Thank you, Walmart

[natedogg]

linky (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/11/progressive_wal.html)

Don Beaudreax with an excellent post about an article defending Walmart, explaining why all self-styled "progressives" should be big fans of Walmart. The article includes an especially brutal takedown of those poor confused souls who criticize Walmart because some of their employees are on Medicaid.

Quote:
[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, it's ironic that Wal-Mart's enemies, who are mainly progressives, should even raise this issue. In the 1990s progressives argued loudly for the reform that allowed poor Americans to keep Medicaid benefits even if they had a job. Now that this policy is helping workers at Wal-Mart, progressives shouldn't blame the company. Besides, many progressives favor a national health system. In other words, they attack Wal-Mart for having 5 percent of its workers receive health care courtesy of taxpayers when the policy that they support would increase that share to 100 percent.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, good ol' reason and critical thinking. Remember those, all you "progressives"?

natedogg

[Overdrive]

One thing people often fail to mention when bashing WalMart is that their health insurance has no lifetime cap whatsoever. It is geared more towards taking care of catostrophic illness instead of just running to the doctor every time you have a little sniffle.

Now, Walmart does not provide wages or benefits as good as Costco. But they do give more pay and benefits than the other discounters. Walmarts pay and benefits are much, much better than Targets. Just as an example - Walmart pays up to $2.00 an hour extra for working the overnight shift (depending on locations) while Target does not pay anything extra for working overnight.

Target is just as evil, or even more evil than Walmart. They just don't get all the publicity that is focused on Walmart because they are the 800 pound gorilla.

The rest of the article you linked to makes some decent arguments. Why did you quote the one [censored] stupid part?

Obviously, progressives aren't complaining that walmart employees are receiving Medicaid benefits. They're concerned that people who work full time jobs are still poor enough to qualify. Medicaid eligibility is a marker for poverty. They could just as easily point out that 10% of walmart's workers don't even work their way above the poverty line.

[Jedi Flopper]

[ QUOTE ]
The rest of the article you linked to makes some decent arguments. Why did you quote the one [censored] stupid part?

Obviously, progressives aren't complaining that walmart employees are receiving Medicaid benefits. They're concerned that people who work full time jobs are still poor enough to qualify. Medicaid eligibility is a marker for poverty. They could just as easily point out that 10% of walmart's workers don't even work their way above the poverty line.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, so lets legislate that any corporation that operates in the US must pay its employees at least $45k per year. That will sure wipe out poverty. Of course, then you would have to pay 35 bucks for a pack of toilet paper, or you would have to figure out what to do with the 50% of people who would be unemployed.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, so lets legislate that any corporation that operates in the US must pay its employees at least $45k per year. That will sure wipe out poverty.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. Is that what you think he said ?

Read it back again :

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, progressives aren't complaining that walmart employees are receiving Medicaid benefits. They're concerned that people who work full time jobs are still poor enough to qualify.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Medicaid eligibility is a marker for poverty. They could just as easily point out that 10% of walmart's workers don't even work their way above the poverty line.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you make of it now?

[lehighguy]

He read it fine. Unlike yourself, he understands that simply wanting people to be paid more doesn't increase thier labor productivity. Wal-Marts margins are extremely thin, implying that they in fact pay thier employees the maximum amount possible for thier level of productivity.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
He read it fine. Unlike yourself, he understands that simply wanting people to be paid more doesn't increase thier labor productivity. Wal-Marts margins are extremely thin, implying that they in fact pay thier employees the maximum amount possible for thier level of productivity.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't use reason with these people. These are the same ones who support minimum wage in the face of all evidence to the contrary, not to mention price controls in general. It's religion for them.

These are the same folks who with a straight face will state sheer nonsense such as that Bush's tax cut is bad for the middle class (keeping more money is bad for me how again? I'm still scratching my head over that).

These are the same folks who think that nationlizing certain industries is a good idea. Public POwer! Yeah!

They are convinced the oil companies are immune to competition.

It's the same people who hate WalMart. You know, because it's Walmart's fault they are hiring low-wage, low-skilled workers with few opportunities for any other kind of work and are paying them accordingly. Yeah, it's WalMart's fault.

You can't get through to someone who ignores facts and denies reality.

natedogg

[Jedi Flopper]

I saw a glimpse of the power of the marketplace coming back from a Thanksgiving trip. A Walmart in Louisiana was begging to pay people $9.50 an hour or more if you have experience. The Wendy's was closed at 6:00 PM because they were begging for workers too. There was a sign up in the window offering $250 per week in bonus pay for people willing to come to work.

