Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?[W:1258]

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Income taxes aren't.

Companies strive to produce as much profit, regardless of what the corporate income tax rate is. If we were to eliminate the corporate income tax today, do you REALLY believe that any companies would say "hey, now we don't need to charge our customers as much, so let's lower our prices so that we don't make so much money"?

Each individual company aims to set it's prices at the profit maximizing rate. Corporate income taxes are never considered because corporate income taxes are based on profits, not on the volume of sales. The more profit a company makes, the more it will pay in income taxes, so by your logic, if a company desired to pay less in taxes, it would strive to make a lower profit. Now does that even make any sense? Have you ever heard of a corporation that desires to max a lower profit?

Reality is that the more corporate income tax a company pays (assuming no change in rates or loopholes), the more net profit, even AFTER corporate income tax that it has, so companies will NEVER strive to make a lower profit, or to price their goods and services below or above the profit maximizing amount.

And consumers really don't give a rat's arse about how much profit a corporation makes. All they know is that they want the lowest price that they can find for whatever product that they are purchasing. If Corp A and Corp B priced their goods identically, yet Corp A had a X% "corporate income tax upcharge" attached to their products because they are a very profitible company, I would tell Corp A to go screw itself and purchase from Corp B.

I don't know any other way to explain this. If you can't understand it, then I guess you will continue having to be a C- student in pricing theory.

Yes. I can only charge as much as a customer will pay, which is greatly limited by what my competitors charge. My (alleged) great skills and quality work alone do not set the price - the market does. Sure, I may charge a bit more than average (since I do good work and have excellent references) but not an unlimited amount more.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Hey, Look, Romney's Not Deducting His Horse As A Business Expense Anymore


I never alluded to the fact that it was any particular person's fault.

If what you say is true I'm ready to see this economy take off any day. How long did we witness Bush's tax cuts in place throughout the years now and America is still poor on jobs? :werd

I'll put this post down as also non sequitur and non responsive to anything I said. Maybe it relates to something somebody else said. But Wal-mart and/or the fortunes of the rich have zero to do with Bush tax cuts or anything else you are referring to other than the pretty good economy those tax cuts generated at the time that benefitted pretty much everybody.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Thank God you cleared that up.

Obviously, Clinton is not a progressive, so us moderates and independents can feel free to vote for her.

Actually she is a full blown socialist......that is except when it comes to her own pocket.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Yes. I can only charge as much as a customer will pay, which is greatly limited by what my competitors charge. My (alleged) great skills and quality work alone do not set the price - the market does. Sure, I may charge a bit more than average (since I do good work and have excellent references) but not an unlimited amount more.

This is what the statist-big-government-should-order-what-society-should-be people simply can't seem to get through their heads. What does it profit if you pay your employees a wonderful living wage with all the perks and benefits and they build a monument in your honor because you are such a virtuous and noble guy. . . .

. . . .but your business goes belly up because all your customers go to your less noble competitor who is charging the going rates for his services. . . .

And voila, all your employees are then out of work entirely?

They cannot seem to understand that we all pay the wages we have to pay to get people to work for us, but if we pay much more than the prevailing wage, our businesses will not be able to sustain it. And if the government should require ALL in our line of work to increase the amount we pay our employees, it would still have considerable negative effect--we would have to shorten hours or short our customers on quality. And a lot more of our customers would stop using our services and do the work themselves.

I have my carpets professionally cleaned because I will pay a certain amount not to have to do that myself. But if they make it too costly, I'll be doing it myself.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

If what you say is true I'm ready to see this economy take off any day. How long did we witness Bush's tax cuts in place throughout the years now and America is still poor on jobs? :werd

Don't hold your breath. You won't see the economy "take off" any day soon as long as the liberals are in control.

btw, Bush's tax cuts got out economy out of a recession in very short order. That's something the liberals won't ever do...to the detriment of our country.

So it goes...

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

This is what the statist-big-government-should-order-what-society-should-be people simply can't seem to get through their heads. What does it profit if you pay your employees a wonderful living wage with all the perks and benefits and they build a monument in your honor because you are such a virtuous and noble guy. . . .

