I agree completely.
I was on another forum that was trashing Lee Scott, the former CEO of Walmart and the Walton family, for their GREED and the money they made.
In Lee Scott's final year with Walmart he made $27 Million.
There are 2 million Walmart employees. If divided up amongst all Wamart employees, that would be $1.35 each. Not enough to make the slightest scratch of an impact on an employees life.
The Walton family owns 48% of Walmart stock. Walmarts profits were $16 Billion (at a 3.25% ROI [nothing stellar])
I figured Walmart has about 3 Billion man hours worked in a year. That means a little more than $2.50 an hour, if one were to deny the Walton family from making any profit.
In the BIG picture, not everybody's lives can be substantially impacted by Walmart paying more money.
A person starting out and willing to stick with Walmart and willing to work, can move along in Walmart, eventually making an OK to very good income.
BUT the AVERAGE person working at Walmart has no skills, beyond what they are using at Walmart. Skills which could make them more money somewhere else, doing something else. Its not Walmarts fault that these people don't have any skills. Walmart will take someone with no skills, and if the person is willing to work and apply themselves, Walmart will train them with a skill set that can be applied at Walmart and used for further advancement.
The thing I have a problem with is the way the Left/Liberals/Democrats keep slamming CEO’s for their “excessive” compensation. Those LLD’s do not know or understand what or how a business is operated. CEO’s salary is based on performance. If what the CEO does brings in business thus enhancing their corporate profit (dirty word there) that goes to pay investors >after< all business expenses have been paid. If an insurance agent is paid per insurance sign up and gets paid a percentage of the premium then why not a CEO getting a percentage of the business he or she brings in?