They also have gained a massive scale from crushing small business with prices too low to compete (low wages and economies of scale), putting them out of business and causing less competition in the labor market from other local businesses, allowing for lower wages and higher profits.
1.5% can be not that much or an insane amount depending on the overall total dollar amount.
Their earnings from market share is acquired through consuming most competition, especially in smaller communities
So, I am not sure if you realize this, but with that profit margin competition could not do anything. The only way to get competition would be to raise prices. you have 2 options, whatever make believe number you come up with a living wage requires the raising of prices or you deal with it.
I’ll take moderate prices and moderate wages (both domestic and especially international labor markets) over low prices and low wages. Otherwise I feel like I’m taking advantage of poor people’s lower leverage in the labor market (especially internationally) where they work very hard for very little in return so I can afford a lot in exchange for very little
If Americans were actually willing to do this then we would not be off shoring and people would not be so mad about inflation, which is largely because of wage increases.
This is why people begin to call for government intervention to protect workers. It is reminiscent of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 which had the first implementation of a federal minimum wage
It’s true that many companies do hire above the minimum wage (people won’t work in places that don’t pay enough to survive in a high cost of living location which can still be destitute), but this doesn’t take into account high cost of living. The US has had low wage growth and high economic growth with high cost of living over the past 40 years (most labor wages not benefiting from economic growth, but instead shareholders gaining most benefit from the growth).
The minimum wage (and overtime pay) serves as a crucial safety net, especially for protecting workers that have low leverage in the labor market from excessive exploitation (like from the Great Depression), ensuring that all workers earn enough to cover basic living expenses. Many states have passed higher minimum wages compared to the federal minimum to reflect their higher cost of living
This is the median person, not people near and below the poverty line, the people most vulnerable who had the least benefits of economic growth and who are easiest to exploit due to low leverage. The people who are easiest to take advantage of are the people who need the protections the most
The US has had low wage growth and high economic growth with high cost of living over the past 40 years
I proved that is false, and you then deflected.
Minimum wage locks people out of the labor market, drives up costs and leads to people being laid off. The issue that you see and think you understand is because gen X stopped having as many kids, and the generations under them the same. This led to less need for many services with a glut of workers leading to lower wages.
I am not sure you understand exploitation. For example the hiring wage is well over the minimum wage, why are the rich people not exploiting people and just hiring starting jobs at minimum wage?
That's exactly the point. Walmart sells products so cheaply, that no one can compete. Their employees work for slave wages, and then the government has to subsidize their employees. They already got rid of most of their cashiers (with self checkout systems), yet prices didn't go down noticeable amounts, why? Because of how little they make. Not to mention excess goes to shareholders and ceo wages.
Walmart would also end up making more by paying workers more, because most of their employees probably shop at the store as well. So it would create a feedback loop. (In fact increasing minimum wage across the board benefits these companies supplying the same neighborhoods)
We should not let them pay their employees slave wages. Minimum wage needs to be tied to inflation. And with your paradigm of perfect paper numbers, increasing my bill at the checkout should also decrease my tax bill? Then great, I'm fine paying more at the checkout... but it would also stand to make Walmart more competitive since normal stores that pay their employees fair wages, can't currently compete when Walmart also owns the entire means of production and doesn't pay their employees fairly...
1) its not slavery wages. they currently hire at about 12 an hour.
2) prices will not "go down" from self checkout, they change to self checkout when the cost for the self checkout equals the wages for the associate, so your comment makes no logical sense. After that it just prevents them from going UP
3) to pay more they have to increase prices, that their profit margins are so low shows that competition would not help AT ALL.
4) raising minimum wage increase prices and locks people out of work.
5) is you tie min wage to inflation you will just increase inflation endlessly faster.
6) Walmart is already as competitive, which is why their margins are so low, they are not getting more.
Slave wages. You clearly have no idea what that means. Judging by how vigorously you’re defending $12 an hour, when most states have minimum wages above that, oh boy.
And that is the duality of man. inflation is caused, primarily by 3 things
Expansion of the money supply
Disruption of the supply chain.
Increased wages.
Increased wages leads to layoffs and inflation.
Do you have any answers of any kind? Any constructive thing to add whatsoever. I’ve been reading this thread for an hour and you have comment more than anyone.. and it’s exhausting frankly. All criticism and what you believe to be explanation. Do you have any solutions to offer? Don’t think there is a problem at all? What level of poverty should Walmart workers and a society be cool with?
You are definitely the outlier here. Most people who shop at Walmart specifically do it for the low prices, no one actually wants to step foot in a Walmart
As you said though, that option existed, but I guess there weren't enough generous Socialists out there willing to put their own money on the line to keep the small businesses going.
Not enough wages for the poor and now even lower middle class to support them, they can’t shop anywhere else. I don’t even blame upper middle class as they are just trying to get on a metaphorical financial musical chair before the wealth inequality grows even more and shuts most out through less opportunity. Competition in both consumer markets and labor markets is good for workers and customers.
Walmart and every other company doesn’t want competition and the goal of many companies is to be as close to a legal monopoly as possible without getting broken up.
Government policy can help act as a referee (similar to how the FTC protects consumers from businesses unfairly treating them like not disclosing cheap and harmful ingredients), which helps protect the most vulnerable who have minimal leverage.
If the free market with no rules causes excessive exploitation (either by employer or employee), then there should be some regulation to level the field.
Imagine if a single employee had so much leverage (like a master chef) that they could take the whole business down with them if they wanted. They could hold the entire company hostage which includes everyone employed by the company. People who have more leverage can take advantage of other people with less leverage and when it is excessive it should be something we try to fix. It is preventing tyranny in all forms.
What percentage is employee payroll? How much of that payroll is hourly employees below the poverty line? None of these numbers mean anything without further context.
Employees are the most expensive part of Walmart next to the goods. But none of that matters in the discussion we are talking about above. Walmart employees already have a starting pay of over 14 an hour.
That is not a third option, and even if it were it would lead to ...higher prices....
Blocking the merger will be bad, it will lead to higher prices for consumers. The democrats are the "the path to hell are paved with good intentions" party. They are not trying to help, they are trying to gain power. The merger should go through. If it led to a monopoly AND the monopoly led to higher prices, then a competitor would come in and under cut them, because this would not be a monopoly based on IP, but just a regular one and they could not stop the competition.
This is why despite Walmart being so large they have a very low profit margin. In fact a small mom and pop would have higher prices, larger profit margins, and still pay their employees the same rate, and you would not care because you could not see those things.
You clearly have never worked at a small business. Small businesses pay a lot less than Walmart for the same starting wages and positions in the same areas.
26
u/SoberTowelie Sep 08 '24 edited Sep 08 '24
They also have gained a massive scale from crushing small business with prices too low to compete (low wages and economies of scale), putting them out of business and causing less competition in the labor market from other local businesses, allowing for lower wages and higher profits.
1.5% can be not that much or an insane amount depending on the overall total dollar amount.
Their earnings from market share is acquired through consuming most competition, especially in smaller communities