Walmart=Yes we can

[DOGS THAT BARK]

The verifiable --Yes We Can



Ironic that the "Yes We Can" crowd/admin that has been hounding Walmart for not joining the union ranks like their auto poster children are adding jobs in era when admin is losing millions.

Is there a logical lesson to be learned here

Wal-Mart says it will create 22,000 jobs in 2009

<ABBR class=timedate title=2009-06-03T21:06:07-0700>Thu Jun 4, 12:06 am ET</ABBR>
<!-- end .byline -->BENTONVILLE, Ark. ? As Wal-Mart Stores Inc. opens about 150 new or expanded stores in the U.S. in 2009, the company expects to hire about 22,000 people for new positions.
Those positions include plenty of cashiers and stock clerks, but the world's largest retailer will also be adding store managers, pharmacists and personnel workers.
Wal-Mart is holding its annual shareholders meeting on Friday, and employees from its stores around the world are spending the week in Bentonville at company headquarters.
Wal-Mart, still the target of criticism from union-backed groups for its pay and benefits, has improved its health insurance coverage and opened it to full- and part-time employees. The company says 94 percent of its employees have health coverage, either through Wal-Mart or another family member.
"At Wal-Mart, we offer competitive pay and benefits and real opportunities for our associates to advance and build careers," Wal-Mart Vice Chairman Eduardo Castro-Wright said. "Job creation is just one way in which we're working hard every day to help people across this country live better."
Other employee benefits include a 401(k) plan, stock purchases and discounts for workers making in-store purchases.
The company has touted its generic drugs program in which Wal-Mart is selling $4 prescriptions for many popular medicines. Competitors, such as Kroger Co., have matched the price for some prescriptions.
"During this difficult economic time, we're proud to be able to create quality jobs for thousands of Americans this year," Castro-Wright said.
Earlier this year, the company shared more than $2 billion with its workers through bonuses, profit sharing and payments into the company 401(k) plan.
Wal-Mart has more than 2.1 million employees in the U.S. and abroad. The company had sales last fiscal year of $401 billion.

 

[jer-z jock]

Is the lessen treat your employees fairly and stop giving billions of dollars in bonuses to top level management and administrators who already make over 6 figures a year? Kudos to walmart for treating employees like employees and not numbers! Wonder how many billion dollar profits and bonuses the auto companies and banks shared with the employees? I bet the top level guys of said industries had plenty of cake thrown at them. Now I'm heading to the local walmart for my application.

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

I've never stepped into a Wal-Mart in my life. Never will. They can go to hell. They won't get one penny from me.

 

[jer-z jock]

I've never stepped into a Wal-Mart in my life. Never will. They can go to hell. They won't get one penny from me.

whats the beef with Walmart?

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

I don't have time right now. Google it and you'll find all kinds of crap on them. In fact i'm surprised the Right shops there at all. Wal-mart thrives on getting the state to pay for their employees health benefits whenever possible. Isn't that welfare?

This list goes on and on for that company.

 

[StevieD]

I don't have time right now. Google it and you'll find all kinds of crap on them. In fact i'm surprised the Right shops there at all. Wal-mart thrives on getting the state to pay for their employees health benefits whenever possible. Isn't that welfare?

This list goes on and on for that company.

That is exactly what the RIGHT likes about them.

 

[The Sponge]

I don't have time right now. Google it and you'll find all kinds of crap on them. In fact i'm surprised the Right shops there at all. Wal-mart thrives on getting the state to pay for their employees health benefits whenever possible. Isn't that welfare?

This list goes on and on for that company.

Sorry Tramp this isnt considered welfare by people like DTB. Although his tax dollars get wasted to help pay for these employees health care it is okay in his mind if there is at least one guy making a billion dollars because of it. DTB will move heaven and earth to protect these billionaires rights and possible spend every last dollar he owns fighting for them. DTB acts like these are somehow great paying jobs but the bottom line is WE help pay for these peoples health care while the top brass at this shit hole company rakes in billions.

 

[jer-z jock]

Well I'll be dipped in buttermilk....

Amazing how theres so many strings tying things together, never knew, never looked into it, never thought it was an issue, but if that is the case..holy cow. How do I start a business or company and have everyone else foot the bills as I take all the profit, unbelievable it is.

 

[StevieD]

Well I'll be dipped in buttermilk....

Amazing how theres so many strings tying things together, never knew, never looked into it, never thought it was an issue, but if that is the case..holy cow. How do I start a business or company and have everyone else foot the bills as I take all the profit, unbelievable it is.

well, you gotta be big. Too big to fail.

