your benefits statement is a good point, but Wal-Mart again is far below what is considered the national average here:

 

Wal-Mart’s spending on health care for its employees falls well below industry and national employer averages.

In 2002, as reported in the Wall Street Journal, Wal-Mart spent an average of $3,500 per employee.

By comparison, the average spending per employee in the wholesale/retailing sector was $4,800.

For U.S. employers in general, the average was $5,600 per employee, Therefore, Wal-Mart’s average spending on health benefits for each covered employee was 27% less than the industry average and 37% less than the national average. (Bernard Wysocki, Jr. and Ann Zimmerman, “Wal-Mart Cost-Cutting Finds a Big Target in Health Benefits,” WSJ September 30, 2003 p1)

 

If they are covered at all.

Wal-Mart reports that its health insurance only covers 48% of their employees. Wal-Mart has approximately 1.3 million US employees.

 

And for retirement

Wal-Mart sponsors two retirement plans — a profit sharing plan and 401(k) plan — neither of which guarantee workers a fixed monthly pension benefit.

Wal-Mart has shifted risks to employees by concentrating investment in its own stock.

From January 2000 to January 2005, the average adjusted share price of Wal-Mart’s stock lost more than a fifth of its value. By being concentrated in one security, employees’ retirement plans are subject to the whims of one stock rather than having the safety of a diversified portfolio.

Wal-Mart's retirement plans are Enron-like -- in 2003, 67% of their combined assets were invested in Wal-Mart stock.

 

Profit Sharing

 

Wal-Mart has stated that it has contributed around 4 percent of its earnings to its combined profit sharing and 401(k) accounts. For 2003, this would come out to a $302 a year contribution per employee.

 

 

And if your argument about standard of living is that the working poor in America ave a higher standard of living than most of the world, you are correct. But remember those numbers include the 10% of the world that doesn't even have running water or electricity. If you want an eye-openeing statistic there, the three weathiest people in the world hold more assets than the bottom 48% of the world's population, combined.

Edited February 10, 2006 by cre8tiff

[wiegie]

I still don't get the complaints about how Wal-Mart is driving small mom and pop stores out of business. There seems to be a fear that once the mom and pop stores are gone that Walmart will raise its prices because it will be a monopoly. I've mentioned previously that there is little evidence that this happens (and there are very good reasons to think that it will not happen). But what people don't seem to care about is that the mom and pop stores themselves were monopolies before Walmart came to town and competed with them. (That is why Walmart wins, because they charge lower prices.)

 

It sucks to be a mom and pop store owner, but it also sucks to be a typewriter repairman. People like shopping at bigger stores and they don't need the expertise of shop owners like they might have needed in the past. (For example, if I need to fix my toilet, I go to the internet and read how to do it and then go buy the parts. I don't need to get instructions from a plumbing expert and the hardware store.)

 

Finally, nobody has mentioned (including the research papers cited) what is probably the biggest benefit that Walmart offers--lower transactions costs. Instead of having to drive around to 4-5 stores to get the stuff you need, you can go get all of it in one trip to Walmart. These time savings are hugely important in terms of people's quality of life.

 

I see no moral obligation for Walmart to pay workers more than what is needed to entice workers to come work for Walmart. If you think that the workers should get paid more, then slip them a $20 when you leave the store. (Now having said this, I shop at Costco instead of Sams because I know that Costco pays its workers relatively well (at the expense of its shareholders) since I personally have a greater empathy for workers than for stockholders.)

 

As for the poverty rate measures, they don't tell the whole story as what is needed is to determine what has happened to the real purchasing power of the county's citizens--something that poverty rates do not tell us. (I also have no idea why the authors of the paper didn't use real median per-capita income as their measure instead of measuring the poverty rate--as this measure would have gotten more at the idea of how Walmart affects the overall quality of life in a county.)

Edited February 10, 2006 by wiegie

[Perchoutofwater]

I still don't get the complaints about how Wal-Mart is driving small mom and pop stores out of business.  There seems to be a fear that once the mom and pop stores are gone that Walmart will raise its prices because it will be a monopoly.  I've mentioned previously that there is little evidence that this happens (and there are very good reasons to think that it will not happen).  But what people don't seem to care about is that the mom and pop stores themselves were monopolies before Walmart came to town and competed with them.  (That is why Walmart wins, because they charge lower prices.)

