Walmart and McDonald's can afford $15/hour...most small businesses can't. If $15/hour became law, the big corporations would swallow up what's left of the mom-and-pop businesses...
Past research on how business costs rise with minimum wage hikes indicates that a 100-percent minimum wage hike can be expected to produce a cost increase for the average business of less than one percent of their sales revenue. This cost figure includes three components. First, mandated raises: the raises employers must give their workers to meet the new wage floor. Second, “ripple-effect” raises: the raises employers give some workers to put their pay rates a bit above the new minimum in order to preserve the same wage hierarchy before and after minimum wage hike. And third, the higher payroll taxes employers must pay on their now-larger wage bill. If the average businesses wanted to completely cover the cost increase from a 100-percent minimum wage hike through higher prices, they would need to raise their prices by less than 1 percent.
But then who wants to work for small businesses? You create more barriers to entry and now you will have the large corporations the left hates so much. They will be even more powerful than before will no competition at the local level at all. Minimum wage laws like that are what's horrendous.
would you be happier if they fired the people???Work is only worth so much and it has nothing to do with your circumstances.. As wages go up jobs are eliminates & hours are cut....
Work is a value assessment, this value assessment is made multiple times a year ( per financial quarter). If a business such as Wall Mart operates under a scarcity model, it is harmful to everyone who integrates with it; customers, workers, producers, etc. If they are destroyed slowly over time, real businesses (like CosCo) will take their place amidst a sustainable economic model that isnt parasitic towards the system it operates in.
Walmart will automate soon.. Just like everyone else. My mom lost her job to a kiosk. A buddy lost his bartending job to a robot. So find solace in the fact that soon, walmart wont have any employees...
Let me get your math right. Walmart would have to spend 4800 Million dollars (yes, 4.3 B) extra to save just 300 Million dollars in foodstamps? Trading 4300 in expense for a 300 savings doesn't add up.
He said that the whole company's employees take 13B in tax dollars and then said it would only need to take 4.3B to raise wages. Therefore, 8+B is theoretically transferring from taxes to Walmart bottom-line because they don't raise wages.
remember food stamps paid with our tax money. Wal-mart is a private business its expenses are its own. They'll try to pass the cost to us or cut employee hours.
J. Webb you need to watch the video again.... $13B from the entire us population.... assuming Ohio was representative 15% of all walmart employees make up on $300M of those dollars... it would cost walmart $4.3 BILLION a year to save tax payers $300 MILLION... which is less than $1 per person per year in the US... VS the quick math I just did for my family personally for at walmart where that extra 1.4% mark up would be (roughly) $1008.00 a year. I'd rather pay the extra $4 to the government to cover the 4 people on my household helping out with their food stamps.
Yea, "economony" is just pseudo-science and can be ignored. When will the workers overthrow the capitalists so that Everyone can be rich and have food enough for everyone? Damn companies, they are all so evil, if just Wallmart was collectily owned by the workers!
And when it does we mount a coup so that it doesn't work out and if that doesn't work lets stop trade so that it doesn't work out and if that doesn't work lets bomb them so it doesn't work out.
Social security is rate is 12.4% of pay, employer pays half and employee pays half - this was not included in these calculations, if you don't know how to or don't want to include all of the facts the whole argument is suspect. Misleading information is worse than no information and does nothing to solve problems, it does however, help create a lot of animosity.
Correct. It also fails to account for income tax, which is usually paid the same way (half paid by employer, half by employee). This video is riddled with fuzzy math and misleading figures.
That's because the employers who don't want to pay more encourage this belief. They say stuff like, "If we raise pay 50%, we'll have to raise prices 50%," which is ridiculous if you understand math, but they count on the fact that most working class Americans don't.
No great fan of WalMart here, but... Know what happens when you make just above the Food Stamps level? You actually make less than you did when you qualified for Food Stamps. There's a narrow margin many people fall in where if they make just under the Food Stamps amount, the extra boost from Food Stamps supplements them enough to live at a normal lower-class level. If their employer raises their wages by just a dollar, that could bring them over the Food Stamps limit and ultimately cost them more out-of-pocket each month. It's the terminology in this video that's disturbing. By "not qualifying" doesn't mean you're living above the poverty level. You could "not qualify" for Food Stamps but barely make enough to feed yourself and pay rent. It's not just WalMart that has to change, but the Federal Minimum Wage that needs to change as well as a readjustment of the legal "poverty level" in the country and the programs that rely on that poverty line.
@@antonioarreola3097 prices have been going up for alot of things for many years and only recently have we seen any change to minimum. It's an invalid argument.
What needs to change is the government f*ing off and stopping draining so much on society. It's a big set of weights everyone carries around, but then thinks that their problems are caused by something else.
Maybe, hear me out on this, Walmart should pay their workers a living wage *and* welfare programs should have that perverse incentive redesigned out of them. Say, the assistance money you get is whatever is the difference between your take-home pay and the poverty line. Two things can be bad.
My sentiments exactly. I suppose their stock might go down a few pennies short term but rise longterm. Logically companies need to be held accountable for how the economy is structured instead of always taking a backseat like some self-entitled adolescent.
+Libertarianist +Libertarianist You are so smart! This video literally argued that millions of americans even the ones who doesn't shop at walmart shouldn't have to bear $300 million cost of welfare for the walmart employees so that the walton family can keep their $4.8billion dollars! That is mind bogglingly wrong!
Denise Cunning You're deliberately misunderstanding my argument. The video argues that it would cost Walmart $4.8 billion dollars to raise the wages of its employees sufficient to get them off Welfare and would pass that cost on to the consumer. That is definitively a greater cost to the general population than the $300 million dollar welfare cost. Get it? Re-read my comments and re-watch the video until you at least understand what I'm pointing out.
When walmart increases the wage, worst case scenario is they jack up the price and have the walmart shoppers bear the price not the general population. But doing so reduces their competitiveness. In the case of having low wages and low product prices with their employees relying on welfare, the general population pays through tax.
+Denise Cunning You're right, Walmart shoppers aren't the general population, just the lower income demographic. You're advocating that Walmart employees should have their income supplemented at the expense of what effectively amounts to a tax on poor people. Good job.
Imagine working for Walmart for several years, and after much hard work and dedication you've advanced to the point where your salary has risen from $8.81 to $15. Good times. Then, after they force Walmart to pay a minimum of $15, the high school kid coming in the door to work over the summer is now making the same as you...
@@spongeintheshoe I did bust my butt for several years and was barely scraping by. Then I realized that I wasn't going to get anywhere, and went back to school. I went to a 2 year tech school for programming. Sucked it up, ate ramen noodles for 2 years, graduated, and now I am very well off. Funny how that works. But if you just want the government to hand you a free ride, have at it.
@@spongeintheshoe would they though? Maybe this world would look completely different if everyone was educated. But we don't live in that world. And you know who works in Walmart in this world? Uneducated, unmotivated people. And you know what you pay someone who is uneducated and not motivated to change that? Not $15 an hour.
It really pisses me off that companies always pay the minimum wage. Yes, it's the minimum wage you're allowed to pay your employees, but that doesn't mean you HAVE to pay them that little. Walmart can easily afford to pay its employees more, and should. I'm tired of companies being so fucking greedy.