 

[layinwood]

Stevie, really man? Do you all even no how it works? I'm not a pro Wal Mart person but I do employ people and have worked with lower end paid employees(welfare to work moms). You don't have to be a big company but you do have to be willing to take on some people that 95%(or higher) of corporate America won't touch.

This forum has become an area where people come in and spew bs and see if it sticks. I'm not saying Wal Mart is perfect but they have a model that is successful and they give jobs to people that would have a hard time finding one elsewhere. No matter what, those same people would be getting the same government help with healthcare if they weren't at Wal Mart.

 

[zoomer]

Stevie, really man? Do you all even no how it works? I'm not a pro Wal Mart person but I do employ people and have worked with lower end paid employees(welfare to work moms). You don't have to be a big company but you do have to be willing to take on some people that 95%(or higher) of corporate America won't touch.

This forum has become an area where people come in and spew bs and see if it sticks. I'm not saying Wal Mart is perfect but they have a model that is successful and they give jobs to people that would have a hard time finding one elsewhere. No matter what, those same people would be getting the same government help with healthcare if they weren't at Wal Mart.

This is fact. My brother is a small businessman(3b car washes) and employs almost exclusively those wishing to leave welfare and also the moderately retarded. The state works with my brother and subsidizes health care and other benefits as a result of his willingness to hire what other businesses have turned away and deemed "un-hireable"
The AHRC and State of New York have lauded his committment to training what many believed were not trainable and destined to remain on public assistance for their lifetimes.

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

Stevie, really man? Do you all even no how it works? I'm not a pro Wal Mart person but I do employ people and have worked with lower end paid employees(welfare to work moms). You don't have to be a big company but you do have to be willing to take on some people that 95%(or higher) of corporate America won't touch.

This forum has become an area where people come in and spew bs and see if it sticks. I'm not saying Wal Mart is perfect but they have a model that is successful and they give jobs to people that would have a hard time finding one elsewhere. No matter what, those same people would be getting the same government help with healthcare if they weren't at Wal Mart.

The Wal Mart business model is to employ as many people as they can at less than full time to avoid paying health care costs. Not to mention these jobs are shit. Its just sick. However, with our political system this is par for the course. I would expect nothing less.

 

[layinwood]

TU, first off the jobs are shit to you but not to everyone. To some they are life savers and great jobs. Wal Mart has an excellant mgt training program that allows peole to get into management that would otherwise never have the chance.

WalMart does employ a lot of part time people but for the business it's normal. Look at any grocery store or any store with those hours. To successfully staff all of your shifts you have to use a base of fulltime employees and then a lot of part time employees. It's the only way you can get it done.(I was an assistant mgr for grocery store chain in Austin while taking a break from college and we did the same thing).

Again, they're not perfect but everyone in here bitches if a company is successful and then bitches if the company fails. I guess they should use the same business model as our car and airline companies for you to be happy.

 

[djv]

I agree not perfect. At least they can be used for starter jobs..
So they are picking up 24000 new helpers. No big deal. I hope everyone knows that with 1.8 million employies they need to replace over 45000 a year for those who leave, die or get ill and cant return. So if there only plannings on 24000 it,s a cut back.

 

[layinwood]

DJV, that's not 22k employees. It created 22k new jobs which doesn't take into account the other openings they have.

 

[Terryray]

Charles Platt, of Wired Magazine, did an excellent story on Wal-Mart from the perspective of an employee--by getting himself hired there and sniffing around. Some excerpts:

I discovered that more than half [new fellow hirees] had already worked at other Wal-Marts. Having relocated to this area, they were eager for more of the same.

Why? Gradually the answer became clear. Imagine that you are young and relatively unskilled, lacking academic qualifications. Which would you prefer: standing behind the register at a local gas station, or doing the same thing in the most aggressively successful retailer in the world, where ruthless expansion is a way of life, creating a constant demand for people to fill low-level managerial positions? A future at Wal-Mart may sound a less-than-stellar prospect, but it's a whole lot better than no future at all.


My starting wage was so low (around $7 per hour), a modest increment still didn't leave me with enough to live on comfortably, but when I looked at the alternatives, many of them were worse. Coworkers assured me that the nearest Target paid its hourly full-timers less than Wal-Mart, while fast-food franchises were at the bottom of everyone's list.

I found myself reaching an inescapable conclusion. Low wages are not a Wal-Mart problem. They are an industry-wide problem, afflicting all unskilled entry-level jobs, and the reason should be obvious.

