Wal-Mart calls for minimum wage hike

CNN/Money ^ | 10/25/5

[Crackingham]

Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott said he's urging Congress to consider raising the minimum wage so that Wal-Mart customers don't have to struggle paycheck to paycheck. Scott told Wal-Mart directors and executives in a speech Monday that he believes "it is time for Congress to take a look at the minimum wage and other legislation that can help working families."

"The U.S. minimum wage of $5.15 an hour has not been raised in nearly a decade and we believe it is out of date with the times," Scott said. "We can see first-hand at Wal-Mart how many of our customers are struggling to get by. Our customers simply don't have the money to buy basic necessities between pay checks."

Given increasing gas prices and other economic pressures on Wal-Mart customers, Scott went on to say that Wal-Mart shoppers will further be challenged to "support themselves and their families."

"While it is unusual for us to take a public position on a public policy issue of this kind, we simply believe it is time for Congress to take a responsible look at the minimum wage and other legislation that may help working families," he said.

Tracy Sefl, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart Watch, a group that's been highly critical of the retailer, said Scott's comments on raising minimum wage were "laughable and out of left field."

"I find it disingenuous and laughable that Lee Scott makes these remarks while the company hires lobbyist such as Lee Culpepper who oppose raising the minimum wage," Sefl said.

"We would be the first to applaud real change. But when a comment on raising minimum wage is dashed off and it flies in the face of Wal-Mart's own corporate stance, that's laughable," she added.

[spinestein]

[So how do you react then to a situation where one nation is large enough and their government totalitarian power over its people is sufficient to game the free market, so as to coerce away (playing unprotected Western companies against each other) all the "comparative advantages" the West has...all by "peaceful" competition.]

One very popular reaction to this type of situation is to punish the offending nation by imposing specific retaliatory tariffs, sanctions, restrictions or trade prohibitions on them in an attempt to use economic pressure to stop them from "gaming" the free market.

I can only say that many of today's economists (in the mold of Friedman, Hayek, and others) believe from the evidence of the history of trade, that this reaction doesn't work since both countries then try to one-up each other in competing economic retaliation schemes to the increasing detriment of both sides. The only way out of this is through negotiation in good faith, where each country must trust in the continued future good behavior of the other.


Of course, this is illustrative of one of the major differences between the beliefs of the two major camps of economic thought in the world today. On the one side there are the "supply siders" (such as myself) who support this argument, and then there are the Keynesian (or "aggregate demand side" economists who would argue against this on the grounds that economic protectionism is an overall long term benefit.

[Paul Ross]

Well, it sounds like, at least at the theoretical level, we have much more in agreement than disagreement.

I guess I am just more dubious about the success of diplomacy. Particularly whereas the Chi-Comms have already successfully intruded themselves into our own hemisphere...and obtained allies with not merely Cuba, but Venezuela and Brazil... and have their bases in the Bahamas and at both ends of the Panama Canal. So much for the Monroe Doctrine.

Diplomacy is essential still, but is by no means sufficient, nor effective without the tools of retaliation.

This was the force that Reagan brought to bear on the "allies" who were intemperately "sharing" U.S. technology with the Soviets which they didn't have the right to...they were threatened with a complete cut-off of all such licensing rights and trade with the U.S. market.

[spinestein]

I suspect that's another area where we are in agreement: the idea that there is a need to retaliate against the governments of totalitarian countries. While I don't think that economic retaliation is effective, I support the tactic of using other means to try to force out dictators, including banning technology sales which could be used to create weapons, and even (where prudent) to support the overthrow of that government in favor of one which is accountable to the citizens of that country, and which would be more inclined to engage in free trade with other democratic nations.

[american_knight]

Very good analysis. I work at Wal-mart, and what you say about everyone wanting a wag hike is absolutely right. We recently got pay raises based on our job functions to make it more fair according to other retailers. And you should have heard all the complaints from those who didn't get what they thought they should. Be happy.. we got a raise! BTW I found out that our starting wage is 6.30 an hour and if you are a cashier it is 6.70 an hour. and you will get a .40 or .55 cent raise after 90 day eval. Taking you over 7.00 an hour as a cashier. More than most other employers around here. Although I wish I made more.....don't we all.

[Tarpon]

Minimum wage of $30 an hour is fine with me. Anyone want to raise me?

[american_knight]

Walmart did give us a wage increase this year and gives us a .40 or .55 cent pay increase at eval every year. Do I think it is enough...of course not. But I know that if we make too much prices will go up. And then no one will win. Get your facts straight before you spout off.