The companies are greedy for not paying more than the market (& regulations) necessitate. But employees are not greedy for wanting to be paid more than the market (& regulations) necessitate. Got it.
Frank Ch. Eigler False the market doesn't necessistate it. It exactly because of goverment that their allowed to pay so little. Without government help these people would literally start dying off and these corporations don't even pay taxes.
@@yashveer1x 1.4%....... Take your current grocery bill and add on 1.4% and tell me how that would break the bank and how you would rather have walmart's workers in poverty than pay that incredibly small sum.
yashveer1x if you can’t afford groceries maybe you should ask for a better wage I here from these financial gurus in the comments that that is an effective way to raise your wage. Lol
exactly. the video doesn't even make sense. How all the consumers pay 1.4% more on grocery will save us $300 million per year? Please do calculation on how much more consumers have to spend on buying groceries for 1.4% then?
These always contain some kind of fallacy. The fallacy here is that those 18% percent of 76,000,000,000 (13,000,000,000), right at 00:58, are assumed to be net Walmart's profits when, in fact, only a percentage of those are actual Walmart gains (the amount correlated to their mean profit margin, which is not declared in the video). This fallacy is then carried onward to issuing calculations with a straight face, if videos had such. I am not saying there wouldn't be social and even possible economic advantages in raising the minimum wage of Walmart workers. I am only saying that if you're going to support that reasoning with calculations, be honest about them.
+NimbusKhan NK Dude - you missed the point. You should be angry that Walmart gets your tax dollars because they underpay their workers such so they can get proceeds from food stamps. A living wage they could pay if they just raised the price of a box of mac and cheese. Can't you see? We're Walmart's bitch even if we don't shop there.
+mr7wi dude never tell someone who they should be angry at. this video is 2 years old and the figures listed in it are very out dated. last year Walmart increased there starting wage to $9hr and in the next few months a new higher after completing the required training will make $10hr. keep in mined that these rates are for the bottom level of employment at Walmart as you move up you will be making more money.
joshua neill Am I the only one who's pissed pissed that Walmart takes my money even if I don't shop there? Really? You're good with that? Because if you are, that's socialism. So joshua neill you're ok with them paying $20k a year and having your taxes back fill the living wage at $24k per year ($12 per hour, assuming full time employment is 2,000 per year)? I'm not: Walmart - hike your price by 1 cent on mac and cheese and fabreeze or tide or whatever else and pass on those earnings to your workers. If not, I want like my money back, thanks. I fail to understand why everybody is so in awe of these corporations getting rich off everyone else's work. Sure people may move up the pay scale - but they still start at the bottom and the cost of living doesn't go away.
+NimbusKhan NK Interesting as I provided a critique of this clip, based on actual data from Walmart's Annual Report, and I found out that his calculations were totally off beam and meaningless. I actually wrote quite a long article including economic theory and financial fundamentals, and it has been taken down. I wonder why. Just to reiterate, the data the author provides is not valid.
+joshua neill And yet its been proven time and again that $15 is whats neccessary to end corporate welfare. In 2015 48% of Americans didnt pay taxes. Trickle-down economics is the real fallacy here; and you wont agree until that 48% is 75% and theres no one left to pay taxes.
Okay, then explain why Walmart doesn't already raise their prices 1.4% and earn an extra $300 million for the owners? Oh yeah, because there's probably more repercussions than this glib video assumes.
Exactly... they only increased the prices for the employees on food stamps... what about the rest of their employee... how do you pick and choose who gets the raise... now do the math with giving every wallmart employee a raise and let's see how much the products go up then!
Why would that money go to their owners? They are saving the tax payers. If they tax payers wanted to save themselves that money, they could vote to end the stupid program.
If you are more than 30 years old and work as a cashier at Wall-Mart, the problem is with you. not with anyone else. Go finish high-school, search for a better job, open a business, don't have 5 kids if you can't afford them. Better yourself and the results will come. No one is responsible for your well-being, you shouldn't have to wait for others or the government to better your life. The only one that can really do that is you.
starting a business isn't that easy man. There are trials and errors, and not everyone is up to the task. We all need one another from customers, to people serving customers. Not everyone can see that. People complain to go make your money on your own hard work, then when they do people call them losers. So which is it? Starting a business also costs capital, and not everyone has the capital to start one.
Dreamscape Oz I am just saying better yourself, don't wait for handouts from the government. There are high schools that have programs for working parents, If you have a will, there is a way. Waiting for help from the outside is the only thing that is stooping us from bettering ourselves.
Joseph Stone You have a wrong mentality. A small business can be making something at home and selling it on the internet. There are sites like freelancer where you can work and gain knowledge at the same time. I bet you can earn more than McDonalds there and she could also stay at home and take better care of her children. There are possibilities, you just have to have the will to do better and not wait for help from the outside.
Your comments are very arrogant, you haven't thought about it for someone else's view point, if you are a cashier at 30 maybe they had an extremely shit life and you cant go on government programs as you have no time because you have kids and if you go to these programs how will you earn and look after your kids and this is just one example.
***** Umm... $0.68 * 1.014 = 0.68952 , or rounded up: $0.69 (so the increase to the mac & cheese was a bit more than 1.4% [if rounded to the 10th of a %, it would be a 1.5% increase, 100th of a percent would be 1.47%]) And judging by the profit margin the company makes on a variety of products this increase would be "to maintain current profitability" - ie not cutting into the bottom line of the company. (The company operates on a loss on specific sets of merchandise, with marked up profits on 'accessories' or 'related purchases' to increase sales in big-ticket items, and make up the loss, and then some, on the small-ticket items with the logic of "if they can buy this expensive item cheaper, they will be more likely to purchase these cheaper items to go along with it down the line" [it is easier to justify inexpensive purchases than it is to justify expensive purchases]). The exact % markups and such vary store to store, especially when you move from district to district or regional to regional.
***** I'm guessing from your response, that you'd probably be surprised to see how much of Walmart's profit is generated from products in the $0.25 - $1.50 range. While not the 'rule', as there are exceptions, as you go higher in the price at walmart, you'll notice the mark-up shrinks, and in the higher ranges, even becomes negative [ie they lose money on things like TVs, to give incentive to the purchase of accessories/items such as DVDs, DVD players, cords, etc. Of the tens of thousands of products (if not hundreds of thousands, since I've never counted for total quantity, only 'outs') - you would be surprised how large of a sample set is in these 'low price points' - and how heavily these sell.
“What good does it do a black youth to know that an employer must pay him $2 an hour if the fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him from getting a job?” ― Paul A. Samuelson, Economics, 1948 Samuelson is considered by The New York Times to be the "foremost academic economist of the 20th century".
+theknifesong There are economists and there are economists. NOBODY is "the greatest economist". Consider that the New York Times recently was acquired by Rupert Murdoch, I believe. Better would be to see what the L.A. Times thinks.
Kriegar1964 That's the quote from NYT's Economist of the Century and it just so happens that Black Americans are severely hurt by minimum wage laws but of course you bigots only care about your own self interests.
theknifesong I do not care where the quote comes from, because it sure as hell does not help poor people of other races either. And the "Economist of the century" is a pretty subjective term. I KNOW you're not calling me a racist, unless you are assuming something other than what evidence is presented to you. But yes, let's have only blacks wear it, live it, and respond to it-because that seems to be incredibly helpful, I guess?