Why are they paying unskilled labor so much? Because the hurricane chased most of them away and now there is a huge shortage. Supply and demand work every time.

[nicky g]

"These are the same folks who with a straight face will state sheer nonsense such as that Bush's tax cut is bad for the middle class (keeping more money is bad for me how again? I'm still scratching my head over that). "

Ignoring the more general arguments about price controls etc, this is a bit of a mischaracterisation of the argument. The argument that it will hurt the middle class is based on the idea that it disproportionately benefits the rich, and that therefore the middle class will either have to pay more tax to make up for it, or receive fewer state benefits that were previously being subsidised by the rich. Now you can argue against that morally, or posit some sort of trickle down theory, but the argument is ultiamtely that the middle class will effectively end up with less money, rather than keeping more as you posit.

[superleeds]

Hows it working if all that beggings going on?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Hows it working if all that beggings going on?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your solution? Grab some people off the street and bus them down there to flip burgers for "the greater good"?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I saw a glimpse of the power of the marketplace coming back from a Thanksgiving trip. A Walmart in Louisiana was begging to pay people $9.50 an hour or more if you have experience. The Wendy's was closed at 6:00 PM because they were begging for workers too. There was a sign up in the window offering $250 per week in bonus pay for people willing to come to work.

Why are they paying unskilled labor so much? Because the hurricane chased most of them away and now there is a huge shortage. Supply and demand work every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hows it working if all that beggings going on?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's *how* it's working.

[MMMMMM]

!

[superleeds]

So for supply and demand to be working, one side must be begging? Why are they not increasing the wage offered if they can't get the workers?

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
What's your solution? Grab some people off the street and bus them down there to flip burgers for "the greater good"?

[/ QUOTE ]

The solution is to offer a bigger wage. Why are they not doing this?

[NobodysFreak]

I worked at Target for three years in high school. When I worked over night, I got paid $2 more an hour. Not to mention they bent over backwards to get people to sign up for health care, held employee seminars and picnics to get people informed about their retirement and healthcare plans.

Oh, and they also gave us cost of living adjustments three times in the time I worked there. I also got scheduled raises so that by the time I left after my three years, I was making nearly 10 bucks an hour.

[lehighguy]

Maybe Wendy's doesn't make enough money to justify higher wages. Thier profit margins are thing. At $10/hour it may be unprofitable to operate the business. As such they will probably close down eventually.

Ironically, it seems Wal Mart has put the low wage payer out of business here.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe Wendy's doesn't make enough money to justify higher wages. Thier profit margins are thing. At $10/hour it may be unprofitable to operate the business. As such they will probably close down eventually.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think that's it.

[ QUOTE ]
Ironically, it seems Wal Mart has put the low wage payer out of business here

[/ QUOTE ]

Ironic for whom?

[lehighguy]

"No, I don't think that's it."

Why?

According to wendy's financial statements (taking the most profitable of the last 3 years) weny's profit margin is about 10%. Operating costs, which are largely non-management labor, shaved 20% off of profit margins. A 50% increase in pay (say from $7/hour to $10.50/hour would completely wipe out thier profits).

[superleeds]

It's one restaurant. They are the one's begging, apparently, so presumably they could sell their product at a higher price to offset the increased wages it appears they need to pay to fill the positions they have available.

Surely a classic supply and demand senario.

And yet they don't do this. Why?

[lehighguy]

How much would you pay for a wendies burger?
$3, $5, $10?

Personally, they aren't even worth a buck to me.

As for the begging, they are begging people to work there for less then Wal-Mart is offering. If they wanted to they could pay more then Wal-Mart, but they aren't willing to so they have to beg.

[Jedi Flopper]

[ QUOTE ]
So for supply and demand to be working, one side must be begging? Why are they not increasing the wage offered if they can't get the workers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? $9.50 an hour to start at Walmart is a HUGE increase in pay. $250 per 40 hour week as a bonus is more than minimum wage ON TOP OF what their base pay would be. I imagine the incentives will only get better the longer they go without workers. I really do not understand your thinking or your post.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
"These are the same folks who with a straight face will state sheer nonsense such as that Bush's tax cut is bad for the middle class (keeping more money is bad for me how again? I'm still scratching my head over that). "

Ignoring the more general arguments about price controls etc, this is a bit of a mischaracterisation of the argument. The argument that it will hurt the middle class is based on the idea that it disproportionately benefits the rich, and that therefore the middle class will either have to pay more tax to make up for it, or receive fewer state benefits that were previously being subsidised by the rich. Now you can argue against that morally, or posit some sort of trickle down theory, but the argument is ultiamtely that the middle class will effectively end up with less money, rather than keeping more as you posit.

