Perhaps this ideological crusade against Walmart should be a financially focused effort. If there are people who do not want Walmart to succeed, then please do not shop there. There is no requirement to shop anywhere, and there is no mandate to work there. If you do not wish to do either, then don't.

As for the subsidies, I do not think there should be subsidies of anything, corporate or otherwise. Perhaps that is a different subject.

Summary:
You don't like Walmart? Don't shop there. (Look what happened to K-mart! People got sick of shopping there, and K-mart is going the way of the dinosaur.)

Ray

That's just not a correct way to look at it. If the Walmart jobs did not exist, they would have to rely more on government programs, not less. You are combining two transactions. Transaction 1 is that a willing buyer (Walmart) and a willing seller (employee) have agreed on a deal that is mutually beneficial. Transaction 2 is that the government has decided to provide certain benefits to certain people. You think you are smart because you can aggregate these transactions. I think that is a critical error in determining what is going on

.
If all jobs had to pay a higher minimum wage, the people earning the minimum wae would not need the government benefits. Period.
Wal-Mart would not shut its doors. It would continue to compete in th retail enviroment, and because all of its competition would also have to meet the minimum pay, they would not be in a different competitive position. The only difference would be that individuals working at walamrt would no longer require governemnt assistance.


Ricky

A minimum wage that was more livable would reduce the need for the government programs. You want to shrink government? Cut down on how corporations use them. Including how low wage jobs end up being subsidized.

Ray

Low wage jobs are not being subsidized. Low income families are being provided with subsidies..

A distinction without a difference.
The government still has to get involved... And create expensive programs to deliver the assistance. It would be just so much more efficient to simply ensure that a living wage is a minimum. Only those people who cannot work, should receive assistance.
But today, minimum wage/low wage companies know that they can continue to maximize profits and know that their employees will get government aid to keep them healthy enough and strong enough to keep showing up to their "jobs".

If the minimum wage didn't exist, WalMArt would pay their employees less, and the government would have to take up even more of the slack

Ricky:

Wal-Mart would not shut its doors. It would continue to compete in th retail enviroment, and because all of its competition would also have to meet the minimum pay, they would not be in a different competitive position. The only difference would be that individuals working at walamrt would no longer require governemnt assistance.

Perhaps, and I think there is some truth to your statement. But the world is not as simple as you describe. On the margins Walmart would automate to need fewer retail support. An across the board increase in minimum wage may benefit Walmart since many smaller retail establishments could not support it. The devil is in the details of the size of the increase and how it is applied (across the board or based on more limited geography based on a state's economy. The CBO estimates that 500,000 people (and maybe as many as 1,000,000) could lose their jobs if the minimum wage was increased to $10.10. Naturally more jobs would be lost at the levels that you recommend. Also, Walmart's prices would go up (as would everyone else's prices) which would disproportionately hurt poorer families..

Ray

Low wage jobs are not being subsidized. Low income families are being provided with subsidies..

A distinction without a difference. ... It would be just so much more efficient to simply ensure that a living wage is a minimum.

More like you didn't read carefully and don't understand the distinction. As I said there are many low wage employees who live in reasonably well off families. Often spouses who are not the primary wage earner; often the minimum wage earner is a young person living at home who is figuring life out and not the primary bread winner. He is often a wealthy teenager.

For this reason raising the minimum wage is not at all efficient. From the CBO:

Just 19 percent of the $31 billion would accrue to families with earnings below the poverty threshold, whereas 29 percent would accrue to families earning more than three times the poverty threshold, CBO estimates.

In other words, checkmate you've just lost this conversation. Yes, that's the sort of efficiency that we expect from government decisions and Ricky arguments.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995

ray

But the world is not as simple as you describe. On the margins Walmart would automate to need fewer retail support. An across the board increase in minimum wage may benefit Walmart since many smaller retail establishments could not support it.

if your willing to bring "the world" into the equation then look at how competitive Wal mart is in Ontario Canada..Where the minimum wage is $11 an hour. (Which is $10.08 US )
They do fine.
They also do fine in Seattle and San Franciso... So all the scenarios you paint of negative out comes, are disproven...
And, by the way, In Ontario they haven't "automated" any jobs out of existence... They have cut staffing generally across North America due to a drive for profits. But thats with the current minimum wage in the US, even so. It really doesn't matter . unlss forced they'll always pay as little as possible.
If the minimum goes up, they'll still need to provide the service that their competitors do...

ray

More like you didn't read carefully and don't understand the distinction. As I said there are many low wage employees who live in reasonably well off families. Often spouses who are not the primary wage earner; often the minimum wage earner is a young person living at home who is figuring life out and not the primary bread winner. He is often a wealthy teenager.

