dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

That's not even a legitimate arguing point. Of course they can afford it. Keep in mind, though, that most WM employees are part time, so the hourly rate is for maybe thirty hours a week, so the take-home is ridiculously low. The low salaries offered by WM influence other stores to keep their salaries low. Henry Ford angered his competitors by paying his workers a relatively high wage. He wanted his people to be able to afford the cars they made.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

One of the stupidest, and biased articles I've read in awhile. It makes no attempt to address the numbers themselves but only insists they are big!

We can start with the fact that regardless of sheer size, the return on sales is only
3%------ that's right, 3 freaking percent, versus, say, Apple's 23%?

Walmart employs more than 1.5 million U.S. associates at more than 5,000 stores and pays, on average, full-time hourly wage is $13.69. More than 475,000 of its 1 million hourly store employees earn at least $25,000 a year for full-time work.

Now, use those numbers and figure out how much more their expenses would be on a yearly basis if they increased labor per hour by 50%........what's left for taxes, paying down bonds, shareholders, etc????????

The article is just another divisive piece of propaganda that is trying to create outrage against American businesses and executives to gin up their social justice agenda.

Newsflash! The market determines wages. Yes, Henry Ford outpaid his competition and he used that as a compete time advantage. Others can do the same to Walmart, like Costco is. Of course, Costco employs a minor fraction of the Americans Walmart does.

Rancher38 Loc: Halfway, OR

Sounds much like the demands from the non-tax paying majority crying the 80% who pay all the taxes are not paying their fair share:-))

JCam Loc: MD Eastern Shore

This might be true for Wal-mart, but consider the source! Written by a flaky liberal lawyer & researched by a bunch of academics who like most of the present Cabinet members have never worked in the private economy nor concerned them selves with commercialism's realities, the necessity to make a profit, or meet a payroll.

Did you notice that the authors of this article didn't even consider the other costs that are affected by the wage rate--Social Security and Medicare contributions, unemployment insurance, workman's compensation, in some jurisdictions a gross payroll tax, & benefit costs, etc. as well as all the purchased product and service costs that go up because their supplier's payrolls increased too.

Federal minimum wages are insanity; a living wage in New York City or San Francisco, for example, is much higher than many places in the "fly-over" parts of the country so why should the wages be the same?

Isn't it interesting that O'bama and his liberals who promote this insanity and justify it because the big companies can afford it, never mention its effect on the small businesses who employ most of the working population and don't have millions of dollars in reserve. If they have to raise the pay of low level employees to $15.00/hr (60-70%); the more skilled and more senior employees who were making $15.00+/hour then want (and would be due) an similar increase to maintain the payroll spread. The payroll costs skyrocket, and the small companies probably don't have the competitive ability to raise prices, so shortly all the employees become unemployed when the company closes its doors.

But it gets the stupid politicians (including "the Bern" & Hillary) votes so they get behind it, and they too don't understand the commercial realities and have never had to meet a payroll.

The real solution to the less than living wage problem is for the minimum wage workers to become more educated and get skills in High School and Trade Schools so they don't have to settle for whatever menial job they can find.

agillot

the only thing i can say , is that in the 70 s you could live on a minimum or near minimum wage , today forget it, you are camping in the bush .

bob44044 Loc: Ohio

The bottom line is that it is NEVER enough. Liberal want, want, want, to control other peoples money, religion, Constitutional rights. There is no end to their demands.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

Keep in mind the minimum wage was never intended to be a "forever" wage or one to raise a family on. It was designed as a "filler" for folks between real jobs AND as a starting wage for beginner jobs such as those for younger people.

rickerb Loc: utah

Not a good argument. But I put it to you. Try living on the low wages that are paid by Walmart. It is not a living wage. The idea in a consumer based economy is to pay your workers enough so they can also become consumers and influence growth. This is just one of the reasons that our economy is stagnating.

JCam Loc: MD Eastern Shore

I will agree with you up to a point, but Minimum Wage was never intended to be a "living wage"; it was to prevent the taking advantage of the unskilled and part time workers, but back when first legislated it did lift the incomes of many people, but by reasonable amounts--not 60-70%. Wages are mostly now set by supply of the needed skills and demand for those skills; the wage market economy has worked reasonably well since WW II. It is "out of whack" because the government keeps meddling with the economy, not to raise wages, but for votes.

The problem now is that when one politician suggests raising the min wage even a reasonable amount, another raises the ante to get those votes without considering the Laws of Unintended Consequences. Which in this case will result in a lot of the lower wage people becoming No Wage people and end up on more government assistance. Having the Safety Blanket (health & wage) is a necessity, but having people wrap themselves in it and become permanent drains on the government and economy is folly.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

Yes, that is a very good social justice (i.e. Socialist) view.

Expecting the arena of private business, and capitalism, to bail out the complete morons we have been electing at every level of government for +50 years would take us out of a democratic republic and into, at best, a socialist state. There not only is no obligation for businesses to make good on the shortfalls of both government and individual failure, it is in some cases against existing laws.

Now, I could possibly support a third form of wage.....minimum, living, and free market. The minimum would be designated for its original use, living for all jobs of 40 hours a week or greater and which fit a certain legal description, and all else

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

how come you never mentioned anything about. their employs having to be supported by food stamps. think yuh numbers are short again. lol

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

but lot of employers thinks so.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

Nope......my numbers are exact.

It's your thought process that comes up short again. Yes, some employees get food stamps......I've already said the minimum wage was not designed to raise families on or to guarantee homes, smartphones, TVs, or cars, by the way.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

I would guess that most, if not all, non-government employers understand that the minimum wage is not designed to raise a family on. They also are acutely aware that it is not their role to save the world or bail out the morons people like you are electing to office!