Wal-Mart memo proposes employee cost cuts

<p>I have to laugh at conservatives (who have proven recently to be completely incompetent when it comes to all things economics) defending WalMart within the context of a “market based economy.” </p>

<p>Anybody who knows anything about how Wal Mart operates in China knows that they do not play on a level playing field, and that is one of the assumptions of a true market place.</p>

<p>Here is a different way of looking at Wal Mart:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/[/url]”>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>(And no, I do not shop at Wal Mart. Ours is beyond disgusting.)</p>

<p>When did anyone say China was a market driven country? Rules overseas will vary. The smart companies know how to use the variations to their advantage. Right now Bill Gates is wringing his hands over Microsoft having not cracked the code in doing business with China. When companies venture out into the world markets the first thing they need to learn is local rules. As they said in Butch Cassidy-“You have got to get used to Bolivian ways”. Obviously China is doing some things right as it is one of the fastest growing economies in the world.</p>

<p>In Oakland CA people lined up to work at Wal-Mart and you would prefer they remain jobless??</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/08/17/MNGDPE91AH1.DTL[/url]”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/08/17/MNGDPE91AH1.DTL&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Barrons, we of course would prefer they were able to work at a job where they received benefits, and a salary that would move them out of poverty. There are no bargains in a non-union shop.</p>

<p>Feel free to start a business and offer all those things–and find out how easy it is.</p>

<p>mebbe thats why companies are starting up abroad- easier to find qualified workers- more tax incentive? <a href=“Finfacts: Irish business, finance news on economics”>Finfacts: Irish business, finance news on economics;

<p>Endicot Johnson Shoe company provided a decent salary, health care and education for it’s employees and their families over a hundred years ago. It is a shame that we have not made more progress since that time.

</p>

<p>Too many economically successful Americans have turned their backs on their fellow citizens. They feel justified in maximizing profit without concern for the health, safety and quality of life of their employees. It is hard to build a company, but it is also hard for people who work full time at minimum wage ( or close to it.) $16,000 a year is not enough to get survive on in America. </p>

<p>Wal-Mart stock has dropped as more people avoid this store, and now Wal-Mart has a war room to spin news reports about their abuse of workers and their detrimental impact on local and state economies.</p>

<p>Combining aspects of the last two posts will answer the question of why US firms have to cut costs. If they don’t some guy in India or China will see an opportunity to make the same goods and take advantage of their lower costs. In a couple of years the US guy is completely out of business. So the US firm has two choices–compete or die.</p>

<p>tech companies here are begging for workers
even the substandard programs at the community colleges have offers before they complete their certificate
But with low math and science requirements in high schools, many companies are finding more qualified workers overseas
Don’t look for that to change
we dont’ value math/science</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Why exactly would I want to work for Bill Gates? Pay is ok but not great, options lack value, long expected working hours, dog eat dog internal competition. Also I don’t think they hire many JC grads for professional jobs. Mostly top 20 school grads with great grades, etc.</p>

<p>How WM saves the US economy. </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/04/051104175027.waok0hd4.html[/url]”>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/04/051104175027.waok0hd4.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>How WM sinks the economy</p>

<p>Isn’t this report the type of puff research Michael Deaver was hired to help the company use to rebuff the avalanche of data showing the negative impact of Wal-Mart on the economy. I notice the article also mentioned some of these opinions: Wal-Mart helped create a 2.2 percent drop in overall wages across the economy and that other reports indicate retail workers lost 4.7 billion dollars as a result of depressed wages Caused by the company, and that nearly half of the children of Wal-Mart employees qualify for the government’s Medicaid health program for the needy.</p>

<p>No, actually it was produced by a large team of academics outside WM control and review. The savings overall far outweigh the costs and added to GNP growth. You don’t want low wages–get an education.</p>

<p>I want wages to allow a person to live without major subsidies. I don’t think people should work all their lives and be trapped in poverty, if you don’t want that–get a heart.</p>

<p>You don’t want low wages–get an education.</p>

<p>and so I am wondering what this means
A high school education? college?
how much education do we expect our citizens to need to be able to get a job that will provide them with a basic existence?
Are we expecting traditionally low paying jobs- child care- lower level nursing services- retail- factory work- to be the province of persons who then need to work more than one full time job to pay the rent and health care?
If they don’t like it- they should just attend ( and pay for ) college and get a real job?</p>

<p>Why does the left want those at the lower end of the economic ladder to pay more for what they purchase? Walmart gives those less fortunate an opportunity to pay less for most everything that they purchase. Why do those of you on the left want to punish those who don’t have as much as you do? I would think that you would like to keep as much money in their pockets as possible. Do you? Come on, have a heart. When you inisist that Walmart increase its costs, it means that those who are less fortunate are going to have to pay more. That’s not very kind.</p>

<p>Honest question—really, I want to know: What changes would occur in the U.S. economy if Walmart suddenly went out of business? A hypothetical question, to be sure, as such a retail behemoth is not likely to just “stop being”. Where would the millions of displaced Walmart employees find new employment? How would Walmart’s sudden demise be reflected in the GDP? How would the average costs of consumer goods, from groceries, to bath towels to flat panel Televisions be effected? How would Walmart’s domestic suppliers be impacted by Walmart’s disappearance? How would its international suppliers? Which political party in America would be most drastically effected by these changes?</p>

<p>A better question would be, what changes in the U.S. would occur if Wal-Mart became a responible employer and began to offer wages and benefits that would allow its employees to live off their work? What would happen if business executives didn’t try to earn hundreds of times what they pay their employees? This country prospered the most and was most stable when we had a strong middle class.</p>

<p>The rich in this nation drive the costs of medicine and health care through the roof… and then use those high costs to justify lowering the benefits in the other companies they own, sometimes, as with Wal-Mart, passing the cost off onto taxpayers. We would all be better off if without the greed. There are no bargains in a non union shop.</p>

<p>No, we all would not be better off. That is an assertion that virtually all economists would call total BS.</p>

<p>Economic Policy Institute supports Living Wage.
<a href=“http://www.epinet.org/subjectpages/labor.cfm?CFID=315262&CFTOKEN=93861329[/url]”>http://www.epinet.org/subjectpages/labor.cfm?CFID=315262&CFTOKEN=93861329&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Responsible Wealth supports Living Wage.

</p>

<p>There are numerous studies that show how raising minimum wage has positive impacts on the economy.<br>

</p>

<p>The Bush tax cuts were supposed to help the economy but most economic growth seems to be housing inflation and energy price hikes (who is surprised by this fact?)</p>

<p>The Greedy often argue that if we pay more for minimum wage, jobs will have to be eliminated. That is simply not true…There is a Princeton study, a study of minimum wage impacts in Oregon and more that tell us something quite different…When we give the poorest workers more money, they spend it and create jobs. <a href=“http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/min_wage.htm[/url]”>http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/min_wage.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Then there is the historic observation as to what happens when the greedy get too rich. Take a dollar bill and hold it with the bottom of the bill on the tip of your nose…that is how the greedy see this world. Now move the bill away to arm’s distance…I hope you agree that is a better view of the world. There are no bargains in a non union shop.</p>

<p>Most WM workers earn well above the minimum wage–what is your point? Should we require McD’s to pay all the workers a “living” wage too? How about the slackers at the local 7-11? The guys that mow your lawn? </p>

<p>Job growth after the tax cuts has been significant and steady. The increase in home prices in some areas has been due to a number of factors from cheap money to pent-up demand and job growth after the recession. Many parts of the country have not seen huge spikes in home prices. My gas prices are down 20% from the peak and falling weekly. The market is taking care of the problem.</p>