. . . .but your business goes belly up because all your customers go to your less noble competitor who is charging the going rates for his services. . . .

And voila, all your employees are then out of work entirely?

They cannot seem to understand that we all pay the wages we have to pay to get people to work for us, but if we pay much more than the prevailing wage, our businesses will not be able to sustain it. And if the government should require ALL in our line of work to increase the amount we pay our employees, it would still have considerable negative effect--we would have to shorten hours or short our customers on quality. And a lot more of our customers would stop using our services and do the work themselves.

I have my carpets professionally cleaned because I will pay a certain amount not to have to do that myself. But if they make it too costly, I'll be doing it myself.

The bolded above invalidates that argument - the left wants EVERY EMPLOYER to pay more to EVERYBODY (except "the rich') so nobody gets hurt and "everybody" gets richer. In the land of unicorns and rainbows this has no down side at all; in reality it screws those on fixed incomes since they don't get the "everybody" raise they just get to pay more for all goods and services.

The left will then fix that too; by taking away even more (via taxation) from "the rich" to redistribute that via entitlement COLAs to those on fixed incomes. What the end game really is in this leftist, social justice and income equality scheme is to make "the rich" disappear. The one thing that they cannot explain is when "the rich" are gone then who pays all of the taxes to support the massive entitlements that everyone depends on?

 

[Bob N]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Don't hold your breath. You won't see the economy "take off" any day soon as long as the liberals are in control.

btw, Bush's tax cuts got out economy out of a recession in very short order. That's something the liberals won't ever do...to the detriment of our country.

So it goes...

:roll: Bush Administration

George Walker Bush was the 43rd President, serving from 2001-2009. His Administration had its hands full. First, there were two recessions, the second being the worst since the Great Depression. Second, was the most damaging hurricane in U.S. history. Third, the Administration faced the first attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor. In response, it launched the War on Terror, funding two wars at the same time. As a result, President Bush added $6 trillion to the U.S. debt -- more than anyone else in history. For comparison,

 

[Bob N]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

I'll put this post down as also non sequitur and non responsive to anything I said. Maybe it relates to something somebody else said. But Wal-mart and/or the fortunes of the rich have zero to do with Bush tax cuts or anything else you are referring to other than the pretty good economy those tax cuts generated at the time that benefitted pretty much everybody.

If nothing else you did ask about the horse. True, huh.

 

[imagep]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

This is what the statist-big-government-should-order-what-society-should-be people simply can't seem to get through their heads. What does it profit if you pay your employees a wonderful living wage with all the perks and benefits and they build a monument in your honor because you are such a virtuous and noble guy. . . .

. . . .but your business goes belly up because all your customers go to your less noble competitor who is charging the going rates for his services. . . .

Which explains the need for a mandated minimum wage. It creates a more level playing field for all competitors in any particular industry.

And voila, all your employees are then out of work entirely?

No, they go to work for the competition because the competition has increased it's market share and needs more employees.

They cannot seem to understand that we all pay the wages we have to pay to get people to work for us, but if we pay much more than the prevailing wage, our businesses will not be able to sustain it. And if the government should require ALL in our line of work to increase the amount we pay our employees, it would still have considerable negative effect--we would have to shorten hours or short our customers on quality. And a lot more of our customers would stop using our services and do the work themselves.

I have my carpets professionally cleaned because I will pay a certain amount not to have to do that myself. But if they make it too costly, I'll be doing it myself.

So how much is too costly? How much do you pay now, and how long would it take you to do it yourself?

If you currently pay $250 for something that you could do yourself in 2.5 hrs, you are already paying $100/hr. Now let's say that the wages of the workers cleaning your carpets went from $8/hr to $12/hr, and the carpet cleaning company passed that cost on to you, increasing their price by $10. So you are now paying $104/hr, is that really going to make a difference?