In our free-enterprise system, employees are valued largely in terms of what they can do. This is why teenagers fresh out of high school often go to vocational training institutes to become auto mechanics or electricians. They understand a basic principle that seems to elude social commentators, politicians and union organizers. If you want better pay, you need to learn skills that are in demand.

The blunt tools of legislation or union power can force a corporation to pay higher wages, but if employees don't create an equal amount of additional value, there's no net gain. All other factors remaining equal, the store will have to charge higher prices for its merchandise, and its competitive position will suffer.

This is Economics 101, but no one wants to believe it, because it tells us that a legislative or unionized quick-fix is not going to work in the long term. If you want people to be wealthier, they have to create additional wealth.

To my mind, the real scandal is not that a large corporation doesn't pay people more. The scandal is that so many people have so little economic value. Despite (or because of) a free public school system, millions of teenagers enter the work force without marketable skills. So why would anyone expect them to be well paid?

In fact, the deal at Wal-Mart is better than at many other employers. The company states that its regular full-time hourly associates in the US average $10.86 per hour, while the mean hourly wage for retail sales associates in department stores generally is $8.67. The federal minimum wage is $6.55 per hour. Also every Wal-Mart employee gets a 10% store discount, while an additional 4% of wages go into profit-sharing and 401(k) plans.

...

don't forget the previous good threads on Walmart here at Madjacks.

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

Charles Platt, of Wired Magazine, did an excellent story on Wal-Mart from the perspective of an employee--by getting himself hired there and sniffing around. Some excerpts:

I discovered that more than half [new fellow hirees] had already worked at other Wal-Marts. Having relocated to this area, they were eager for more of the same.

Why? Gradually the answer became clear. Imagine that you are young and relatively unskilled, lacking academic qualifications. Which would you prefer: standing behind the register at a local gas station, or doing the same thing in the most aggressively successful retailer in the world, where ruthless expansion is a way of life, creating a constant demand for people to fill low-level managerial positions? A future at Wal-Mart may sound a less-than-stellar prospect, but it's a whole lot better than no future at all.


My starting wage was so low (around $7 per hour), a modest increment still didn't leave me with enough to live on comfortably, but when I looked at the alternatives, many of them were worse. Coworkers assured me that the nearest Target paid its hourly full-timers less than Wal-Mart, while fast-food franchises were at the bottom of everyone's list.

I found myself reaching an inescapable conclusion. Low wages are not a Wal-Mart problem. They are an industry-wide problem, afflicting all unskilled entry-level jobs, and the reason should be obvious.

In our free-enterprise system, employees are valued largely in terms of what they can do. This is why teenagers fresh out of high school often go to vocational training institutes to become auto mechanics or electricians. They understand a basic principle that seems to elude social commentators, politicians and union organizers. If you want better pay, you need to learn skills that are in demand.

The blunt tools of legislation or union power can force a corporation to pay higher wages, but if employees don't create an equal amount of additional value, there's no net gain. All other factors remaining equal, the store will have to charge higher prices for its merchandise, and its competitive position will suffer.

This is Economics 101, but no one wants to believe it, because it tells us that a legislative or unionized quick-fix is not going to work in the long term. If you want people to be wealthier, they have to create additional wealth.

To my mind, the real scandal is not that a large corporation doesn't pay people more. The scandal is that so many people have so little economic value. Despite (or because of) a free public school system, millions of teenagers enter the work force without marketable skills. So why would anyone expect them to be well paid?

In fact, the deal at Wal-Mart is better than at many other employers. The company states that its regular full-time hourly associates in the US average $10.86 per hour, while the mean hourly wage for retail sales associates in department stores generally is $8.67. The federal minimum wage is $6.55 per hour. Also every Wal-Mart employee gets a 10% store discount, while an additional 4% of wages go into profit-sharing and 401(k) plans.

...

don't forget the previous good threads on Walmart here at Madjacks.

Where do I sign up? Sounds great.

The bottom line is they could do a lot more for these people. Provide them with basic health plan for working 40 hours a week. Is that asking too much? Roosevelt said something about true freedom being when any American, if they are willing to work, can support a family and make a comfortable wage. Economic freedom. We have went backwards.

I'm not going to debate this much longer. I already spend enough time on here as it is.

You'll never convince me that Wal-Mart is a place I should spend my dollars.

