Politics

[Ndaccountant]

Well, I guess its a matter of priorities. Is it more important to get a 99 cent double cheesburger or that sandwich seems expensive to the guy who is serving it to you.

If you are advocating outsourcing because TVs are cheaper when they are made by near-slave labor, I don't want to hear anything out of you about unemployment numbers in this country or poverty in other countries.

Low costs always come at a price. If you are OK with someone else paying the price so you can have a cheaper TV, then you are no different than the folks who the GOP complains about being "takers."

People who own that burger chain or electronics company are getting rich by taking advantage of people who are poor. Is the fact that people are living in poverty less important than a sandwich? If you think so, then we clearly have vastly different perspectives. I bet ND games are amazing on your 60-inch LED.

A nit here. Low costs come at a price if your population doesn't adjust their skill set. If people were both willing and able to learn the skills necessary for advanced jobs, it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[GoIrish41]

Before we go making assumptions based on two numbers, lets look at the whole picture.

Costco has about $100b in total sales, mostly in the US. Its employment base is about 160,000 people.

Wal-mart had about $275b in US sales, with an employment base of about 1.4million.

Given the above, even if we assume all the costco EE's are full time and all of the wal-mart EE's are 20 per week workers, Costco employs a fraction of the people that Wal-Mart does.

I understand that the strategy and business structure of Costco and Wal-Mart as a whole are different, but simply saying they have record profits and pay their people well doesn't mean they are spending more money on total labor costs.

I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make with regard to the size of the business. I think the point Chicago51 was trying to make is that Costco pays its employees well, provides health insurance to them, and they are still doing pretty good. Why does the size of the business matter? If anything, I would think that it means WalMart is even worse than Chicago51 was suggesting because a company twice the size should be able to get goods they sell much cheaper. They can choose to pass those savings onto the customers, pocket the money, or pass them on to employees in the form of higher wages/benefit. It seems clear they are not passing the savings onto employees. Am I missing something?

 

[irishpat183]

Most polls out there have about 70 percent wanting to raise the minimum wage. I actually think this could be the Democrats ticket to beating the gerrymandering taking back the House of Representitives.

So that's the kinda people we want running our country? Those listening to the high school dropout working at Walmart?


Again, the dependency class grows and grows...Gimmie gimmie gimmie.....

 

[irishpat183]

Oh...at the end of the day...

YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORK FOR MINIMUM WAGE.

Is that somehow lost on all of you in here? It's as if you're fighting for a class of people that isn't even a pemanant class as most move on to make better livings.

Good lord. Why not just elimnate those jobs altogether and just send them a government check?????

 

[GoIrish41]

This is the point on minimum wage tho. If Wal-Mart paid like Costco, Wal-Mart would start to employ the same proportional amount of people as Costco does. Plain and simple. Additionally, as pointed about before, the majority of the people making min wage or teenagers. You really think people are going to want to pay more to the least productive segment of the workforce? Hell no. They simploy will hire less of them.

But this is a minimum wage discussion. Twenty years ago the minimum wage was lower, and the purchasing power of those wages went further. WalMart still employed people at a high rate back then. (I could argue that they employed more judging by how many of the 50 lanes they have open at any one time at the WalMart near my house). These were just as low skill jobs back then as they are today. WalMart is getting these workers at bargain prices. Someone pointed out on this thread a few weeks ago that something like 40% (the number might be off but it was high) of Walmart employees also get some kind of public assistance. What's the difference if they hire a bunch more people if they aren't paying them enough that the government doesn't have to subsidize their labor costs?

 

[RDU Irish]

Because raising minimum wage doesn't impact business right? How many kids are worth $7.25/hour, let alone more than that. But wait, business is paying half of FICA so add another 55 cents, and another 22 cents for unemployment insurance (probably more since these jobs will have higher claims). Now you are over $8 and hour just to have someone bag groceries and get carts out of the parking lot.

But wait, now you have to cover health insurance if they are over 20 hours! I guess minimum wage workers are going to need two jobs just to get to full time now. Dammit if we could just force business to do what you think is best.

 

[irishpat183]

Why don't we just let government go into these private companies, that have a successful model, and tell them what to do?

I mean, is it really THEIR problem? Must they be forced to pay more?

 

[GoIrish41]

So that's the kinda people we want running our country? Those listening to the high school dropout working at Walmart?


Again, the dependency class grows and grows...Gimmie gimmie gimmie.....

It is little wonder that your party lost the election if this is how you categorize people. Please, don't tell me what you think of blacks, hispanics and women.

You call people working minimum wage jobs "the dependency class?" Wow. You know they are working right? They aren't sucking off the government teet, they are trying to make a go at it even though they've been dealt a crap hand.