By the way, I clean my carpets myself, but that's because I want a good job done. I've never really been happy with the job that professional carpet cleaners do, and I don't like having random people in my house moving my stuff around. I also enjoy the $100 an hour that I make by cleaning my own carpet.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

The bolded above invalidates that argument - the left wants EVERY EMPLOYER to pay more to EVERYBODY (except "the rich') so nobody gets hurt and "everybody" gets richer. In the land of unicorns and rainbows this has no down side at all; in reality it screws those on fixed incomes since they don't get the "everybody" raise they just get to pay more for all goods and services.

The left will then fix that too; by taking away even more (via taxation) from "the rich" to redistribute that via entitlement COLAs to those on fixed incomes. What the end game really is in this leftist, social justice and income equality scheme is to make "the rich" disappear. The one thing that they cannot explain is when "the rich" are gone then who pays all of the taxes to support the massive entitlements that everyone depends on?

While I can't argue that your take on it is off base or unrealistic--it isn't if you look below the surface very far--I was trying to keep the train on the track here. This thread targets Wal-mart for special criticism. But it is the same warped understanding of both justice and elementary economics that makes them really believe that if Wal-mart would just pay more, then the problem goes away. They have absolutely no concept whatsoever how the value of labor is estabished and they seem to be totally uneducated in how one market factor affects the others.

 

[imagep]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Actually she is a full blown socialist......that is except when it comes to her own pocket.

That's interesting. I wasn't aware of that.

Do you have any links that indicate she believes that the government should own all companies and be the only employer? I seemed to have missed that part somehow.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

While I can't argue that your take on it is off base or unrealistic--it isn't if you look below the surface very far--I was trying to keep the train on the track here. This thread targets Wal-mart for special criticism. But it is the same warped understanding of both justice and elementary economics that makes them really believe that if Wal-mart would just pay more, then the problem goes away. They have absolutely no concept whatsoever how the value of labor is estabished and they seem to be totally uneducated in how one market factor affects the others.

I don't think that is so. I think that Walmart represents corporate America (any employer) and the idea that gov't can fix them (make the "bosses" earn less and pay "workers" more) by some goofy MW mandate scheme. Very few have advocated exempting any mom and pop McFranchise owners from their desire for "fairness".

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

If nothing else you did ask about the horse. True, huh.

No I didn't. You brought up the horse and I said that anybody could take the same deduction under the same circumstances. And you totally ignored it and went with a non sequitur and non responsive post. Don't feel bad. Most folks from the leftist/liberal/progressive/statist/political class do that when they have no argument for somebody's statement of fact. So you have lots of company.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

:roll: Bush Administration

Guess what! it only took Obama 4 years to spend six trillion.

 

[ludin]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

No, that doesn't happen because people are at the bottom and they need to move up. While that has always been true, the wages on any level should have moved up as the cost of living has moved up. That did happen for some, but not for the lowest quintile. Once upon a time they did not automatically work full time hours for poverty level wages. They made enough to save for other things including young kids to save up for a secondary education. That would not happen with today's meager earnings and the cost of college, never mind those just trying to make ends meet. If the wages had kept up, we wouldn't have so many working people living in near poverty conditions collecting state funded welfare to keep them from hitting poverty.

Right because it was never suppose to increase with inflation.

The purpose of minimum wage was to provide a bottom floor for the lowest skilled work possible. You work a minimum wage job. you learn some skills you then apply to a better job with the skills that you learned.

in todays age you need some kind of additional training or college to apply for those jobs unless you have just been doing it so long that it doesn't matter.

there is only 2% of the working population most of which are under the age fo 25 that is making minimum wage.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

:roll: Bush Administration

So what?

Your quote says nothing about the effects of the Bush tax cuts. That is, after all, what you were talking about wasn't it?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Which explains the need for a mandated minimum wage. It creates a more level playing field for all competitors in any particular industry.

No, they go to work for the competition because the competition has increased it's market share and needs more employees.

So how much is too costly? How much do you pay now, and how long would it take you to do it yourself?

If you currently pay $250 for something that you could do yourself in 2.5 hrs, you are already paying $100/hr. Now let's say that the wages of the workers cleaning your carpets went from $8/hr to $12/hr, and the carpet cleaning company passed that cost on to you, increasing their price by $10. So you are now paying $104/hr, is that really going to make a difference?