 

[Lush Rimbough]

Charles Platt, of Wired Magazine, did an excellent story on Wal-Mart from the perspective of an employee--by getting himself hired there and sniffing around. Some excerpts:

I discovered that more than half [new fellow hirees] had already worked at other Wal-Marts. Having relocated to this area, they were eager for more of the same.

Why? Gradually the answer became clear. Imagine that you are young and relatively unskilled, lacking academic qualifications. Which would you prefer: standing behind the register at a local gas station, or doing the same thing in the most aggressively successful retailer in the world, where ruthless expansion is a way of life, creating a constant demand for people to fill low-level managerial positions? A future at Wal-Mart may sound a less-than-stellar prospect, but it's a whole lot better than no future at all.


My starting wage was so low (around $7 per hour), a modest increment still didn't leave me with enough to live on comfortably, but when I looked at the alternatives, many of them were worse. Coworkers assured me that the nearest Target paid its hourly full-timers less than Wal-Mart, while fast-food franchises were at the bottom of everyone's list.

I found myself reaching an inescapable conclusion. Low wages are not a Wal-Mart problem. They are an industry-wide problem, afflicting all unskilled entry-level jobs, and the reason should be obvious.

In our free-enterprise system, employees are valued largely in terms of what they can do. This is why teenagers fresh out of high school often go to vocational training institutes to become auto mechanics or electricians. They understand a basic principle that seems to elude social commentators, politicians and union organizers. If you want better pay, you need to learn skills that are in demand.

The blunt tools of legislation or union power can force a corporation to pay higher wages, but if employees don't create an equal amount of additional value, there's no net gain. All other factors remaining equal, the store will have to charge higher prices for its merchandise, and its competitive position will suffer.

This is Economics 101, but no one wants to believe it, because it tells us that a legislative or unionized quick-fix is not going to work in the long term. If you want people to be wealthier, they have to create additional wealth.

To my mind, the real scandal is not that a large corporation doesn't pay people more. The scandal is that so many people have so little economic value. Despite (or because of) a free public school system, millions of teenagers enter the work force without marketable skills. So why would anyone expect them to be well paid?

In fact, the deal at Wal-Mart is better than at many other employers. The company states that its regular full-time hourly associates in the US average $10.86 per hour, while the mean hourly wage for retail sales associates in department stores generally is $8.67. The federal minimum wage is $6.55 per hour. Also every Wal-Mart employee gets a 10% store discount, while an additional 4% of wages go into profit-sharing and 401(k) plans.

...

don't forget the previous good threads on Walmart here at Madjacks.

Thanks for the information, I really didn't know. I do shop at Walmart not just because of the prices, but they have what I need under one roof, one stop shopping. I also do the Kmart and Targets too. There really isn't a store I avoid anymore, except the over priced frilly stores they have similar stuff for much more coin.

 

[Terryray]

The bottom line is they could do a lot more for these people. Provide them with basic health plan for working 40 hours a week. Is that asking too much?....You'll never convince me ...

I don't expect to convince you (I write this stuff to help me think thru selective issues that grab me).

The short answer to your objection is that the wage elasticities are not nearly as large as you suppose.

In other words, the answer that will convince you requires you to already possess a deep understanding of microeconomic analysis. It's hopelessly counter-intuitive to anyone who doesn't possess this.

That is why 85% of economists think trade protectionism is almost always bad, 75% think minimum wage laws are mostly harmful, 70% think restrictive union practices hurt workers wages and economic efficiency overall, etc....But 75% of economists never debate these with non-economists because the reasoning they must employ cannot be understood by laymen.

But you can hit on some of these issues by looking at it hypothetically.

Ask yourself, and try to reason thru, that if Walmart makes big profits and expands greatly by paying employees less--why hasn't some Kmart or Target come in and sell for same low prices, but pay workers more? Walmart would then have to raise wages to keep all it's employees from leaving, or go bankrupt.

Ask yourself if Walmart can raise prices to make more profits to fund higher wagers--doesn't this imply they aren't smart enough to maximize profits right now? Such a buffonishly inept business could be easily outcompeted by even dumb businessmen.

Ask yourself what kind of economy or society will function in any proper manner if employers must be charitable institutions?

 

[Terryray]

Thanks for the information, I really didn't know. I do shop at Walmart not just because of the prices, but they have what I need under one roof, one stop shopping. I also do the Kmart and Targets too. There really isn't a store I avoid anymore, except the over priced frilly stores they have similar stuff for much more coin.

But are you getting the Fuente Fuente Opus X at your local WallyWorld?