 

It sucks to be a mom and pop store owner, but it also sucks to be a typewriter repairman.  People like shopping at bigger stores and they don't need the expertise of shop owners like they might have needed in the past.  (For example, if I need to fix my toilet, I go to the internet and read how to do it and then go buy the parts.  I don't need to get instructions from a plumbing expert and the hardware store.)

 

Finally, nobody has mentioned (including the research papers cited) what is probably the biggest benefit that Walmart offers--lower transactions costs.  Instead of having to drive around to 4-5 stores to get the stuff you need, you can go get all of it in one trip to Walmart.  These time savings are hugely important in terms of people's quality of life.

 

I see no moral obligation for Walmart to pay workers more than what is needed to entice workers to come work for Walmart.  If you think that the workers should get paid more, then slip them a $20 when you leave the store.  (Now having said this, I shop at Costco instead of Sams because I know that Costco pays its workers relatively well (at the expense of its shareholders) since I personally have a greater empathy for workers than for stockholders.)

 

As for the poverty rate measures, they don't tell the whole story as what is needed is to determine what has happened to the real purchasing power of the county's citizens--something that poverty rates do not tell us.  (I also have no idea why the authors of the paper didn't use real median per-capita income as their measure instead of measuring the poverty rate--as this measure would have gotten more at the idea of how Walmart affects the overall quality of life in a county.)

 

1317596[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I agree with pretty much everything you said here with the possilbe exception of the part I bolded. I'm not sure how much more Cosco employees make then Sams' Club employees. It is important to differentiate between Sams's Club employees and Walmart employees, as Sam's Clubs average employee is going to be paid considerably higher than Walmart's average employee. The reason for this is that in Walmart you have guys stocking shelves in w/ pallet jacks, at Sam's Club you have guys stocking shelves with fork lifts. If you ever go to Sam's Club you will notice that almost every employee with the exception of some of the checkers wear a back supporter. You don't see that in Walmart with the exception of a very few who probably have bad backs. The reason for this is, there is more heavy lifting going on at Sam's Club. Comparing Walmart to Cosco is not like comparing apples to oranges, but it is like comparing apples to say pears. They are similar fruits but they are not the same. In all the data I've seen to try demonize Walmart, I've never seen a coparison between Sam's Club employees and Cosco employees. If there is one that is comparing apples to apples. If it is just all Walmart employees (including Sam's Club employees) then you are comparing apples to pears. Walmart (excluding Sam's) is more like most big retail stores. I think the last time we had the discussed this, someone pulled up Walmarts wages and compared them to other big retailers (not warehouse stores) and we found that Walmart actually paid their employees more. Now again this is skewed, as every time I've seen a study of Walmarts wages it has included Sam's Clubs. So in short, Walmart probably pays it's employees in it's retail strores about the same as most large retailers, and Walmart probably pays it's employees that workin the Warehouse stores about the same as Cosco pays its employeees. We probably will never know for sure unless Walmart does an internal survey of each, and makes it public.

[Perchoutofwater]

The point is, where are they going to work? If Wal-Mart has driven the small businesses out of business, what choices do these people have? It is a bully pulpit. The working poor don't have many choices here.

 

Also, just how many laborers can you employ? Additionally, what would happen to you if Wal-Mart got into your trade (I don't know what you do, but in some areas Wal-Mart is beginning to offer siding installation), and was able to complete the projects you work on at half the cost, because they pay thier people less, and can get cheaper materials?

 

1317482[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Just like businesses they adapt. If Walmart is the only place in town that they are qualified to work at, and they don't like the wages and benifits offered, then they don't have to work there. It is a free country there are not check points at the edge of town keeping them in that town. Let them move and find a job in another town. We have near record low unemployment, so I doubt they'd have trouble finding a job somewhere, they just may have to adapt. It is no different than me and my business having to adapt to the latest changes in enviormental policy or adapt the changes in the OSHA code, or adapt to changing building codes.

 

Right now we are paying laborers $12-$15 an hour and having trouble finding people willing to work. Maybe it is that some people don't mind working for a lower salary in a relatively easy job, rather than earning 50% to 75% more working hard out in the heat in the dirty enviroments.