I know it's meant as a troll - but it's a valid question. There are two ways to avoid caustic inequality (which leads to ugly things like revolutions and oligarchies). You can use taxation and redistribution, producing a massive lower class welfare state or you can raise the minimum wage to a level that a 40 hour work week is enough for an adult to live just above the poverty line -- the result of which is actually a thriving middle class and a much more stable economy. The best example is Australia. Minimum wage there is significantly higher. They are the only modern western style economy that did NOT suffer recession in the latest round of financial instability, and have a thriving middle class. McDonalds still exists and does not cost significantly more than anywhere else.
***** what he is saying is he still pays for somebody else's macaroni . Your mom swipes her EBT card, how much did she pay for that macaroni ? oh never mind, I see by your foul language you don't think it is a valid point.
Ask that question again when you get to the point that you need food stamps. You'll wish your employer had just raised prices a bit so you could avoid visiting a welfare office periodically, having your personal belongings gone through, and feeling like some sort of criminal bum. All the while having ANY income monitored by these people. It's a good feeling not having to rely on the government teet and buying your own food.
Question1: If Walmark raises the products by 1.4%, wouldn't it lose market space for other companies? Question2: I wonder if I missed some info, but the video is assuming that all "low wage workers" work at Walmart? Question3: By raising all low wages, wouldn't be inflation and therefore the money would lose value? Random Comment: $8 dolares per hour here in Brazil is actually a well paid job. Given $1 = R$ 1, to buy a brand new car, the brazillian worker would need 30x more hours than a "single US mom"
+Xano Trevisan Kothe Point 1. No they wouldn't; people shop at Walmart for their variety of goods, price points and a numbers reasons. Point 2 - No, not all low paid workers work at Walmart, but they are the easiest example of corporate avarice. Point 3 No, the increase in wages would not affect inflation in the slightest because the lowest on the corporate ladder, collectively, could not affect the price of any commodity. You missed the point of the video. Walmart benefits from the proceeds of social programs (food stamps) because they don't pay a living wage - which they could afford if they raised the price of a box of mac and cheese and passed it along to their workers. Don't know about you, but I am TIRED of Walmart getting MY MONEY (in the form of taxes we all pay) WHEN I DON"T SHOP THERE - ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE WALMART COULD EMPLOY. This isn't about labour, or employment levels or job opportunities - This up load is about how Walmart games the system and gets a free pass to keep wages low so they can continue to profit from a government social assistance. Buddy - these guys make money from you and me, whether we shop there or not. And in my books, that wrong.
+mr7wi thanks for the answers. I'm actually from Brazil, and we have a similar problem. I'm tired of given money to government. You could "choose" where to buy your thinks, but you "can't" choose to pay or not taxes
Xano Trevisan Kothe Brilliant quote - choose where you buy; can't choose taxes. I am going to quote you, with permission. Direct and eloquent. Thank you.
+mr7wi let's say Walmart just vanished overnight, so it no longer pays cashiers salaries that are only slightly higher than minimal wage. Will Walmart keep getting your money, even though you don't shop there? What if it simply didn't exist? Would it still be responsible for your tax money spent on unemployment?
Alex I don't get your point. If Walmart is no longer a going concern or never existed they don't get anyone's money. Walmart isn't responsible for funds spent on unemployment - that is fiscal policy / the law.
Here's an idea...how about we get rid of the foodstamps FIRST, then adjust the wages afterwards. Chances are when all the free government cheese stops pouring in, they'll start to lower prices for mac n cheese which will make it more affordable for those at lower wages. This is precisely why medical costs continue to increase; they in a fixed model lacking competition. The sad fact is, Walmart enjoys the government cheese. Let's stop feeding it's addiction.
***** That's not an attack. That's a solution. Foodstamps are the closest thing to corporate welfare in this situation. I don't think you understand corporatism. Money isn't paid to the rich CEOs, and it isn't even a fraction of our tax dollars compared to social welfare programs which outweigh even our military budget.
Boat And how long would the transition period be? If a family is already struggling...how long would they be deprived of basic nutrition just because all they can afford are ramen noodles and tap water? The transition period for the poor would be en epidemic...whereas, I'm pretty sure that the wealthy would get by just fine with the video's transition phase.
Why do you think there is even room to lower to price of the Mac and Cheese? Prices at a discount store are already cut to thin margins. I understand what you major point is but your analysis is wrong. If you stop paying food stamps to employees, workers would find that they don't have enough to live on and would go do something else or get on full assistance. Food stamps and the like help to raise the Walmart wage to a point that people will actually work there. Basically, Walmart is using tax payer subsidized work force. That is a problem.
Stephanie Morin I would grandfather those on the benefits when the cut happens and then allow the natural deadlines on the SNAP program expire for each person that needs them. People seemed to survive in this country prior to the food stamp program. And before you say I'm not compassionate or sympathetic, I volunteer and food shelters; I see the real needy. I was a starving college kid at one point too, it made me hunger for a better more secure life. America needs that ambition again, not handouts.
No, that's not how math, economics, or anything that has to do with money works. This video is all well and good if you assume 3 things: 1. Only people who work at wal-mart on food stamps shop at walmart 2. People who work at wal-mart shop nowhere else for anything 3. People who work at wal-mart buy only mac and cheese and need nothing else to get by their daily lives.
Good on you for pointing these things out. A bigger point is that for walmart to make the 'living wage' then the government would have to step in to make it so - which means it increases for everyone - right down the line. Right from the seed growers to sell the seed to farmers who grow the wheat to make the pasta, blah blah blah. Don't forget those pumping the gas to get the product from one point to another...yada yada yada. Ya - it only costs walmart 1 cent per box of mac and cheese to cover their employee raises, but that doesn't account for the increase of the the price of the product that walmart is now paying.
it also doesn't take into account the single parent with 2 3 or 4 kids who would need more money or the person with no kid that would need less... this purposes that a person should be paid based on their life choices (even if they were bad) not the skill level of tge job they are performing or conditions of the work place, and rewarded with higher pay.
Yes, but Walmart may also fire that single mom outright and replace her with a full time employee or a self checkout. What I have proposed is the more likely option.
666Leosch Because wages are based on how valuable that specific person is, not how hard they work. Just about anyone could be a walmart employee, you don't have to have any unique skills or talents or anything. You're easily replaceable, that's just the way it is. And for every current walmart employee, there are countless others waiting for a position to open up. That's who the job is for, people who just want to get a job so they can start building work experience. Walmart isn't supposed to be a place you work at your whole life; you work there as your first job for a few years until you go to college or figure out what you want to do for your career.
captainclayman Nobody should be allowed to build his business model such that a person who works full time for them is not consiered valuable enough to pay them a livable wage. That is just way to greedy. I don't care who owns the place and what the stock owners might want. This is destructive to society and should not be allowed to stand. And since (1) you can't have gouvernement monitoring all corporations and (2) you have to keep competition fair the only option seems to be a sensible minimum wage. I don't see why so many people defend the status quo. The system is obviously not working for a lot of people and they need help.
qazwsx6525 they produce more like 50+ dollars per hour... Maybe walmart should pay a % of what they sell instead? Good old commision? Every day, people log in how many hours they work, and based on the % of total hours they clock in, they get a % of that 10% or so... Guess what, that 10% would be about 20,000 PER DAY spread across the store... www.statisticbrain.com/wal-mart-company-statistics/ 36 million spent every hour, times 24 hours 846 million every day, divided between 4253 stores 200 thousand EVERY DAY FOR EVERY STORE! Hell, even ONE PERCECT would mean an extra 20-30 dollars given to the employees every day!!! And at those wages, thats a LOT! Tell me again they are getting paid what they are worth?