By the way, I clean my carpets myself, but that's because I want a good job done. I've never really been happy with the job that professional carpet cleaners do, and I don't like having random people in my house moving my stuff around. I also enjoy the $100 an hour that I make by cleaning my own carpet.

I pay to have my carpets cleaned because I HATE doing the job myself. BUT. . . .again. . . .make the price too high and I will clean my own carpets.

I suggest that some here should take a high school course in general economics. You don't even need a college 100 level course to get what every student should be getting in high school as part of the core curriculum, but apparently it isn't being taught much any more, if at all.

There is a maximum optimum price for any product or service. It will be based on a) what people are able or willing to pay--put the price above that level and they will not buy it no matter how much they need or want it--

And b) the most that the seller can charge that will generate the optimum amount of customers for the product. Charge more and some will continue to buy it, but if enough choose to not pay the higher price, the overall profit from the product will fall. The seller can take a lower profit for each sale if more people buy it. So he shoots for that optimum price that is attractive to the most customers and provides a profit above his costs/expenses to produces the maximum profit for his product or service.

When the economy is in recession or stagnated as it is now, with an unacceptably large number of people out of work, there aren't as many customers for most products and services and therefore the profit margins are lower. That, and a large labor force looking for work, will inevitably drive down wages. But promote and achieve a booming economy, and full employment, now it is a seller's market for that labor and the person willing to work has much more leverage to negotiate a higher wage. But the employer can afford that higher wage to get good people because there is much more money floating in the economy and he has many more customers than he had during the recession or stagnant period.

A government mandated wage takes none of that into consideration. It skews the natural way a free market works with the results that a lot of things are thrown out of kilter in a harmful way. Such is nothing more than social engineering that will almost always have more unintended negative consequences than any benefits that are achieved.

 

[jimbo]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

The only reply I have to you on this is you should remember to place your ending quote tags in correctly (

) because I almost missed your reply to me. eace[/QUOTE]

I agree with you. I just installed 8.1, and quite a few things no longer work on this site. I'm trying to fix it.

 

[jimbo]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

) because I almost missed your reply to me. eace

I agree with you. I just installed 8.1, and quite a few things no longer work on this site. I'm trying to fix it.[/QUOTE]

Damn, happened again.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

I don't think that is so. I think that Walmart represents corporate America (any employer) and the idea that gov't can fix them (make the "bosses" earn less and pay "workers" more) by some goofy MW mandate scheme. Very few have advocated exempting any mom and pop McFranchise owners from their desire for "fairness".

Maybe you don't think so, but I read the thread title. It singled out Wal-mart. But maybe it was symbolic. There was nothing in the OP to suggest that, but who knows what anybody intends with the unspoken, unwritten word? But I resent people reading into my posts what I didn't say, and I try really hard not to do that to others. So my focus on this thread is whether the government should force Wal-mart to pay its people more, and if it does, what would be accomplished.

Otherwise I think we're probably on the same page.

 

[imagep]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

There is a maximum optimum price for any product or service. It will be based on a) what people are able to pay--put the price above that level and they will not buy it no matter how much they need or want it--.

You failed to answer the question that I asked. Is a price hike of 4% going to exceed what you are willing to pay to get your carpets cleaned?

And if so, and you decide to do it yourself, then what are you going to do with the money that you saved? Burn it, spend it, or invest it? If you spend it, then you will have simply transfered demand from one product to another, so there will be no net loss of jobs. If you invest it, then you might actually create a new job. Surely you aren't going to burn it are you?

Oh, but nice economic lecture. It wasn't entirely applicable to my question, and it was far from complete, but still overall, it was nice. I'm quite fond of giving those types of lectures also - just on a little higher level.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Maybe you don't think so, but I read the thread title. It singled out Wal-mart. But maybe it was symbolic. There was nothing in the OP to suggest that, but who knows what anybody intends with the unspoken, unwritten word? But I resent people reading into my posts what I didn't say, and I try really hard not to do that to others. So my focus on this thread is whether the government should force Wal-mart to pay its people more, and if it does, what would be accomplished.