[Azazello1313]

The difference is their are competing products.  With all the nutritional information that has come out in the last 20 years, and a good deal of it being crappy, people are eating less beef, less pork, and more chicken.  You have people drinking soy milk in lieu of dairy.  So the farmers and ranchers are advertising their product to try to get back some of the tofu eating soy milk drinking, berkenstock wearing hippies.

 

What product does USPS compete with?  They really can't compete with UPS and FedEx in regard to packaging.

 

1317418[/snapback]

 

 

 

well they certainly DO compete with UPS and fedex. absolutely no question about it.

[Zeke 1982]

wiegie don't be an hindquarter!!!

It is called Supply and Demand.........take out the other suppliers and just have your walmart then it is quite obviouse that they can and will charge any price they want for there is no other place to go!!!!

  Demand stays the same but the supply becomes limited .....hence the greater the demand and the lesser supply =  charge what ever you want and can get away with!!!!

 

1315879[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

So you feel they will put Target out of business as well? Maybe the little guys, but there will always be a Target or similar store to keep them in check.

[Perchoutofwater]

well they certainly DO compete with UPS and fedex.  absolutely no question about it.

 

1317679[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Maybe, but if I have to get something to a client, architect, engineer or subcontractor in a hurry I can tell you I won't be using them.

[Cunning Runt]

There's always Dollar Tree - everything's just a buck there. Seriously. (not to be confused with Family Dollar and Dollar General who are multi-price point stores). Check 'em out - probably one near you. amazing what you can get for a buck in those places.

Edited February 10, 2006 by Cunning Runt

[Ursa Majoris]

Maybe, but if I have to get something to a client, architect, engineer or subcontractor in a hurry I can tell you I won't be using them.

 

1317684[/snapback]

 

 

 

If it's that much of a rush, don't use any of them. Use a local courier service.

[cre8tiff]

I agree with pretty much everything you said here with the possilbe exception of the part I bolded.  I'm not sure how much more Cosco employees make then Sams' Club employees.  It is important to differentiate between Sams's Club employees and Walmart employees, as Sam's Clubs average employee is going to be paid considerably higher than Walmart's average employee.  The reason for this is that in Walmart you have guys stocking shelves in w/ pallet jacks, at Sam's Club you have guys stocking shelves with fork lifts.  If you ever go to Sam's Club you will notice that almost every employee with the exception of some of the checkers wear a back supporter.  You don't see that in Walmart with the exception of a very few who probably have bad backs.  The reason for this is, there is more heavy lifting going on at Sam's Club.   Comparing Walmart to Cosco is not like comparing apples to oranges, but it is like comparing apples to say pears.  They are similar fruits but they are not the same.   In all the data I've seen to try demonize Walmart, I've never seen a coparison between Sam's Club employees and Cosco employees.  If there is one that is comparing apples to apples.  If it is just all Walmart employees (including Sam's Club employees) then you are comparing apples to pears.  Walmart (excluding Sam's) is more like most big retail stores.  I think the last time we had the discussed this, someone pulled up Walmarts wages and compared them to other big retailers (not warehouse stores) and we found that Walmart actually paid their employees more.  Now again this is skewed, as every time I've seen a study of Walmarts wages it has included Sam's Clubs.  So in short, Walmart probably pays it's employees in it's retail strores about the same as most large retailers, and Walmart probably pays it's employees that workin the Warehouse stores about the same as Cosco pays its employeees.  We probably will never know for sure unless Walmart does an internal survey of each, and makes it public.

 

1317642[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

$15.97 per hour at Costco, $11.52 per hour at Wal-Mart's Sam's Club.

Healthcare costs per worker Costco=$5735 Sam's $3,500

Percent of workers covered by Health Plan Costco=82 Sam's=47

Retirement costs per worker Costco=$1330 Sams=$747

Percent of workers covered by retirement plans Costco=91 Sam's 64

 

Interestingly enough, Costco Has a higher profit per employee at those wages: Costco $13,647 Sams $11,039

 

Source: BusinessWeek

 

It should be pointed out that

A ) Costco is much smaller, and primarily in urban areas and

B ) The median income for a Costco member is $74,000. Costco is NOT catering to the poor.

