[woodbeez]

You're mixing employee costs with price reductions, they aren't directly related. The controversial possible 20% price reduction isn't entirely from the backs of labor.

Reduced expenses aren't related to increased profits? I also don't see how 20% is so controversial when the employer sees a 15% reduction in FICA costs alone in gross employee cost.

[Always Right]

Reduced expenses aren't related to increased profits? I also don't see how 20% is so controversial when the employer sees a 15% reduction in FICA costs alone in gross employee cost.

Employer onlys see 1/2 of 7.65% savings in payroll. And labor is only one component of total cost. It is a large on though.

[lewislynn]

I also don't see how 20% is so controversial when the employer sees a 15% reduction in FICA costs alone in gross employee cost.

I guess if "gross employee cost" is 100% of retail prices that could be true.

The controversy is the 20% price reduction and what has to be eliminated to achieve it...giving up wages is only part of it.

Do you think if employee's at Walmart took a 20% wage cut that the prices could also be reduced 20%?

[balrog666]

Reduced expenses aren't related to increased profits? I also don't see how 20% is so controversial when the employer sees a 15% reduction in FICA costs alone in gross employee cost.

Never studied economics, eh? Oh, well, the employer collects those FICA taxes out of employee's compensation before passing them on to the feds. The employees pay those taxes, they always have, they always will.