Walmart isn't in the business of giving away money. They continue to thwart worker's attempts to form unions because they like the current arrangement.
That extra penny per box covers the entire cost to the company for raising the wages. Ergo, the company could raise the wages, keep the same number of workers, and not lose any total profits.
Luminous Dark Funny, I did a case analysis on Wal-Mart. They give out generous bonuses to employee's. They also have a college aid program for employee's. Tell me again how they dont like there employees?
Mo Qui So then I assume you understand why there shouldent be a minimum wage? Because it's not like I study the economy or anything. And Ford, made good strides back in the day but he also cared about his company and many other things. how do you know he wasn't wrong about that. Because he was.
If it was this simple Walmart and other stores would just pay their employees more and be done with it. Right now walmart pays what they can realistically and safely pay their employees. When I do the math loosely at a $4 more per hour per 2 million employees (2.2 million if counting all of them), the increase would be closer to a 3% for each product. This means that while mac and cheese may only go up a cent or so. Products like TV's would have to go up $10 to $20 (or more). When you factor in competition this could be devastating as lowering their price would cause them to loose money on the item. If they don't drop the price they lose to the competitor. Lost sales will hurt everyone and will lead to layoffs. In other words some products can't have a price increase meaning others would have to have to go up over 3%. We also have to look at the fact that walmart will have to pay their employees more money before they even made the profit. If sales are below projections they will loose more money and have to staff fewer employees. In the end prices would be much higher and fewer employees would have to work harder. Also employees with less experience/education would be passed up for ones with more. This doesn't even get into fears from stockholders. So the moral of the story is it isn't this simple and anyone that knows business and economics would know this.
This is true if they leveled the cost completely across their inventory... I think walmart is smart enough to know where they can increase prices. Even if they shifted a fair amount of that onto strictly food it would be 5-7% versus the 3% you say. I dont think it's impossible.
"If sales are below projections they will loose more money and have to staff fewer employees." They'd still be massively profitable though. My definition of "have to" is just different than yours I guess.
>They'd still be massively profitable though. My definition of "have to" is just different than yours I guess. By whose standards? Yours? Keep in mind that Wal-Mart still has to compete with other companies for market share and cutting their profits in the name of fairness will only end up hurting Wal-Mart and their employees.
Not once does this video mention payroll taxes. I doubt the author knows anything about payroll processing. The employer has to pay additional tax on top of the employee's gross wages. If Minimum wage is increased to $10 an hour, the employer would be paying $12 an hour, and the employee only gets $8 an hour. All because of federal and state income tax, FICA, and unemployment taxes. Here's an idea: lower the payroll taxes.
so raise the minimum wage to $12 so the employee gets $10 and that mac and cheese goes up 3 cents...ouch that hurt... NEXT! PS...oh, and dont forget, every penny the 99% get paid, they spend (and not store under there bed so when the economy tanks again, they can invest and ride the wall street wave up again and make a quick 40% on there money!)
am m Does it hurt to be that dumb? ManOfDeath is very correct. People think it is just that easy to raise an entire work forces wage but it is WAY more complicated than that. The only way people will get higher wages is if the government lowers income taxes. Lowering income taxes: A) Puts more money in the pockets of the employers to begin with B) There is more money to spend on wages by employers because they have more of a tax break. Minimum wage cannot go up with out taxes coming down. If minimum wage goes up, and taxes stay the same, then inflation will just increase making the cost of living go up and negating the raising of minimum wage. It's hard to put it any more basic than that, so if you can't understand that I feel sorry for you.
It's sad that finance isn't taught in high school any longer. Apparently the term "inflation" and "hyperinflation" may as well be sci-fi movies from the 80's. "am m" if you understood a mere fraction of why what you said was laughably ignorant you'd cry yourself to sleep on a daily basis.
am m Ah, but increasing minimum wage without lowering taxes will raise prices and cause job loss. Cutting taxes would result in lower prices and more hiring, even with minimum wage currently where it is now. Goods and services would be that much more affordable. And not every middle class person spends everything they have. That would be ludicrous.
That's the best argument I've heard for raising the minimum wage; it's quite interesting. That said, people will need food stamps whether there's a minimum wage or not, but just less people.
Because minimum wages are meant to keep poor people from getting into the job market. It started out as a way for white middle class people to keep uneducated blacks from coming in and taking jobs from them.
zav3nd Even if the value of the dollar does drop, it won't drop very much at all and if the minimum wage is increased then all of the jobs that pay slightly to moderately more will also go up in pay. A working class that has money to spend on food, entertainment, etc will result in demand going up because they actually have money to spend on things, meaning that companies get more customers which boosts the economy overall. If demand increases enough it will result in them hiring more people to keep up with the increased demand. Poor people get paid more, companies get more customers, the number of jobs in the economy goes up, companies make more money because of the increase in customers, and everybody wins. Your argument against raising the minimum wage becomes a moot point after taking into consideration all of these other factors.
Lukeor Low minimum wages lead to stagnant growth, many economists agree on this point. Larger companies rely on the masses to make decent wages because decent wages lead to high liquidity in the market place. If all wealth is concentrated, there is nobody left to buy up everyday items and growth slows down. The rich obviously don't consume products at the same rate as the masses do. How many restaurants can a wealthy person visit, how many cars can they own? Definitely not enough to maintain the current supply. In Asia, specifically China there has been a push to get people to spend more on concerns that if/when demand for goods slows in the west there won't be enough domestic demand for goods to stimulate goods because the 'middle class' doesn't have the purchase power that is familiar to westerners.
Fair question, that I can answer! I was press operator earning $7.50 per hour, running two presses on manual, making rubber caps for plastic tubes, and another making the tubes itself. Every 11 seconds, the machine's would create 64 caps and tubes, that had to be inspected and packed.Then, we automated. Then, I was running 6 presses in Auto mode, making caps, buckets, and vases. (plastic mold injection) These presses run at 600 degrees, and there are 36 of them. Imagine all the heat added to the 100 degree mid-west summer heat! (miserable) The presses run 24-7, with 3 shifts. They do not stop, except for Thanksgiving and Christmas. You must run, to keep up with inspecting and packing all these parts. The only time you are allowed to stop, is on your 10 minute break, which is given to 4 people at a time through relief, and that is seldom going to happen on time. What was the reward for getting awarded 6 times the work? A five cent raise, and 3 people unemployed! And today, with automation becoming more common, people are actually checking their own items, and putting more people out of work, and not even getting a discount on checking their own items! I hope that these people are the next ones to lose a job to automation! So, check your own items, and increase the corporate profits! Those machines, will never get sick, and never need to send their kids to school!