Edited February 10, 2006 by cre8tiff

[Apathy]

wiegie: Good point about ease of shopping as an economic benefit.

 

cre8tiff: I'm sure your numbers are solid, but again - I don't think they address what's really important. Is the average employee better off now versus: (1) 25 or 50 or 75 years ago when it comes to living standard, and (2) other employees around the world?

 

The answer is undoubtedly yes.

 

The poverty levels are very misleading because according to the government's tranches regarding income levels, my brother-in-law and his wife are "well-off" yet he works full-time as a police officer and part-time cutting people's lawns (we won't discuss what sort of reporting takes place with this latter income ) and his wife is a secretary with a local government office. They live very conservatively and are thankful for the Wal-Marts of the world. Now some of the people he takes to jail live in government-subsidized housing, Section 8 or other, and have plasma televisions and brand new cars. Again, the income levels don't tell the story as much as the way people live and I submit that people live significantly better than they did years ago.

 

As for health insurance, I went from a job recently where my family and I were covered very well and it cost me nothing (or at least I didn't take an explicit deduction in my paycheck) to a job where I come out of pocket for almost the whole amount. I don't receive anymore in wages. It was a factor I considered but I ultimately made the choice to take the job. It was my decision though, as it is for Wal-Mart employees.

 

As for retirement plans, it wasn't all that long ago when such things didn't exist. Then the prevailing trend was to offer defined benefit plans. This was obviously a stupid idea to say the least and taxpayers may end up bearing the brunt of it for larger companies. Very few companies presently offer a defined benefit to their employees; it's just not feasible to do that. Would I be nervous if my retirement plan was heavily loaded with my company's stock? You bet'cha. But just a couple of years ago, people were talking about how Wal-Mart's and Home Depot's stocks were the greatest investments a person could make (I guess that would now be Starbucks until something better rolls around). And how do you know Wal-Mart would have contributed the same $ amount of investment to the 401(k) if it was obligated to contribute some other asset (cash, mutual funds, etc.)?

 

Again, if you don't think they do enough for retirment, don't work there. How many prudent people rely on their company's 401(k) for retirement anyway? Plus, there are payroll limitations to how much they can contribute and still deduct. I'm willing to bet whatever they contribute is not much different than similar retailers. And to say $302 is the average contribution is just erroneous. It likely doesn't address employee turnover (high in the retail environment) and vesting / participation requirements for the two plans - items standard in any plan in any company.

 

I see no reason to disqualify 10 percent of the world's population from the standard of living comparison because they live in third-world conditions. So did Americans at one point in our history. We lived in very poor conditions relative to most Europeans. And if there are in fact three people out there with more money than half the population, I'd want to know how they managed that rather than complain about it. Afterall, somebody will always have more resources than somebody else, that's just the nature of economics. I'm guessing Bill Gates is one of those guys. How much has he done for the welfare of his employees? For the welfare of people relying on his products? Doesn't he have the largest charitable foundation in the world? So is he not improving the welfare of perhaps millions of people. Could he have done that if he didn't employ a strong business acumen? I doubt it.

 

P.S. I don't shop at Wal-Mart...the darn place is just too "busy!"

[Perchoutofwater]

$15.97 per hour at Costco, $11.52 per hour at Wal-Mart's Sam's Club.

Healthcare costs per worker Costco=$5735 Sam's $3,500

Percent of workers covered by Health Plan Costco=82 Sam's=47

Retirement costs per worker Costco=$1330 Sams=$747

Percent of workers covered by retirement plans Costco=91 Sam's 64

 

Interestingly enough, Costco Has a higher profit per employee at those wages: Costco $13,647 Sams $11,039

 

Source: BusinessWeek

 

It should be pointed out that

A ) Costco is much smaller, and primarily in urban areas and

B ) The median income for a Costco member is $74,000. Costco is NOT catering to the poor.

 

1317706[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Now is that information just for Sam's Club, or is it the average of Walmat and Sams Club? I'd like a link to see if it differentiates between walmart and sams club, or if it is just the average.