Oh I understood. My chief concern is with the workers who are in low income families even thought they work full time, or as many hours as Walmart will give them.
I think its interesting that you are willing to discriminate between people when it comes to their labour.
Is the value of the labour provided by a married woman who's husband works worth less than that of a single woman supporting her family?
I don't think so.
Moreover i don't think a teenager doing the exact same job as an adult, really deserves to be treated differently either.
There's no doubt that a minimum wage for couples or families that work at places like WalMart would also increase the wealth of those families. Marginally. And its very likely that this money would be spent and plowed right back into the economy....
Why do you think this is a bad thing?
WalMart does pretty well in the current US economy. The Walrton familiy (6 of them) have more wealth than the bottom 30% of Americans
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... americans/
And thats a situation that has been growing for a few decades.... In order to continue these people getting ealthier must there be a low wage income in the US?
A low wage economy cannot support significant US economic growth going forward, because it depresses the consumer market. . Which means that generally the standard of living has to slowly decline. So in order to protect billionares, you're willing to continue depressing the consumer market in the US?
(Which also plays into WalMarts strategy of marketing to low income families.... they keep making their target market larger at the expense of a healthy middle class)

This site compiles studies on Wal-Mart (including ones showing negative effects on wages). http://www.ilsr.org/key-studies-walmart ... -retail/#3
I don' t think I am being elitist, but weighing the positive effects of Wal-Mart versus all of the negatives ones and finding negatives far outweigh positives.
Here is a study that looks at the lower costs for consumers from a Wal-Mart. http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/retail/ ... mart06.pdf
The authors of the study make a better argument than I did--they argue that Wal-Mart lowers costs in an area that is in a decreasing share of a family's expenditures, and so lower costs for good will not make up for lower wages.
I am against Wal-Mart because they are a blight on local communities--yes, that is what this is all about.

Ricky:

I think its interesting that you are willing to discriminate between people when it comes to their labour.
Is the value of the labour provided by a married woman who's husband works worth less than that of a single woman supporting her family?

Liar, liar, pants on fire. We give this comment the lowest mark possible. Libel, disgusting.

Freeman:

I am against Wal-Mart because they are a blight on local communities--yes, that is what this is all about.

So your real agenda is to close down all the Wal-Marts? Or are you just saying that if the minimum wage was a bit higher you would be okay with them?

As for minimum wage laws, what about the effect on consumer demand? Every extra dollar in a low-wage worker is more likely to be spent than an extra dollar going to someone with high-income. That is one of the problems with stratified incomes is that it reduces consumer demand. Higher consumer demand means more dollars going to retailers helping to off-set higher labor costs. And another benefit is that workers with more dollars in their pocket are more apt to spend locally, whereas chains send profits elsewhere. Small business appears to be pretty much split on the issue. http://m.washingtonpost.com/business/on ... story.html

I also found this story on the income at which levels of happiness peak for each state. Not that I am a utilitarian but if super-high incomes don't make people more satisfied with life, why have economic policies that promote top 5 percent getting more of the economic pie.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5592194

Well, my agenda is to simply argue that Wal-Mart is not a net positive for local communities. Raising the minimum wage would help. We can't just close Wal-Mart down, as you know.

freeman3 wrote:As for minimum wage laws, what about the effect on consumer demand? Every extra dollar in a low-wage worker is more likely to be spent than an extra dollar going to someone with high-income. That is one of the problems with stratified incomes is that it reduces consumer demand. Higher consumer demand means more dollars going to retailers helping to off-set higher labor costs. And another benefit is that workers with more dollars in their pocket are more apt to spend locally, whereas chains send profits elsewhere. Small business appears to be pretty much split on the issue. http://m.washingtonpost.com/business/on ... story.html

1. Well, for maximum efficiency, why not just flatten all wages?

2. As for small businesses, what (exactly) prevents them from raising wages as high as they would like to? Why would a government mandate help them when they have the freedom to do it now?