I'm waiting for the video, "How to stop billionaires from stealing the value their employees create so the billionaires don't own the machines that reduce the hours of labor required to produce goods & services."
@@ConvairDart106 Employees like you created wealth that your employers used to buy machines to replace you. Those labor-saving machines should belong to the people who created the wealth to buy them. If you & your co-workers owned the machines, you could pay yourself the same amount plus have more time off.
@@evonline stop hiring entitled employees. Done. Liberals come out of high school and think they are owed half of someone thats worked and owned a business for 30 yrs.
All these people bitching sitting behind their computers, phones, and tablets because they can't go out and make something for themselves. Instead of hating on the "rich pigs" why not take in some inspiration and work your ass off to go from broke to comfortable or even better. I see it happen all the time, but this generation would rather criticize the "greedy" corporations than work and be successful.
I knew this single mom who used the food bank to feed her kid. She always complained but she smoked a lot and spent a lot on smokes. So poor choices is a factor as well
WALMART CEO MAKES It's a tough time to be in retail. But Walmart is doing okay -- and CEO Doug McMillon is cashing in. The top executive's pay rose nearly 13% to $22.4 million during the company's fiscal year that ended on Jan. 31, according to a company filing.
They don’t give 40 hours because then they’d have to pay vacation, sick time, health insurance, and other benefits that big corporations don’t want to spend on.. all retail does this to limit costs yet if you look at their profits it’s crazy greed and answerable to investors that keep the status quo.. look at in -n - out hugely profitable pays employees living wages difference here is that it’s privately owned and answerable to no one but herself and her own conscience..
@@beachlife3738 its the benefits and holiday pay 100% part time employees don't qualify for any benefits and accrue vacation/sick time at a much slower pace. At Walmart you have an allotted 4 absences are allowed to call out per 6 months, being even 1 minute late counts as a "half sick day" no pay of course but you have to earn vacation slowly, roughly 1 day earned per 6 weeks or so. In about 6-8 months I've earned 6 days in a supervisory full time position with tons of overtime this year making up for understaffing but had to use 1 vacation day for Christmas and 2 for 2 sick days through the year. Its kinda a bummer its hard to earn a little vacation. Part time accrues it more slowly and with less hours worked I imagine they never earn more than maybe 5 days per year or something not sure.
The issue here isn't whether you think Walmart employee's deserve higher wages. It's the fact that Walmart increases it's profits by shifting part of the responsibility of supporting it's employees to the taxpayers. So in effect you are paying much higher prices for Walmarts products whether you realize it or not. Walmart needs to pay their own way, not ride on the backs of the american taxpayers just to increase their already substantial profits.
Isn't the point to uh, give those jobs to teenagers? How is being a cashier supposed to be enough to raise a family in today's economy? First: The single mom shouldn't be single. Being a single parent nigh guarantees poverty. Second: The single mom should look for another source of income other than teenage allowance money. She needs to go for promotions. Work smart not hard. Yeah. I know what its like to be trapped down there. *You* are in control of your life. The best thing I ever did was quit work at the grocery store in exchange for studying programming books in the library. I was impoverished for about one more year of struggle. I sure as ain't struggling now. '_'
The very definition of a minimum wage is a livable? According to who? Who said that? Oh, and straight out of college I ended up working at a grocery store. Couldn't do much. Life really sucked. Spent every off hour at the library learning and teaching myself. Life is better now. Never took a government check. But I guess poverty is just impossible to escape without the help of our wise politicians.
+TheHolyDarkness Most of our "wise" politicians are in power because if they DON'T do what the powerful corporations want, they end up having some jerk run against them that is supported by BILLIONS by the rich and powerful. It happened with Tom Daschle of S.D. It almost happened in Minnesota in 2014. It DID happen in Wisconsin and they got Scott Walker who wants to build a wall along the Canadian border.
Thundy TheWeeaboo I am very much aware of the TPP, have been well-informed by Thom Hartmann's daily program, and by Mike Papantonio of Ring of Fire. These are fascinating times, almost like Orwell's 1984 scenario being established or something.
I feel like it should be a law for huge companies like Walmart and mc Donalds to pay at least $15 an hour. they can afford it and I am willing to pay a fucking penny for it. I throw them at shit drivers on the highway for not using blinkers anyways.
but, if we truly consider it, there is no such thing as a living wage. minimum wage is often viewed as the earnings of the worker but if we look from the employer's perspective, it is the cost of labor. the costlier is it, the less supply of it there will be, and this effectively prices people out of the labor market. additionally consider that most who earn minimum wage or below are teenagers working part-time/summer jobs, or who simply haven't gained enough skill to command a higher salary. also, consider non-hourly workers. but also consider the workers that are full-time. they usually get a raise or move up the corporate ladder, and subsequently get a higher wage. the thing is, the minimum wage issue actually isn't as bad as you think
Problem is the government - speaking from Canada. They tax us to death to pay for their pet projects for saving the environment (which doesn't do diddle). Then businesses move elsewhere where they don't have to pay ridiculous energy fees and taxes. There go the jobs. Then they allow businesses to hire pretty much all their staff as part time shift workers so no one can even find a minimum wage job for 40 hours a week. On top of that, everything is coming from china so that we have no choice but to buy their products which break quickly and we then have to buy more of their crap. I am willing to pay more for things made in Canada or the United States.- products that give us North Americans jobs and give us quality products that are made to last past one damn use. I just can't find them. I am tired of buying shirts with material so thin I can spit through them and after one wash they shrink down to fit a barbie. And here's the rub - we can't find good paying jobs anymore because they have moved away. They have moved away so no one has money to pay for quality products made in our own country. Check this out - on Canada day, I defy people to go out and look for merchandise - like flags - and have it say made in Canada. If you can do it I would like to know about it. You go buy a Canadian t-shirt or flag or any kind of tourist items - they are made in China! If you truly love your country, show pride and stop buying crap made in a different country. Wear your country colours on Canada day and Independence day but don't buy a shirt promoting your country and patriotism when it is made in China or India. Have your children draw a flag and glue it onto a stick! - at least then you showing you love your country without shipping your money offshore!
Destroy the environment to make jobs. 10/10 best solution ever. Everything is made in the East because those Asian people are willing to work shitty jobs and destroy the environment to make all the stupid, worthless, consumerist shit that everyone here buys.
Who told some idiot making $9 an hour go have kids they can't afford? In the real world before all this socialism, if you spit out kids you couldn't care for - they died. Or they dragged down the rest of the tribe by over-burdening them. People pumping out kids they can't afford is only over-burdening the extended tribe as a result of all this wealth redistribution. Successful people are punished by higher taxes and prices, to sustain the weakest link. You're driving evolution backwards.