 

Even if that is the case though, again no one is forcing them to work their. If they don't want to work their they can go work somewhere else, and if they are qualified to make more then they will, and if they are not they won't. We are all gauranteed equality of oppurtunity, not equality of out come. And while it is a grand idea, all men are not created equallly. I'll never jump as high as Micheal Jordan, I'll never throw a football with as much velocity as John Elway, I'll never run as fast as Carl Lewis, and I'll never be as strong as Larry Allen. So, I'm not able to play a professional sport, I don't have the attributes to do so. Some people don't have the mental or physical attributes to make more than $11.52, and some just don't have the ambition to do so. I'm still trying to hire laborers for more than that, and having to get guys from the temp agencies that work one day and don't show up the next.

[Perchoutofwater]

wiegie: Good point about ease of shopping as an economic benefit.

 

cre8tiff: I'm sure your numbers are solid, but again - I don't think they address what's really important. Is the average employee better off now versus: (1) 25 or 50 or 75 years ago when it comes to living standard, and (2) other employees around the world?

 

The answer is undoubtedly yes.

 

The poverty levels are very misleading because according to the government's tranches regarding income levels, my brother-in-law and his wife are "well-off" yet he works full-time as a police officer and part-time cutting people's lawns (we won't discuss what sort of reporting takes place with this latter income  ) and his wife is a secretary with a local government office. They live very conservatively and are thankful for the Wal-Marts of the world. Now some of the people he takes to jail live in government-subsidized housing, Section 8 or other, and have plasma televisions and brand new cars. Again, the income levels don't tell the story as much as the way people live and I submit that people live significantly better than they did years ago.

 

As for health insurance, I went from a job recently where my family and I were covered very well and it cost me nothing (or at least I didn't take an explicit deduction in my paycheck) to a job where I come out of pocket for almost the whole amount. I don't receive anymore in wages. It was a factor I considered but I ultimately made the choice to take the job. It was my decision though, as it is for Wal-Mart employees.

 

As for retirement plans, it wasn't all that long ago when such things didn't exist. Then the prevailing trend was to offer defined benefit plans. This was obviously a stupid idea to say the least and taxpayers may end up bearing the brunt of it for larger companies. Very few companies presently offer a defined benefit to their employees; it's just not feasible to do that. Would I be nervous if my retirement plan was heavily loaded with my company's stock? You bet'cha. But just a couple of years ago, people were talking about how Wal-Mart's and Home Depot's stocks were the greatest investments a person could make (I guess that would now be Starbucks until something better rolls around). And how do you know Wal-Mart would have contributed the same $ amount of investment to the 401(k) if it was obligated to contribute some other asset (cash, mutual funds, etc.)?

 

Again, if you don't think they do enough for retirment, don't work there. How many prudent people rely on their company's 401(k) for retirement anyway? Plus, there are payroll limitations to how much they can contribute and still deduct. I'm willing to bet whatever they contribute is not much different than similar retailers. And to say $302 is the average contribution is just erroneous. It likely doesn't address employee turnover (high in the retail environment) and vesting / participation requirements for the two plans - items standard in any plan in any company.

 

I see no reason to disqualify 10 percent of the world's population from the standard of living comparison because they live in third-world conditions. So did Americans at one point in our history. We lived in very poor conditions relative to most Europeans. And if there are in fact three people out there with more money than half the population, I'd want to know how they managed that rather than complain about it. Afterall, somebody will always have more resources than somebody else, that's just the nature of economics. I'm guessing Bill Gates is one of those guys. How much has he done for the welfare of his employees? For the welfare of people relying on his products? Doesn't he have the largest charitable foundation in the world? So is he not improving the welfare of perhaps millions of people. Could he have done that if he didn't employ a strong business acumen? I doubt it.

 

P.S. I don't shop at Wal-Mart...the darn place is just too "busy!" 

 

1317718[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Great post. In regard to medical insurance I'd like to submit something. My brother-in-law is a small business owner. He is trying to get medical insurance for his employees. He is offering to pay 1/2 the cost of the insurance, but the deal is 75% of the salaried employees have to take it in order for the plan to work. Guess what they didn't want it. They know they can go to the emergency room with bronchitis, and that the ER has to treat them.

[I Like Soup]

$15.97 per hour at Costco, $11.52 per hour at Wal-Mart's Sam's Club.

