[woodbeez]

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.

Of course employee costs are not 100% of retail prices. We are not talking about reducing costs by 100%

Gross employee costs are part of the 20% cost savings. Check out Wal-Mart's income statement to see what they would save by not paying income tax.

[Your Nightmare]

Gross employee costs are part of the 20% cost savings. Check out Wal-Mart's income statement to see what they would save by not paying income tax.

$5.5 billion from $288 billion in revenue. So income taxes were less than 2% of their revenue.

[lewislynn]

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

Gross employee costs are part of the 20% cost savings

If you want me to understand what you're trying to convey then use words properly. "Gross" means exclusive of deductions,total. "Gross employee costs" to the employer would have to include ALL the wages including any benefits.

So in order for a 20% wage reduction to become a 20% price reduction the wage would have to be 100% of the price...It's grade school math and simple logic.