The cool thing about math is it gives correct answers ... when you use correct numbers to calculate with. I, for one, am not biting on the propaganda. First, you are using minimums and averages, rather than keeping consistent. In addition, you ignore increases in payroll expenditures. These are two factors you ignore out of many. If we just figure the percentage of expenses employees take up, you have a minimum of 12% increase. This is also supported by calculating raw dollars of the impact of the increase in employee expenditures. And, it focuses on only raising everyone below minimum wage to minimum wage (ie, screwing your better paid employees). This still ignores payroll tax expenditure increases, and increases in wholesale and transportation costs. Once you add those in, you are closer to 17%, and this is assuming Walmart is going to just break even, which is ridiculous. Once you factor in what a decrease in net profit ratios does to stock valuation, you realize 17% is pie in the sky. No, a 54% increase in cashier salary will not increase prices by 54%, but it will be closer to 54% than 1.4%. And, as the prices rise, you will have to increase cashier wages again the following year, just to try to keep equilibrium. There is a nice dream world where corporations decrease their profits to make the utopia envisioned. But even in that utopia, it is more than 1.4%
Price elasticity of demand on their non-inferior goods also needs to be taken into account. An increase in prices doesn't always mean an increase in revenue. Even when the increase is just a couple cents, some people who buy a lot at a time will just go elsewhere and buy cheaper saving a couple dollars in a couple days.
Not sure you realize this, but up here in Ontario (Canada) our minimum wage is $15. Our Walmarts are doing just fine. I'm not even a leftist, and I personally think wages should be increased even more.
@@chronictwister It depends where you live in Canada. I live in Toronto, where rent is high, but suprisingly, the food isn't too pricey and way higher quality that of NYC (used to live there). Some cities are way cheaper than others. On top of that, we have universal healthcare, which drastically reduces the cost of living. Walmart is notorious for hiring only PT staff so they can get outta providing benefits.
No. I simply record that Republicans are the only ones I've ever heard gripe about how the U.S. shouldn't raise minimum wage because it would make prices go up a LOT!!! They don't care if people live or die as long as it's not the 1% upper class. Because they cause the trickle down affect that TOTALLY works....... oh, wait... it doesn't.
*sigh* It is a miniscule increase! And yet they will get paid a decent amount MORE. Get it? I'm willing to pay 1% more on items so that people can afford to live. So yeah, it sure as hell IS me.
***** What this video also forgets to mention is all the benefits to there employees. After 3 months you get a 10% discount, after 6 months you are open to all the other benefits including quarterly bonuses, scholarship programs and walmart will pay for you to get your GED, there are also tons of other benefits because they want you to succeeded in life. Also it was proven that this video 1.4% increase was incorrect it should be near 3% (this also doesn't make up people price matching) also his math on ohio walmart associates that are eligible for food stamp was incorrect he claimed 300 million I calculated around 7.5 million, this coming from all his information ($130 a month or $1560 a year for food stamps per person, 40 employees per store, there are 120 stores in ohio or 4800 WM associates eligible for food stamps ( count found online in 2010, you do the math) this video is full of propaganda bullshit trying to put walmart down, you don't see this video even mentioning about target, best buy, kmart and etc who virtually pay there employees the same amount, i'm not sure about those stores benefits as well.
And if they have raised wages, they won't necessarily NEED raises. The whole reason people get paid so little when the company makes billions, is because the CEOs and upper management are greedy and get paid too much. Yes, they should get paid more when they're management, but shouldn't give themselves millions in raises!!!
The entire assumption that Walmart should pass the expenses of paying their employees properly over to the consumer is wrong. Walmart should shoulder the burden of paying their employees a decent wage themselves.
But were does the money to pay the employees come from. I comes from generating revenue from costumers. If you pay employees more you need to generate more revenue. To generate more revenue you need to raise the prices. If the price of food goes up slightly but the employees are payed enough to live a okay life then that's fine by me.
scott Pilgrim You don't understand. Walmart makes staggering profits from which only a tiny subset is used to pay its employees. They're essentially hoarding wealth at the expense of the well-being of its employees. How crazy of an apologist must you be to argue that a company should have the salary it pays subsidized from the state!? Walmart can easily afford to pay its employees more and they should be mandated to do so by legislation. Despite productivity having risen steadily since the 40's there hasn't been a pay increase since the 1980's! The big corporations like Walmart are now becoming part of the problem, not the solution.
Tyler Silverstein This is simply not true. Why? Walmart makes staggering profits from which only a tiny subset is spend on wages. They can just accept a relatively small loss in their gross revenue and wages could be higher without passing the bill on to the consumer.
Taxpayers are already paying for walmart employees via food stamps. Even the folks that refuse to shop there are paying for them in taxes. Wanna rethink your stance?
What the government should do is bill those food stamp costs to Walmart, since they're enjoying the cheap labor that is necessitating it. Then Walmart could make an informed choice on what to pay.
No , what you do is cut the extra government taxpayer assistance for minimum wage income earners . Minimum wage is not intended to support yourself . It is an entry level position for unskilled individuals . When you attain skills , your pay goes up . If there were no subsidies , people would not work there , they would need to earn more money and go elsewhere , which would force Wallmart to increase their pay in order to retain employees . Part time and minium wage jobs are not a career , it is not designed to raise a family or yourself on If you don't like your job , you are free to go elsewhere where there is room for advancement .
Lol, if you make Walmart pay for the food stamps, it's the same as if you had done nothing at all. That just means that the food stamps are essentially part of the salary itself, just with a stupid label on the same dollar bill.
@@ynot6781 Since when are Walmart jobs not intended to be careers? If a whole bunch of people got more skills it would lower the wages of those higher paying jobs because now more people can do it plus there are just not enough higher paying jobs for everyone.
This assumes that if Walmart raises their prices 1.4%, that their revenue would rise 1.4%. Not true. Any price increase will start to motivate shoppers to buy less and/or spend their money elsewhere.
I'm not saying a 1.4% price hike will make a huge difference in spending and shopping habits. I'm saying it will make SOME difference. If hiking prices 1.4% doesn't deter shopping at all, why doesn't Walmart raise their prices 1.4% right now and just pocket that extra money? They don't because they know it will deter spending. It won't deter spending much, but it will be enough that they've determined that they make more money keeping their prices low. Does this make sense to you?
One slight problem I've experienced from co-workers (at a law firm for crying out loud): they'll turn down raises in order to stay on food stamps, medical aid, etc.
+Brian Vasquez I agree! Obamacare already screwed some people out of their jobs, please, don't screw us again. (At least that's what happened over here in CA)
+canopeaz Or raise the minimum wage to making working worthwhile? If you limit welfare and keep the minimum then not working and working are both undesirable.
+canopeaz Or raise the minimum wage to making working worthwhile? If you limit welfare and keep the minimum then not working and working are both undesirable.
Mark Rubin ?? If you limit welfare and don't raise the minimum wage, then working becomes more desirable. X=What you make on Welfare, Y=what you make on Minimum Wage. If Y>X, then working becomes desirable. So we need to lower X so that people are incentivized to be productive in order to make money as opposed to bumming off of others to make money. You don't need to increase the incentive to work, that should be a natural requirement. You need to DECREASE the incentive to NOT work.