 

[RDU Irish]

Minimum wage should be a deterent not a goal.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make with regard to the size of the business. I think the point Chicago51 was trying to make is that Costco pays its employees well, provides health insurance to them, and they are still doing pretty good. Why does the size of the business matter? If anything, I would think that it means WalMart is even worse than Chicago51 was suggesting because a company twice the size should be able to get goods they sell much cheaper. They can choose to pass those savings onto the customers, pocket the money, or pass them on to employees in the form of higher wages/benefit. It seems clear they are not passing the savings onto employees. Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing the point that Costco does pay well, but it employs less people than Wal-Mart, on a proportional business. We simply can't look at just wage rate and profits. We have too look at how much labor are the spending as a % of sales. That will tell you if this is truly Costco spending more on labor, or just choosing to spend it differently.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Min wage is the least of low-employees' problems. After Obamacare hits many are going to have their hours cut, if they're not fired altogether.

 

[GoIrish41]

Because raising minimum wage doesn't impact business right? How many kids are worth $7.25/hour, let alone more than that. But wait, business is paying half of FICA so add another 55 cents, and another 22 cents for unemployment insurance (probably more since these jobs will have higher claims). Now you are over $8 and hour just to have someone bag groceries and get carts out of the parking lot.

But wait, now you have to cover health insurance if they are over 20 hours! I guess minimum wage workers are going to need two jobs just to get to full time now. Dammit if we could just force business to do what you think is best.

According to Pat only 3% of people make minimum wage. You do know that you can't buy sh*t with $7.25 these days right?

 

[GoIrish41]

Yes, you are missing the point that Costco does pay well, but it employs less people than Wal-Mart, on a proportional business. We simply can't look at just wage rate and profits. We have too look at how much labor are the spending as a % of sales. That will tell you if this is truly Costco spending more on labor, or just choosing to spend it differently.

Thanks for the explanation. Since we don't have those numbers, then, we can't draw any useful conclusions? I get what you are saying.

 

[irishpat183]

Because raising minimum wage doesn't impact business right? How many kids are worth $7.25/hour, let alone more than that. But wait, business is paying half of FICA so add another 55 cents, and another 22 cents for unemployment insurance (probably more since these jobs will have higher claims). Now you are over $8 and hour just to have someone bag groceries and get carts out of the parking lot.

But wait, now you have to cover health insurance if they are over 20 hours! I guess minimum wage workers are going to need two jobs just to get to full time now. Dammit if we could just force business to do what you think is best.

They don't get it.

The funny thing is, most whining about this have never run a business (including those in congress). They would be very suprised about how much an employee costs.

And you didn't even get into loss prevention...which is another huge cost.

 

[RDU Irish]

Lots of risk in hiring. The higher the minimum wage the higher the risk. Higher the risk, the less likely to take the chance.

Get in an prove yourself a reliable asset and you will not make minimum wage for long.

 

[irishpat183]

It is little wonder that your party lost the election if this is how you categorize people. Please, don't tell me what you think of blacks, hispanics and women.

You call people working minimum wage jobs "the dependency class?" Wow. You know they are working right? They aren't sucking off the government teet, they are trying to make a go at it even though they've been dealt a crap hand.

Ahhhh, yes, the race card. Of course. I won't even acknowledge that ignorant comment.


And I'm simply saying that those wanting more and more are becoming a bigger and bigger part of our country.

 

[RDU Irish]

They don't get it.

The funny thing is, most whining about this have never run a business (including those in congress). They would be very suprised about how much an employee costs.

And you didn't even get into loss prevention...which is another huge cost.

By loss prevention do you mean stealing or the risk of hiring a non-performer and the cost of getting rid of them?

 

[irishpat183]

Lots of risk in hiring. The higher the minimum wage the higher the risk. Higher the risk, the less likely to take the chance.

Get in an prove yourself a reliable asset and you will not make minimum wage for long.[/QUOTE]

Someone with some sense

 

[RDU Irish]

Ahhhh, yes, the race card. Of course. I won't even acknowledge that ignorant comment.


And I'm simply saying that those wanting more and more are becoming a bigger and bigger part of our country.

It is entirely American to want more. It use to be un-American to expect anyone other than yourself to make it happen.

 

[GoIrish41]

Why don't we just let government go into these private companies, that have a successful model, and tell them what to do?

I mean, is it really THEIR problem? Must they be forced to pay more?

Slavery was a successful model, too. Where would we be today if not for government intervention?

 

[irishpat183]

By loss prevention do you mean stealing or the risk of hiring a non-performer and the cost of getting rid of them?

LOL...both


You realize how much employee theft goes on at places like Wal Mart? Upwards of 3 BILLION A YEAR.

