- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 24,412
- Reaction score
- 10,441
- Location
- Upstate SC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
A prediction of no change in the Walmart employment numbers is as much a prediction as my prediction of change.
Hah, no, but I see you are one of those people who doesn't know the meaning of the word "lie". :roll:
That's interesting. So you believe that there are no such things as tax, benefit, or regulatory costs that come along with workers?
Did I predict that? Walmart is still growing, and opening new stores. A read recently that they have started to build mini-Walmarts, and I know of at least one Walmart that is just a grocery store, so I would assume that they will keep employing more people. What I don't believe will happen is that Walmart will decrease it's number of employees due to the fact that it's increasing wages. If anything, I would think that they are increasing wages so that they can attract more employees - generally that's what companies do when they are having a difficult time of hiring enough people.
I used that word because so many conservatives claim that Obama "lied" when he made predictions that didn't come true. Conservatives seem to have their own special definition of the word "lie", where it means one thing when it comes to Obama, and something totally different when it comes to someone like Rush or Hannity.
Sure, and if a cashier ends up costing more than an automated teller which do you think Walmart will choose?
This is absolutely not the case with an unskilled work force. Regardless of the employment rate an unskilled worker can always be replaced quickly. A lot of those unskilled workers are a half step from losing their job to automation as it is.
Did I say it was due to politics? Seems to me the Obama supporters are the ones trying to paint this as a political move. I am just here to point out that across the board raises rarely is ever end up well for the bottom feeding employees.
Indeed they are, just as the layoffs and automation will be a business decision.
Competition is one (of many) of the factors that determines what price results in the greatest profits. But the point is, price isn't determined by costs and businesses aren't free to raise prices simply because their costs increase.
Wal Mart prices going up.
Many other companies 'capitulate' by just moving their resources overseas.Capitulated ? To what ?
The lefts BS narratives and their dishonest demonizations of a Corporation that employees thousands of Americans ?
Their " abuses " are manufactured by the same idiots who believe " Bush lied " about WMD.
The people that bought into this BS about Wal-Marts " abuses " are the same morons that drone on about the destructive effects of " austerity " and the effectiveness of " stimulus to increase aggregate demand ".
Capitulated....Lol !!
We are talking about unemployed people. And no, Wal-Mart probably structured this so as to avoid laying off many or even a noticeable amount of those who are already hired - far more likely is that this was done in conjunction with planning to reduce future hiring.
This is an example of that which is seen V that which is not seen.
That's interesting. So you believe that there are no such things as tax, benefit, or regulatory costs that come along with workers?
If I can hire 10 workers at 7.50 an hour to do the job, it costs me $750/hour (plus other costs associated with labor, say, raising it to $1,000 per hour) to do the job. It also increases my liability risks.
However, if it would cost me $11500/hour to develop and employ machines to replace them, then hey, it's worth it.
When all those workers get their pay raised to $10/hour, meaning that my full cost of labor is now 1350/hour for having people do the work..... suddenly the capital investment is more profitable than the human investment.
Sure. I know that. You know that. But there are sure a lot of people that don't seem to understand that you will look for a new solution, if the old one goes up in price.
on average, employees cost an addition $7 / hr. (more if health insurance is involved) on top of their wages... 10 bucks an hour equates to between 17 and 18 per hour in total labor cost, per employee. ( this is also a reason why we have seen a dramatic increase in temp workers... employers aren't on the hook for the total labor cost bill)
What is the cost of living where you are? What would be the bare minimum amount that you would need to survive where you are, without any welfare?
HenryChinaski answered that question, before you even posted.
Sure, but in this case, the old one didn't go up in price, it went up in what Walmart was willing to pay, which indicates that most likely, they aren't planning on reducing their workforce size any time soon.
on average, employees cost an addition $7 / hr. (more if health insurance is involved) on top of their wages... 10 bucks an hour equates to between 17 and 18 per hour in total labor cost, per employee. ( this is also a reason why we have seen a dramatic increase in temp workers... employers aren't on the hook for the total labor cost bill)
That depends on the price of stuff.
Sometimes I think that maybe we should get away from valuing stuff in dollars, and start valuing it in work hours. Obviously, the phrase "living wage" is going to be somewhat subjective, and may vary depending on location, and exactly how well we expect someone to be able to live. Someone who's compensation package includes great insurance totally paid for by the employer obviously doesn't need as high of a per hour salary.
what?
business are free to raise prices because of cost increases...where did you get the idea they are not?
costs is a primary determining factor in pricing, but it's not the only factor... so I think I kinda agree with you on that point.
You are probably closer to the ballpark for their reasoning than most here. I saw an interview with the CEO of Walmart awhile back in which he discussed that they were not sure how much longer they were going to be able to provide the health insurance option they have for all their associates at the discounted rate at which they were dong it because of Obamacare mandate flooding them with new enrollments. My guess is they are going to raise wages and then shift more of the cost onto those workers as wages are a no-brainer expense whereas health insurance premiums seem subject to change in how they are treated for tax purposes.
Actually employers are still on the hook for the entire labor bill. Do you think that just because someone works for a temp company that there are still cost associated with that stuff? Temp agencies don't hve to pay taxes or have workers comp insurance? Temp agencies don't have to advertise for workers?
In my county, most of the workers at BMW actually are temps. Those temps make $15/hr, and get full benefits, just as if they worked directly for BMW, and obviously BMW has to pay the temp company a good bit over that $15/hr. Having temps does not save a company on wages, but it does help the company in other ways.
The real reason that companies use temps instead of direct hires is that it makes it easier for them (psychologically) to fire bad workers. One of the most stressful things for a boss is to fire people. When the worker is a temp, it becomes a lot easier because the boss doesn't actually fire them, he just tells them they they are no longer needed, or calls the temp company and tells the temp company to fire the worker.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. It would be cheaper just to eat the cost of the insurance, because that cost is 100% tax deductible, and is a huge benefit to the employees. If they increased wages, then employee then would have to pay taxes on those wages (and possibly lose means tested welfare benefits), and then hand over the cost of the insurance to Walmart, putting the employees in a WORSE situation. No company desires to piss off their employees.
Was that in the article? Or are you just projecting that based upon a tiny purely voluntary wage increase on the part of Walmart?
That doesn't seem logical to me. If I were an employer who was planning on not needing as many employees in the future, the last thing I would do is to increase their pay rates. It would make much more sense to have a pay freeze.
So now explain to me why Walmart would voluntarily increase it's pay rate, unless it needed workers?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?