Why did you stop. That was only one box of mac n cheese. Now you take the amount of money that the 40 employees spend in Walmart. It looks like you are saying they spend $300 million at Walmart. Now, if you are correct, that's $300 million divided by 136 (number of walmarts in Ohio) divided by 40 (the average employees per Walmart you said are getting the food stamps) times 1.4% (the amount of increase). You are now talking an increase of $770 per person per year for food. Maybe the thousands of shoppers who make a lot of money, but don't work at Walmart can afford that, but your low income earners are now paying hundreds of dollars more at Walmart and you forgot, you calculated the increase based on the 40 employees' old salary and spending. That extra $770 per person, $30,800 per store is needed to be another pay increase, and then another product increase. Such price increases will also need to be applied to Mom's Everything Store and it's 10 employees. Mom's can't cover that increase in wages, which is a higher percent on her, so either she raises her prices above Walmart's or she lets somebody go.
You're implying that Walmart employees would foot 100% of the bill of Walmart passed the cost of a wage increase to the consumer. That $300 million gap that Walmart needed to fill would be covered by the entire Ohio Walmart shopper demographic as opposed to exclusively employees.
There is an awful lot of "Let's say...", and "If Ohio is representative...", etc. in this video. I feel like the answer is much more complicated than that. I'm not saying Walmart doesn't do anything bad, but I think they get an undeserved bad wrap. There are plenty of other companies that pay minimum wage, and I think over all Walmart does more good than bad.
There is too much fluctuation to do the calculations for every single state where minimum wage is different and costs are different. A liveable wage is going to be different everywhere in the country so you need to take an average of everything to explain the basic consent.
You just gained a subscriber. I've been trying to explain to my friends why higher wages at huge companies actually help the economy using math, but they don't follow the math close enough and some of them are not book smart at all. I will share this video with them.
No one is getting paid $13 an hour to work at Walmart. There are tons of jobs that pay around $13 an hour and aren't near as easy as working at Walmart. Therefore, if walmarts employees get a raise then so should the people who already make $13 an hour and so on.
Why? There are loads of easy jobs that pay worse than hard jobs. In fact I'd wager some of the shittiest jobs pay the least. You are not your bank balance.
How is working at Walmart easy? Those low level retail service jobs are the worst, standing all day in a shitty store, working for a company that does not value you, treats you like shit, denies your right to unionize, fires people casually, Dealing with customers day in day out who may or may not trample you to death the next Black Friday, being forced to endure humiliating North Korea style team building exercises.. And watching the hours of your life tick away selling the precious minutes of your life at $9 an hour, in utter boredom and hopelessness. I wouldn't work there for any amount of money.
As someone who worked at Walmart for $7/hour, and as someone who currently works at an office for $11/hour, I can tell you Walmart employees are being paid just as much as they should be.
***** I worked as a cashier at a grocery store for 4 years during school, then at BestBuy for a year, again as a cashier. Now as an Mechanical Engineer out of school making 70k+ a year, I can confidently say that anyone working in these sectors are being way under payed. $13/hr seems like a fair wage for the shit that they have to put up with. I would have to be paid much more than I make now to go back to working retail.
Libertarianist According to the 2014 estimates, there are roughly 320 million US citizens. A lot of people are in afamily of 4, so let's say that 1/4 of people buy groceries for their family. That makes 80 million people. That puts an extra $60 per family per year. That is $5 a month, or $1.15 per week, or 16 cents a day. Would that really hurt anybody? Plus, That gives families living near the poverty line more money to put into the economy. This would help with families that have 2 income earners at, or near minimum wage, putting even more money into the economy.
raney150 Employees are more than 20% of Walmart's expenses. As the minimum wage would also impact suppliers and transportation, which account for 73% (plus depreciation), you are having a rather large increase in close to 93% of Walmart's total revenues. How can you only get a 1.4% increase in prices (1 cent on a mac & cheese box) and make up for a 54% increase in costs in 93% of the business? If the impact were only 16 cents a day AND it solve the problem, then we would all be for it. It would be a no brainer. But the video is not using correct figures or comparing apples to apples, which means the real impact is completely different. Using simple calculations, and only adding a few factors, the impact will be more than 12%, likely much more. So, the real question is not "are you willing to pay 16 cents more per day", the real question is "are you willing to pay another $1000 per year, or more, on groceries"? Then add the increase in all of the other goods you can buy at stores like Walmart. Still interested?
...yes. Because raising everything by 1.4% would cost shoppers the 300 millions the government would save. So the question is: better take that money from customer's pockets, many poor, or from government's (which takes most of its revenue from the rich)?
Tyler Allain If every one increased their employees pay then every one would have to charge more and everything would cost more thus making the employees in the exact same place they currently are. Australia Minimum wage is $16 an hour. Everything is more expensive though so It works out that it takes close to the same amount of time working to buy lunch as the US where minimum wage is $7.25
Sexy BoBo well, it shouldn't be exactly in the same place as before; it would if everyone got a raise, but as only the minimum wagers did, and as also better off citizens shop, the measure should transfer wealth from the second group to the minimum wagers. However, that's a heck of a regressive tax. Paying subsides directly with tax money is clearly better once you think of it.
You're wrong because money doesn't just appear in people's bank accounts magically. Money comes from wealth creation. Wealth creation is possible when the market is free to expand business.
So what ma and pa company could produce what ford could? there were cars before ford-produced at absorbent cost, making cars available only to the wealthy-It took a Corporation, Ford, to be ableto produce enough to drop the price down so that everyone can afford cars-Read about economics. Supply and demand.
so not only do waiters/waitresses not make a living wage but also people working for a huge company like walmart too... from a non american perspective america looks like such a terrible place to live. cut back on military spending, really
american military spending is not that high in terms of percentage of gdp. you cant compare a small european nation to a country thats 50 times bigger when you compare actual money figures. besides, there are many nations that spend a lot more of their gdp on the military and considering recent events in russia and the problems with north vs south korea cutting the US military is a really stupid idea unless you live in a fantasy world where everyone gets along with eachother nicely.
Most of the people who work at stores like Walmart are either highschool dropouts or never got a collage education. They work there because that's the inky type of job they have the skills for.
Most of the people who work at stores like Walmart are either highschool dropouts or never got a collage education. They work there because that's the inky type of job they have the skills for.
Wildly inaccurate. How much of walmart's income comes from bargain mac and cheese? My guess is not too much. They'd have to increase prices 1.4% storewide, so on some bigger ticket items such as a $1000 television that would mean $14 more, etc. This would really change their entire game plan of selling items at the absolute lowest cost.
But...That's what the video DID say. They listed the Mac and Cheese as an example, but stated that it would be a 1.4% increase throughout the store. Try and pay attention.
the anti-walmart circlejerk is so powerful here, reddit must have arrived. that means that literally dozens of 20-somethings who act like they know about retail businesses are going to refute what I just said.
I understand his math is wrong, but imagine if the government reduced Walmart’s taxes by 5% but required Walmart to pay workers a wage that would cover the food stamps
Yes, this works for Walmart. Problem is, a minimum wage always hurts small businesses a lot more than massive companies like Walmart. All raising the minimum wage would do is hurt small businesses, force them to either raise prices massively and lay off workers, or simply close down. This would create an oligopoly for big businesses, and as a result with lower competition, the prices could be raised even further.