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG, not again /images/graemlins/smile.gif. I'm sorry Nicky this post is an excercise in illogic. Government revenues are up alot since the tax cuts of 2003 were implemented and the U.S. economy is strong. Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP are basically inline with what they've been historically. So in the US we have a strong expanding economy; the net number of jobs being created is positive, on the rise, and more than supporting the number of new workers coming into the work force; we have a fairly tame inflation scenario; and interest rates are low. This is a prescription for growing government revenues which means there's plenty of money for government programs. The problem is that the entitlemesnts (welfare state programs) are broken as expenditures are rising faster than the economy is rising. The problems with entitlements have been discussed at length here so probably not worth doing yet again. Define "rich people" for me please and then define "middle class" next. BTW U.S. 3rd Qtr GDP growth was revised up to 4.3% real growth from 3.8% and this was the same qtr where we saw Katrina devastation and a huge spike in energy prices. Jobs are being created, there are job categories where the demand for workers is greater than the supply. The fact of the matter is that performing relatively low paying work at Walmart doesn't require exceptional skills and there are plenty of people that will work for the money Walmart pays. Presumably these people don't have the skills to find higher paying jobs because higher paying jobs are available.

Walmart is great. Walmart is good for poor people. Walmart reduces inflation and helps to keep the cost of living in the US low.

The only criticism you could point at Walmart is that it exacerbates the trade imbalance, but that's more a function of the PRC's yuan anti-devaluation policies, and general American consumerism, than Walmart.

For those who bash Walmart as anti-worker, deal with it. Its a crappy job, but its a job. Yeah, Walmart smashes up inefficient little small businesses, but that's good too. Globalization is good.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you serious? $9.50 an hour to start at Walmart is a HUGE increase in pay. $250 per 40 hour week as a bonus is more than minimum wage ON TOP OF what their base pay would be. I imagine the incentives will only get better the longer they go without workers.

[/ QUOTE ]

From their web site (http://www.walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=218)

Our average hourly wage for regular full-time associates in the U.S. is $9.68 an hour, almost double the federal minimum wage.

According to you they were begging people to pay $9.50/hr, less than their national average. Where do you get those glasses that let you see a 'glimpse of the power of the marketplace', and yet fail to show that supply and demand can go f*%&amp; itself if it doesn't suit them.

[Jedi Flopper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you serious? $9.50 an hour to start at Walmart is a HUGE increase in pay. $250 per 40 hour week as a bonus is more than minimum wage ON TOP OF what their base pay would be. I imagine the incentives will only get better the longer they go without workers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, think national average, vs average pay in Louisiana. Do you even have a teeny tiny clue as to the avreage drone wage in the SOUTH? Ignorance is forgivable, but if you are using that stated national average knowing that wages are depressed in Louisiana, then shame on you.

From their web site (http://www.walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=218)

Our average hourly wage for regular full-time associates in the U.S. is $9.68 an hour, almost double the federal minimum wage.

According to you they were begging people to pay $9.50/hr, less than their national average. Where do you get those glasses that let you see a 'glimpse of the power of the marketplace', and yet fail to show that supply and demand can go f*%&amp; itself if it doesn't suit them.

[/ QUOTE ]

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
It's one restaurant. They are the one's begging, apparently, so presumably they could sell their product at a higher price to offset the increased wages it appears they need to pay to fill the positions they have available.

Surely a classic supply and demand senario.

And yet they don't do this. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) equilibrium is never instantaneously reached.

2) maybe they can't sell their product at a higher price. Maybe the market rejects a higher price, or maybe there are price caps in place.

I don't really understand what you're trying to argue here. Companies are fighting for labor in a tight market. They are raising their asking price for such labor. What's the problem here? Is everyone that has a "help wanted" sign in their window for more than 15 minutes a total moron? Why don't they just offer $200/hr!?

