Thank you, Walmart

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. 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

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*%& 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

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*%& 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.