 

[irishpat183]

Slavery was a successful model, too. Where would we be today if not for government intervention?

My personal opinion is that I think we would've evolved out of that without government.

Slavery would not exist today with our without the civil rights act.

The reason? It'd be a bad business decision. Especially with the growth of minority groups in this country.

 

[irishpat183]

It is entirely American to want more. It use to be un-American to expect anyone other than yourself to make it happen.

True....but wanting more from government is my problem.

I can't make money, so fix the rules for me.

 

[GoIrish41]

It is entirely American to want more. It use to be un-American to expect anyone other than yourself to make it happen.

The businesses you are talking about aren't making it happen. Over the years as prices go up and the minimum wage stays the same, they getting something today that they couldn't get for the same money before. Why should they benefit and their workers have to suck it up?

 

[chicago51]

This is the point on minimum wage tho. If Wal-Mart paid like Costco, Wal-Mart would start to employ the same proportional amount of people as Costco does. Plain and simple. Additionally, as pointed about before, the majority of the people making min wage or teenagers. You really think people are going to want to pay more to the least productive segment of the workforce? Hell no. They simploy will hire less of them.

If they employed less people they would have less sales.

The whole idea of supply side economics is a sham. People hire for one reason and that reason is that workers to go to something that is going to make the company money. No company has ever said "Oh I got this huge tax break I am going to how a bunch of workers I don't need". No company has ever said "I got all this money sitting around from paying my workers so litte so I am going to hire more workers even though I can get by without them".

When a company hires it is because they need some sort of work related need they will. Companies don't how hire people they could get by without because they can afford to pay someone to do a wasteful role the really don't need. The economy today is all about efficency.

 

[irishpat183]

The businesses you are talking about aren't making it happen. Over the years as prices go up and the minimum wage stays the same, they getting something today that they couldn't get for the same money before. Why should they benefit and their workers have to suck it up?

But why not ask the worker why he's making minimum wage?

 

[irishpat183]

If they employed less people they would have less sales.

The whole idea of supply side economics is a sham. People hire for one reason and that reason is that workers to go to something that is going to make the company money. No company has ever said "Oh I got this huge tax break I am going to how a bunch of workers I don't need". No company has ever said "I got all this money sitting around from paying my workers so litte so I am going to hire more workers even though I can get by without them".

When a company hires it is because they need some sort of work related need they will. Companies don't how hire people they could get by without because they can afford to pay someone to do a wasteful role the really don't need. The economy today is all about efficency.

Not true. When a company makes more money, they expand, and hire more workers. And I have yet to hear of any company that doesn't want to expand.

Wal Mart has opened 3 stores in the past 12 months here. And that's just in the Houston area.

You're right. Nobody hires just to hire. You'd have workers standing around and doing nothing on your dime. what is the sense in that?

Thank God companies have more sense than that...otherwise they'd be like our government. A buncha guys standing around wasting money

 

[chicago51]

Last jobs report before the sequester.

February Jobs Report: Unemployment Falls to 7.7 Percent - ABC News

Austerity here we come, lets see what happens. I think April and May will be more telling than March.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Thanks for the explanation. Since we don't have those numbers, then, we can't draw any useful conclusions? I get what you are saying.

Well, the closest thing we have total sales and total employees, which is what I quoted earlier, which shows that Wal-Mart employs almost nine fold more people. Granted, Wal-Mart employs way more part timers, but not that many.

Additionally, a Harvard Business Review study one time compared Costco to Sam's club, which has nearly the same wage scale as Wal-Mart. What they found was that even if you assume the same amount of employees, Costco spends thousand less on employee related costs per year since their theft and turnover rate are so low.

I have no problem saying Wal-Mart's employment strategy appears to be flawed, when looking at it that way. I am sure Wal-Mart has their reasons, but none of us could even begin to speculate. But what this does show is that the whole Greed argument is bogus. If that were the case, Costco would be the greedy one.

 

[Black Irish]

Yes, you are missing the point that Costco does pay well, but it employs less people than Wal-Mart, on a proportional business. We simply can't look at just wage rate and profits. We have too look at how much labor are the spending as a % of sales. That will tell you if this is truly Costco spending more on labor, or just choosing to spend it differently.

I can tell you one thing, the workers running the checkout lines at Costco are a hell of lot faster and more efficient than your average Walmart (or even Target) cashier. That higher starting wage also gets you a better class of worker.

And don't forget, minimum wage is just a starting point. If you are a hard worker and have potential, you will get a raise and/or promotion. If someone is stuck making minimum wage after a year or two on the job, I don't think that is due to the company's greed and insensitivity. That employee is doing the minimum, so he receives the minimum.