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really understand what you're trying to argue here. Companies are fighting for labor in a tight market. They are raising their asking price for such labor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except they aren't. They have a disproportionate amount of leverage in the supply and demand scenario. To all intents and purposes they control the market. The argument that they can employ on such a low wage because an adequate supply of people exists who will work for such does not explain why, when those people disappear, they are unwilling, even at least temporarily, to up their hourly rate by any significance even though by not doing so they lose money due to the reduction in store opening hours or their inability to service their customers.

[lehighguy]

Microeconomics 101

They can only offer a wage high enough that they still make profit off of the service. There is a difference between $7/hour and $10/hour, and at some point it becomes unprofitable. Does it suck they lose thier investment in the store, yes. That is why they are raising wages. But there is a cieling at which you aren't even covering your operating costs.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Except they aren't.

[/ QUOTE ]

They aren't? What would you call it, then?

[ QUOTE ]
They have a disproportionate amount of leverage in the supply and demand scenario. To all intents and purposes they control the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why do they have open positions?

[ QUOTE ]
The argument that they can employ on such a low wage because an adequate supply of people exists who will work for such does not explain why, when those people disappear, they are unwilling, even at least temporarily, to up their hourly rate by any significance even though by not doing so they lose money due to the reduction in store opening hours or their inability to service their customers.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your costs are high enough, you lose more money by being open than by being closed. They can't just arbitrarily set prices higher to meet their increased labor costs. Well, they can raise their prices, but their total revenue may not increase, and may in fact decrease.

[theBruiser500]

"It's the same people who hate WalMart. You know, because it's Walmart's fault they are hiring low-wage, low-skilled workers with few opportunities for any other kind of work and are paying them accordingly. Yeah, it's WalMart's fault.

You can't get through to someone who ignores facts and denies reality. "

natedogg your post is a joke. How can anyone argue with what you say here, 'it's wal-mart's fault for hiring low wage work'. That is a tricky pathetic way to state your case. It's stupid to argue against that, that's the nature of our capatalist society, your point means nothing. What is bad is that someone can work full time and still be below the poverty line.

"In the Dec. 16 New York Review of Books, Simon Head, director of the Project on Technology and the Workplace at the Century Foundation, stated, "the average pay of a sales clerk [italics mine] at Wal-Mart was $8.50 an hour, or about $14,000 a year, $1,000 below the government's definition of the poverty level for a family of three."

The rest of that post

I guess you shouldn't start a family if you only make 14k/year.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
"It's the same people who hate WalMart. You know, because it's Walmart's fault they are hiring low-wage, low-skilled workers with few opportunities for any other kind of work and are paying them accordingly. Yeah, it's WalMart's fault.

You can't get through to someone who ignores facts and denies reality. "

natedogg your post is a joke. How can anyone argue with what you say here, 'it's wal-mart's fault for hiring low wage work'. That is a tricky pathetic way to state your case. It's stupid to argue against that, that's the nature of our capatalist society, your point means nothing. What is bad is that someone can work full time and still be below the poverty line.

"In the Dec. 16 New York Review of Books, Simon Head, director of the Project on Technology and the Workplace at the Century Foundation, stated, "the average pay of a sales clerk [italics mine] at Wal-Mart was $8.50 an hour, or about $14,000 a year, $1,000 below the government's definition of the poverty level for a family of three."

The rest of that post

[/ QUOTE ]

These people's skills are valued by Wal-Mart at a rate of $8.50 an hour. Do you believe that they should be paid more just because they fall below the arbitrary "poverty line" (how can some bureaucrat in Washington really define this?). Nobody is putting a gun to their head and forcing them to work at Wal-Mart. Maybe they can find one of these magical corporations where they will be paid above their market value at the expense of the profitability of the business (would there be any point in starting a business and providing goods/services if this were the case?). Actually, this is possible in a multitude of government jobs.

That's actually a good idea.

1. Work 2 weeks at Wal-Mart
2. Buy a suit
3. Move to D.C. and help somebody waste their budget

[BadBoyBenny]

They also run the risk of being accused of price gouging if they raise prices there now.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
"It's the same people who hate WalMart. You know, because it's Walmart's fault they are hiring low-wage, low-skilled workers with few opportunities for any other kind of work and are paying them accordingly. Yeah, it's WalMart's fault.

You can't get through to someone who ignores facts and denies reality. "

natedogg your post is a joke. How can anyone argue with what you say here, 'it's wal-mart's fault for hiring low wage work'. That is a tricky pathetic way to state your case. It's stupid to argue against that, that's the nature of our capatalist society, your point means nothing. What is bad is that someone can work full time and still be below the poverty line.