Well, my agenda is to simply argue that Wal-Mart is not a net positive for local communities. Raising the minimum wage would help. We can't just close Wal-Mart down, as you know.

Many Wal-Mart jobs are not minimum wage.

Btw, who shops at Wal-Mart: the rich? If not, who will rising prices (because of rising labor costs) affect? If so, please provide some pictures of the wealthy at Wal-Mart. :)

freeman3 wrote:As for minimum wage laws, what about the effect on consumer demand? Every extra dollar in a low-wage worker is more likely to be spent than an extra dollar going to someone with high-income. That is one of the problems with stratified incomes is that it reduces consumer demand. Higher consumer demand means more dollars going to retailers helping to off-set higher labor costs. And another benefit is that workers with more dollars in their pocket are more apt to spend locally, whereas chains send profits elsewhere. Small business appears to be pretty much split on the issue. http://m.washingtonpost.com/business/on ... story.html

I also found this story on the income at which levels of happiness peak for each state. Not that I am a utilitarian but if super-high incomes don't make people more satisfied with life, why have economic policies that promote top 5 percent getting more of the economic pie.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5592194

Are you saying the purpose of our policies should be to bring happiness to people?

ray

As I said there are many low wage employees who live in reasonably well off families. Often spouses who are not the primary wage earner; often the minimum wage earner is a young person living at home who is figuring life out and not the primary bread winner. He is often a wealthy teenager.

ricky

I think its interesting that you are willing to discriminate between people when it comes to their labour.
Is the value of the labour provided by a married woman who's husband works worth less than that of a single woman supporting her family?

How am i lieing ray. Do you accept that people doing the same job should get paid the same?
You seem to think its important to note that many of the WalMArt low wage employees fall into a group that means they are part of a larger wage group which makes it okay to pay them so little.
Is that the wrong interpretation of why you want to differentiate this group?

bbauska
[quote][Are you saying the purpose of our policies should be to bring happiness to people?/quote]

As opposed to what ?
Shouldn't a representative democracy respond to the wishes of the electorate. And surely the electorate want to be happy.
The whole reason mankind banded together in villages, towns and cities was to provide for services that increased security, and enhanced the amenities that make life more enjoyable, including making commerce and education more easily achievable. Its the whole point of government.

Ray Jay wrote: Also, Walmart's prices would go up (as would everyone else's prices) which would disproportionately hurt poorer families..

When costs increase, it doesn't always follow that prices go up. Often what happens is that the margins get compressed when costs can't be passed along. Supermarkets is a really competitive business. Operating margins of around 3% (or less!) are typical. Wal-Mart runs at around 6%. That's not an a lot of room, but they do run at around twice the operating margin of their competitors. It wouldn't worry me much of the workers of Wal-Mart unionized and extracted a higher wage, as I'm doubtful they could passed along to the consumer in such a competitive business. A minimum wage which affected all competitors would likely make it much easier to pass along the extra cost.

rickyp wrote:ray

As I said there are many low wage employees who live in reasonably well off families. Often spouses who are not the primary wage earner; often the minimum wage earner is a young person living at home who is figuring life out and not the primary bread winner. He is often a wealthy teenager.

ricky

I think its interesting that you are willing to discriminate between people when it comes to their labour.
Is the value of the labour provided by a married woman who's husband works worth less than that of a single woman supporting her family?

How am i lieing ray. Do you accept that people doing the same job should get paid the same?
You seem to think its important to note that many of the WalMArt low wage employees fall into a group that means they are part of a larger wage group which makes it okay to pay them so little.
Is that the wrong interpretation of why you want to differentiate this group?

It's always hard to tell whether you are being dishonest or really that poor a reader. My comment was to disagree with your notion that raising the minimum wage is an efficient way to target money to poor families because many low income workers happen to be in non-low income families. I was saying there is a difference between those 2 things. You said there was no difference between a low income worker and a low income family.

However, my comment had nothing to do with whether marital status or gender has anything to do with what someone should be paid. That's just your misreading of what I wrote or misrepresenting what I wrote. So, when you write that I am "willing to discriminate between people" you are most certainly lying because I think you are bright enough to see the difference. .