Healthcare costs per worker Costco=$5735 Sam's $3,500

Percent of workers covered by Health Plan Costco=82 Sam's=47

Retirement costs per worker Costco=$1330 Sams=$747

Percent of workers covered by retirement plans Costco=91 Sam's 64

 

Interestingly enough, Costco Has a higher profit per employee at those wages: Costco $13,647 Sams $11,039

 

Source: BusinessWeek

 

It should be pointed out that

A ) Costco is much smaller, and primarily in urban areas and

B ) The median income for a Costco member is $74,000. Costco is NOT catering to the poor.

 

1317706[/snapback]

 

 

 

Interesting. Perch, I think the point of this post is that Sam's Club falls under the Wal-Mart umbrella...and they fall well below a direct competitor in the very things that were being discussed about with Wal-Mart in regards to employee benefits, etc.

cre8tiff: I'm sure your numbers are solid, but again - I don't think they address what's really important. Is the average employee better off now versus: (1) 25 or 50 or 75 years ago when it comes to living standard, and (2) other employees around the world?

 

The answer is undoubtedly yes.

 

1317718[/snapback]

 

 

 

Well...of course I agree with what you say here. But...I don't think it is really relevant to the discussion. If I'm not mistaken, we are talking about the effects of Wal-Mart here in America...and not comparing poverty levels between the US and say...New Guinea. We have to live in the economic situation of our own country, not any others. With that rationale, it would be ok to be paid $1.00/hr here because that would be a king's ransom in Nigeria...

[Perchoutofwater]

Interesting.    Perch, I think the point of this post is that Sam's Club falls under the Wal-Mart umbrella...and they fall well below a direct competitor in the very things that were being discussed about with Wal-Mart in regards to employee benefits, etc.

 

1317797[/snapback]

 

 

 

I'm not sure I follow you. While Cosco and Sams are in direct copetition, Cosco and Walmart are not in direct competition. So if you average the Sams and Walmart retail wages and benifits, you can not compare them to Cosco's wages and benifts and come up with any meaningful analysis, as Cosco and Walmart are not in direct competion, only Cosco and Sams are. If the numbers he are given are for Sams employees only and Walmart employees are not included then you can compare the two and have some sort of meaningful analysis. However it still boils down to no one is forcing people to work at Walmart or Sams. If they are worth more than they are being paid they can find employment elsewhere with very few exceptions. Like I said, I can use a couple of Walmart employees to work on a jack hammer for 50% more than the numbers he was showing for the average Walmart employee, but I haven't heard a knock on my door yet.

[I Like Soup]

I'm not sure I follow you.  While Cosco and Sams are in direct copetition, Cosco and Walmart are not in direct competition.   So if you average the Sams and Walmart retail wages and benifits, you can not compare them to Cosco's wages and benifts and come up with any meaningful analysis, as Cosco and Walmart are not in direct competion, only Cosco and Sams are.  If the numbers he are given are for Sams employees only and Walmart employees are not included then you can compare the two and have some sort of meaningful analysis.  However it still boils down to no one is forcing people to work at Walmart or Sams.  If they are worth more than they are being paid they can find employment elsewhere with very few exceptions.  Like I said, I can use a couple of Walmart employees to work on a jack hammer for 50% more than the numbers he was showing for the average Walmart employee, but I haven't heard a knock on my door yet.

 

1317901[/snapback]

 

 

 

I was looking at the numbers assuming they were only Sam's numbers, not Wal-Mart's included. With that being the case, a Sam's to Costco comparison is an apples to apples comparison and further illustrates the Wal-Mart penchant for short changing their respective workforce.

 

Edit to add: Wal-Mart as in the overall management team (read: Wal-Mart and Sam's but separate financial entities).

Edited February 10, 2006 by I Like Soup

[cre8tiff]

I was looking at the numbers assuming they were only Sam's numbers, not Wal-Mart's included.  With that being the case, a Sam's to Costco comparison is an apples to apples comparison and further illustrates the Wal-Mart penchant for short changing their respective workforce.

 

Edit to add:  Wal-Mart as in the overall management team (read: Wal-Mart and Sam's but separate financial entities).

 

1317935[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

They are indeed Sam's only numbers. I will look for Wal-Mart to K-Mart or Target numbers.