"In the Dec. 16 New York Review of Books, Simon Head, director of the Project on Technology and the Workplace at the Century Foundation, stated, "the average pay of a sales clerk [italics mine] at Wal-Mart was $8.50 an hour, or about $14,000 a year, $1,000 below the government's definition of the poverty level for a family of three."

The rest of that post

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I don't understand WalMart is doing wrong by paying people a low wage (albeit lower than minimum wage). Maybe you can explain why that makes them evil?

natedogg

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't use reason with these people. These are the same ones who support minimum wage in the face of all evidence to the contrary, not to mention price controls in general. It's religion for them.

[/ QUOTE ] 1. Minimum wage: What evidence would that be ? Do we get to trot out again the relevant studies?
2. Price controls: I'm not in favor of controlling prices, in principle. There are areas in the economy where competition exists and in those areas price should be allowed to move freely -- with an anti-trust watchdog in place. (I know, I'm a hopeless romantic!) And there are areas where hidden or explicit monopolies/oligopolies operate; in such areas, the answer is not so straightforward. Not to me, at least.

(For instance, I have been into a lot of IPOs in European and non-European countries where the issue was an ex-utility that henceforth would both be a private company and a state-santioned monopoly!)

[ QUOTE ]
These are the same folks who with a straight face will state sheer nonsense such as that Bush's tax cut is bad for the middle class.

[/ QUOTE ] Don't be absurd.

Every individual that gets a tax break, has an immediate benefit. The question is whether or not this is good also for "the whole of individuals", i.e. the economic status of the society. (For example, faced with a significant &amp; growing budget deficit, the government decides to proceed with a huge tax cut. Clever or stupid? Ronald Reagan's administration admitted it was stupid.)


[ QUOTE ]
It's the same people who hate WalMart ... because it's Walmart's fault they are hiring low-wage, low-skilled workers with few opportunities for any other kind of work and are paying them accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ] The antipatrhy towards Wal-Mart is certainly not because they are a job provider!

It's because Wal-Mart uses the worst possible capitalist practices to destroy neighborhoods, chase away long-time inhabitants from their homes, drive small suppliers to the wall, treat low-level employees like trash, strong-arm unions away, and so forth.

[ QUOTE ]
They are convinced the oil companies are immune to competition.

[/ QUOTE ] If you knew how laughable this statement is, you would not laugh.

[ QUOTE ]
These are the same folks who think that nationlizing certain industries is a good idea. Public Power! Yeah!

[/ QUOTE ] OK you are ranting now. Must be that period of the week. Bye.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't really understand what you're trying to argue here. Companies are fighting for labor in a tight market. They are raising their asking price for such labor.

[/ QUOTE ]



Except they aren't. They have a disproportionate amount of leverage in the supply and demand scenario. To all intents and purposes they control the market. The argument that they can employ on such a low wage because an adequate supply of people exists who will work for such does not explain why, when those people disappear, they are unwilling, even at least temporarily, to up their hourly rate by any significance even though by not doing so they lose money due to the reduction in store opening hours or their inability to service their customers.

[/ QUOTE ]

But (as I recall from somewhere earlier in this thread) they DID up their wage, and offered a $250 sign-up bonus, no? Surely you are not arguing that they have unlimited capacity to raise wages?

Pretty disgusting poll about Wall-Mart. Apparently 56% of Americans think that Wall-Mart is bad for our country.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticl....xml&amp;rpc=22 (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&amp;storyid=2005-12-01T191236Z_01_BAU169104_RTRUKOC_0_US-RETAIL-WALMART-POLL.xml&amp;rpc=22)

In a related poll, 56% of Americans don't have ANY knowledge of basic economics and are closet socialists.

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty disgusting poll about Wall-Mart. Apparently 56% of Americans think that Wall-Mart is bad for our country.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticl....xml&amp;rpc=22 (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&amp;storyid=2005-12-01T191236Z_01_BAU169104_RTRUKOC_0_US-RETAIL-WALMART-POLL.xml&amp;rpc=22)

In a related poll, 56% of Americans don't have ANY knowledge of basic economics and are closet socialists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look who commissioned the poll and the only surprise is only 56% of Americans don't like Wal-Mart.

"The national poll -- commissioned by WakeUpWalMart.com, a union-funded group that has been pressuring Wal-Mart to raise employee wages and benefits"