Posted on 04/14/2017 4:58:53 AM PDT by IBD editorial writer
Wages: It's tax season, which means that union groups are once again out in force claiming that because Wal-Mart (WMT) doesn't pay its workers enough, taxpayers are forced to make up the difference. This is, to put it politely, pure poppycock.
The latest to make this claim is Lonnie Sheppard of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, who says that "every American taxpayer is paying a tax they never heard of: the Wal-Mart Tax."
"What is the Wal-Mart Tax?" Sheppard asks. Wal-Mart pays so little that "thousands of Wal-Mart employees are forced to rely on public assistance programs like food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing. Programs funded by American taxpayers."
Sheppard goes on to write that "According to a 2014 report by Americans for Tax Fairness, Wal-Mart receives an estimated $6.2 billion in subsidies every year, primarily from the Federal Government." If Wal-Mart would only pay its workers more, the argument goes, taxpayers would save all this money.
USA Today's editors apparently didn't bother to look into that ATF report before publishing this piece, so we did. The ATF — a coalition of union and liberal advocacy groups — based its findings on a 2013 report written by Democrats on the House Education and the Workforce Committee. In other words, none of these sources is objective by any means.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Actually, if the minimum wage were set correctly, it could be the solution.
My proposal is to set the minimum wage at $0.00, then any other wage paid would be MORE than the minimum. Now, if a potential employer wants to take on a new employee with minimal skills and no other work experience, it may be of benefit to all to simply pay the new intern a stipend in exchange for hours worked, to establish a work ethic and reward for effort. Once the intern has established capabilities that are of benefit to the employer, then a wage geared to the actual degree of productivity the employee brings to the employer is both earned and simply good business for all parties involved. That way, real wages with a basis in reality find their way into the fabric of society, and the rewards for initiative and due diligence are there for all to see. Wages set in this manner are non-inflationary and contribute to a rising economic level for everybody. Equality? No. But it is much more equitable, and comes to be regarded as much more fair by all.
The 40 hour work week at a lot of places went out the window when Obamacare passed.
Which firms up the government standard two-income household, which liberates the offspring from parental influence and delivers them to government indoctrination centers.
I’ve heard it plenty. This article does little to refute it.
I have way less problem with a helpful subsidy to working people who are incapable of earning a middle-class wage than I have with those who decline to work and get a full ride from the rest of us! You know, the babymamas, hoodrats, methheads, etc.
IIUC, Walmart promotes from within, and those who work honestly and improve their abilities don’t stay at minimum wage for long.
The same is true at other retail stores. So, what I did (at a different store) is offer as much flexibility as possible so that the bosses scheduled me 25-29 hours every week. Plus, whenever other employees called out, the bosses would call me, and I'd go right in. Eventually my work hours were 30-38 hours per week.
Still not enough $$$ to live on, but almost everyone there was working 2-3 jobs. Some earned much more money at their other job(s). And, a few were working just to work - they didn't even need money. When you see someone working in retail, it doesn't mean they're broke. Especially seniors, some of whom just enjoy working all day long, believe it or not.
When my grandfather retired & he & my grandmother moved to Florida he got a job at Public as a grocery bagger. He did not need the money, but he loved & missed his old routine of getting up, dressing nicely & interacting w/ people. He loved talking to people as he bagged & took their groceries to their car. He loved people & gardening.
Publix grocery store
I got it: Kill the illegal\crony Capitalism\welfare schemes as well as the conflict-interest of govt employer\payor vs. union ‘negotiations’ and contracts.
Sink or swim on your own merit and abilities. They should all get behind THAT idea, no? /s
Maybe, pay based on performance? /2x-s
Not every job is intended to support a family.
When I was a teenager it was rare to see an adult working at McDonalds who was not a manager. Occasionally they would hire someone in their 20’s or 30’s, but everyone knew that they were only on the grill until a spot opened up in management.
Most cashier jobs in grocery stores were teenagers as well. Girls ran the registers, boys bagged the groceries or were stock boys. Adults were the managers.
I don’t know if the job market has changed, or the level of education has changed - probably both - but adults are now filling positions that were below them 40 years ago.
Because of this unnatural situation, low skill jobs are now under artificial (as opposed to market) pressure to pay a “living” wage. The job hasn’t changed, just the expectation of compensation.
Worse, it trickles down to the youth. I hire part time young people who hear talk of $15 minimum wages in other parts of the country and they feel justified in expecting $11 - $12 an hour to fold t-shirts! After all, I “should” be paying them $15 an hour!
It is going to take an economic upheaval or cataclysmic proportions to set this ship right again.
In this area, I would estimate that more than 50% of retail employees speak English as a second language.
In other words, they are LEGAL immigrants (all major stores use E-Verify).
The Democrat Party, and a majority of the Republican Party, enthusiastically support massive LEGAL immigration.
The Law of Supply and Demand:
When you massively increase the number of low skill, low education workers, wages go down, and government subsidies go up.
Re: “My proposal is to set the minimum wage at $0.00...”
Great idea.
Unless you happen to live in a country that legally imports 1.5 million low skill, low education foreign workers - EVERY year.
:-) Same as what one coworker told me. Essentially, he quit retirement. He said retirement was bad for his health, so he took min. wage jobs just to keep working.
Re: “It is going to take an economic upheaval of cataclysmic proportions to set this ship right again.”
More likely, it will just take better robots, better software, and universal high speed, high definition Internet connections.
And more government subsidies for the billions of people who lack the intellect or the passion to adapt.
I saw a study that said WalMart could raise wages 50% and the retail price on goods would only go up 1%.
Raising wages for retail workers hardly changes the dynamic. the retail price would hardly go up at all.
Lets say the average employee makes $10.00/hr. That comes out to annual cost of $46B. Lets give every employees a 50% raise! so now annual cost is $69B, a $23B increase in labor costs.
So compared to gross revenues how does that $23B stack up?
$23B/$469B = 5%. So I am not advocating a 50% increase in salary only showing that 50% increase across the board salary increase would cause a one time 5% increase in the retail price. This is not earth shattering.
you ignore that gross revenue and net revenue - profit - have a relationship but are not the same thing
current walmart profits - money it can keep after it spends all it has to spend - amounts to under 3 cents on each dollar of revenue
the profit question is not what an additional cost does to cutting from gross revenue, or even as a % of gross revenue, but what is the impact on net revenue - it could get even further down on the pennies per dollar of gross revenue
if it was all across the board (which it may not be), it would be asking Walmart to take a 5% hit on its profits
but you suggest what might be even worse, for the company, in terms of its long term competitiveness and staying in business - a five % increase in its prices
that will not increase gross revenue by 5%, it could even cost a hit in gross revenue, as Walmart would lose some sales on items where the margins in both prices and profits is already slim
the problem is not walmart, the study defining it as intentionally paying so little so its employees will get government subsidies is a bogus study
Or, you could shop at Target or Macy's and "Look For the Union Label"!
IBD is also an actual newspaper!
≡≡8-O
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.