Otherwise I think we're probably on the same page.

The OP states a hatred for those that oppose a MW increase and support "companies like Walmart". More typical liberal nonsense from JDH.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

You failed to answer the question that I asked. Is a price hike of 4% going to exceed what you are willing to pay to get your carpets cleaned?

And if so, and you decide to do it yourself, then what are you going to do with the money that you saved? Burn it, spend it, or invest it? If you spend it, then you will have simply transfered demand from one product to another, so there will be no net loss of jobs. If you invest it, then you might actually create a new job. Surely you aren't going to burn it are you?

Oh, but nice economic lecture. It wasn't entirely applicable to my question, and it was far from complete, but still overall, it was nice. I'm quite fond of giving those types of lectures also - just on a little higher level.

Oh I can give the higher level lectures too. But when you have folks who can't seem to understand the most basic concepts of economics, it seems more practical to put things in more basic and simple terms.

But now about that 4% higher price assuming that's what the increase will be in carpet cleaning. The first thing I do is look to see who is offering a lower price, and if they have any kind of good customer satisfaction rating they will probably get my business over the guy who is hiking the price on me. But if the price increase is pretty much across the board in the industry, then I have to decide whether it is worth it to continue to hire the service or whether it is time to invest the money in my own equipment and do the work myself. If times are good and I have money to spare, the 4% probably wouldn't be that tough a pill to swallow. But if the budget is tight leaving little room for 'luxuries', it might be.

The money that I save doing it myself will be first offset by that equipment so it will probably be a year or two before I would realize any savings. But it would also put money back into the economy, so for the overall economy the money itself would be pretty much a wash. If I rented the equipment, I could probably enjoy some savings immediately. Whether it would be all extra money in my pocket, however, would depend on whether I could have used that time and energy more productively in other ways. But if I choose to spend whatever savings I generated, the net benefit to the overall economy will be pretty much the same. I will have traded my labor and energy for something else that I might or might not enjoy as much as having my carpets cleaned by somebody else.

Oh, and I edited my 'economic lecture' post a bit. It came across much more personally directed than I intended so I fixed that. Sorry about that.

 

[imagep]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Oh I can give the higher level lectures too. But when you have folks who can't seem to understand the most basic concepts of economics, it seems more practical to put things in more basic and simple terms.

But now about that 4% higher price assuming that's what the increase will be in carpet cleaning. The first thing I do is look to see who is offering a lower price, and if they have any kind of good customer satisfaction rating they will probably get my business over the guy who is hiking the price on me. But if the price increase is pretty much across the board in the industry, then I have to decide whether it is worth it to continue to hire the service or whether it is time to invest the money in my own equipment and do the work myself. If times are good and I have money to spare, the 4% probably wouldn't be that tough a pill to swallow. But if the budget is tight leaving little room for 'luxuries', it might be.

The money that I save doing it myself will be first offset by that equipment so it will probably be a year or two before I would realize any savings. But it would also put money back into the economy, so for the overall economy the money itself would be pretty much a wash. If I rented the equipment, I could probably enjoy some savings immediately. Whether it would be all extra money in my pocket, however, would depend on whether I could have used that time and energy more productively in other ways. But if I choose to spend whatever savings I generated, the net benefit to the overall economy will be pretty much the same. I will have traded my labor and energy for something else that I might or might not enjoy as much as having my carpets cleaned by somebody else.

Oh, and I edited my 'economic lecture' post a bit. It came across much more personally directed than I intended so I fixed that. Sorry about that.

You can buy a decent carpet cleaner for less than $200 bucks these days. The cleaning fluid is $8 a gallon at Sams and it works great. You would likely get your money back after just one cleaning.

Now me, I pay to get my yard work done. I just can't stand doing it. Fortunately, I am able to swap out the products that I produce for the cost of the yard work, so it's more of a time exchange than anything else.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Then make the MW $25/hr and enjoy the economic boom. Just try it at the local level first to prove your point.

You have to raise the floor within reason. I gave you a reasonable level.