[Azazello1313]

I was looking at the numbers assuming they were only Sam's numbers, not Wal-Mart's included.  With that being the case, a Sam's to Costco comparison is an apples to apples comparison and further illustrates the Wal-Mart penchant for short changing their respective workforce.

 

Edit to add:  Wal-Mart as in the overall management team (read: Wal-Mart and Sam's but separate financial entities).

 

1317935[/snapback]

 

 

 

i'm not so sure it's a direct apples to apples comparison. aren't there more sams clubs in smaller cities and more rural areas and such? doesn't costco have some higher end stuff that might require some more knowledgeable staff?

 

and anyway, what difference does it make? both companies pay what they deem necessary to attract and retain the talent they feel they need to operate. if sams had to pay more to operate the way they wanted to, they would. if costco felt they could get away with paying less, they would just as surely.

 

there were some old wal-mart bashing threads where a lot of articles and stats debunking many of the wal-mart pay disparity myths. anyone else have more luck than me finding it?

[Perchoutofwater]

I was looking at the numbers assuming they were only Sam's numbers, not Wal-Mart's included.  With that being the case, a Sam's to Costco comparison is an apples to apples comparison and further illustrates the Wal-Mart penchant for short changing their respective workforce.

 

Edit to add:  Wal-Mart as in the overall management team (read: Wal-Mart and Sam's but separate financial entities).

 

1317935[/snapback]

 

 

 

I've asked him to varify that those numers have been broken out, and he hasn't. I've never seen the numbers broken out in anything that Walmart sends out, and would be leary of any numbers that came for any other source, due possible bias. However if those are infact the numbers for Sam's, then it is a pretty big disparity. That being said, it is a free market, and if they are truely being under paid they could find work elsewhere making what they are worth.

[Swashbucklers]

This is starting to remind me of that scene in "Major League" where the three guys are sitting in the stands and the two guys are arguing about whether the home run was too high or not and the third guys says "#$^@ IT, It's gone!"

[Apathy]

Well...of course I agree with what you say here.  But...I don't think it is really relevant to the discussion.  If I'm not mistaken, we are talking about the effects of Wal-Mart here in America...and not comparing poverty levels between the US and say...New Guinea.  We have to live in the economic situation of our own country, not any others.  With that rationale, it would be ok to be paid $1.00/hr here because that would be a king's ransom in Nigeria...

 

1317797[/snapback]

 

 

 

Soup, do you think the Nigerian would be happy to get an opportunity to come work at Wal-Mart for $6,$7,$8 an hour or more? I think he would be tickled pink for that chance! He might even be willing to work for that $1 you suggested.

 

I didn't initially raise the comparison to standard of living in foreign countries; that issue was initially raised by anyone suggesting Wal-Mart should not import products from China. Such a suggestion is ridiculous as is any artificial attempts to extort money from Wal-Mart (thank you great state of Maryland) based on some politician's belief that what Wal-Mart does is "unfair."

 

Wal-Mart provides a service. Nobody is obligated to use their service or contribute to it's solicitation. I simply raised the point that rather than arguing over how much Wal-Mart should pay people, we should acknowledge the fact that the "Oppressive Retailer" culture we voluntarily (or involuntarily) adhere to hasn't hurt us and has likely been pretty good to us, relative to both where we were years ago and where others are who choose to stymie free markets.

 

Poverty levels don't tell the whole story. If I bought my house for $10,000 25 years ago and then sold it for $500,000, am I rich? The government would say "Yes." But what if it costs me $750,000 to move someplace comparable. What's important is the standard of living and I haven't seen any evidence put forth yet that our standard of living would improve if Wal-Mart paid people more or just went away altogether.

[cre8tiff]

I find it hilarious the folks siding with Wal-Mart needed to start thier own thread instead of addressing this one. I commend Apathy for sticking with the fight.

[I Like Soup]

I find it hilarious the folks siding with Wal-Mart needed to start thier own thread instead of addressing this one. I commend Apathy for sticking with the fight.

 

1318057[/snapback]

 

 

 

[Perchoutofwater]

I find it hilarious the folks siding with Wal-Mart needed to start thier own thread instead of addressing this one. I commend Apathy for sticking with the fight.

 

1318057[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

If you weren't such a dumbass you would realize that thread was started almost three months prior to this one, and rather than someone wasting their breath debating with you, they bumped it.