No it doesn’t. I’m writing a 5 page essay on this now in college. I have done hours of research. I implore you to research this before you comment. There are 33 million small businesses in America, 70% a vast majority of them have no employees, they are sole proprietorships. Furthermore only 5 million of these small businesses have employees and 85% of these businesses are high wage jobs ie law firms small doctors offices etc. meaning they would not be affected by this law. And now we get to the last percentages. 1.6 million of these jobs are considered low wage businesses making only 6% of small businesses being affected by this law. What we would do in this situation is. If the company cannot afford to pay their workers a living wage the government employs a grant called the benefits accrued grant, what this does is, since most of these low wage employees are making under the amount to live they often get government assistance. And if the business raises their wages then the government gives the money that they were giving to the employees now to the business, the government breaks even and the employees make a living wage, and the company makes enough In benefits to pay for these wages. It’s quite simple really. Most developed countries do something like this. And the best part is that when these workers are making living wages the small businesses actually make more profits and the economy spikes making it so the small businesses actually can now pay a living wage without the benefits accrued grant. It’s a win win for everyone.
I'm sorry what? Have you ever worked at walmart? It's not easy. let's not bullshit around, you don't need an education for the job, but it's not easy. If you got paid based on how easy a job was, then let's face it, manual labor jobs would be getting paid a lot more than the guy screwing around at an office desk doing nothing and getting paid twice as much. And the thing is, you could let a highschooler do that office desk job if you just taught him. It's not about the job, it's about opportunity
TheYourface85 So what you secret, I'd love to get pay $20 an hour to watch youtube videos and read postings from people bitching about how Walmart sucks lol. :-)
1. Full time employees work 40 hours per week, not 30. 2. You need to raise the salaries of the supervisory positions further then too, or else nobody will want to be a supervisor (More work for equal or less pay? fat chance) 3. With increased wages comes increased taxes, so that has to be factored in as well. 4. I'm not familiar with the retail industry, but if it's anything like a restaurant you probably measure labor costs by the percentage of your revenue. At my store a good labor percentage would be around 21% of my revenue. If I make 5000 in a day requiring 135 hours of labor at 8 dollars an hour that is 21.6% of my revenue. If I raise my prices 1.6% and pay my employees 13 dollars an hour like this video suggests, I'm running 34.9%.
+Lacaras21 depends. some places will purposefully keep an employee at 30 hours so they do not have to pay benefits. The place I work at now doesn't allow people to work overtime because it would mess up our budget.
double the wage, of 15% of people (so they can live independently) and everyone has to pay 1.4% more on all products. (which you are already paying for foodstamps)
Close but not quite. When you increase the price of things, the demand goes down, meaning that you sell less. To make up for this, you'd likely have to increase the price of the mac n cheese just a bit more than 1 cent, possibly 2 or 3 cents. Also, I'd love to see why you chose Ohio, a classic rust belt state with a relatively low average income, instead of somewhere more representative. I personally support an increase int he minimum wage to a living wage, but there's no reason for subpar math.
But a single cent of cost increase surely is within a psychological limit that surely goes practically unnoticed. Granted, for bigger products that cost more, this change isn't as small. But even then it'll be barely noticeable. And even those 3 cents would easily be worth it.
you missed the point. We need to raise the minimum wage so that companies like Walmart do not have a choice to exploit government programs like food stamps. It doesnt matter what state or what company, we need to stop this practice. Its worse for the economy if you abuse the poorest work force to save the middle class or upper class 3 dollars a shopping trip.
Jim Lahey Raising the minimum wage for all companies means that most smaller companies can't employ a lot of workers. Duffy was obviously wrong because a freakin penny isn't gonna ruin anyone's day and won't stop people from shopping there. But in reality, we'd lose jobs by raising the wage. I think bigger businesses should have to raise it and the smaller businesses should be able to keep it lower...
2isTheNew1 I agree, that not all businesses should have the same rules. Bill Gates argues that, once the minimum wage is increased and companies with budgets to purchase technologies to replace workers has occurred, then we're screwed. I remember a time when profits were paramount, the value of a worker meant something and we were able to take pride in what we did. It's kinda hard to do that when the businesses are taxed before they even make profit, have to pay employees wages set by billionaires who are likely wanting automated workers to increase profits as it is. I am a capitalist. But I also have morals.
he never truly explained how he got 1.4% that should be dependent on the items that are sold some items will go up higher than 1.4% because there is also cost/profit that needs to be involved. he forgot to mention vendor items and Wal~mart price matching to ads. If wages go up there can also be huge hour reductions and the yearly raises will go down to make up the large pay increase, also unlike other stores they are not a union so they don't take any money from your pay check. I also don't know where they got there average wage for cashiers he might taken a small sample size, it might very from state to state because that depends on the min wage and how long an associate has worked there. people who've worked at Wal-mart also get many benefits for example if you were hired before 2011 you also get a dollar more an hour during Sundays, worked for at least 3 months you get a 10% discount card (on most items) and if you worked there for 6 months you can take advantage of there GED program and scholarship programs, the list goes on. Working at Wal-mart is also easy work from personal experience, I rather work at Wal-mart for 8.80 an hour over a fast food chain that pays you min wage (ohio 7.95). Thats almost a dollar more an hour and 20-30% reduction in hard labor ( if you don't include the unloaders which get paid more). PS - Walmart raise increase - 20,30,40 cents as of 2014 Burger King raise increase 10,15,25 cents
He also assumes that every walmart employ that is eligible takes advantage of food stamps. I'm trying to do the math right now to see if I get the same statistics as he did for 300,000,000. i'll be back
JappyChan he did his math wrong or i did, i want to know how he got 300 million dollars of food stamps for empolyees that work at walmart in ohio. this is what i did, the average food stamp is any where from 116-213 dollars depending on which state you live in (this is from a study in 2010), a month. so, i took the middle number (164.5 times it by 12 for the number of months in a year that will equal $1974) , he said that walmart average amount associates at a walmart that are eligible is 40 per store, there are 120 stores in Ohio so you want to multiply 40 with 120 which is 4800. now you have the population of people that work at walmart that are eligible for food stamps, 4800. now you take that and give each person $1974 that should equal to a total of 9,475,200 not even close to the 300,000,000. but i can be wrong in some part of my math, would anyone like to double check my calculations?
JappyChan Exactly. You went wrong with the "there are 120 stores in Ohio", whilst in the video he used every store in America. Or at least I think so, he said "If Ohio was representative", but what exactly he means by that I can only assume "Representative of the rest of America".
I know how to do math. I learned it in elementary school. Based on the numbers given hear... Walmart employs 663,900 people in the US... but they actually employ over 2 million. That means this is all completely false. Do the math yourself. Not to mention the wage increase does not account for additional costs the employer has to pay the worker such as vacation monies and any money to the Government on workers behalf. Along with that, showing a 1 cent increase on mac n cheese if false because even if all these others numbers were accurate, it does not take the exact same amount of revenue to replace the additional wages... remember, the employer has to buy the products they are selling.... they need that money back first.
You have to also factor in the extra spending people will do if they earn more. Higher demand = higher prices. That's why in affluent cities, the prices of everything is higher.
The funny thing is that increasing food prices is a "regressive tax", where as food stamps are paid for through "progressive taxes". Since the top 10% wealthiest Americans pay 70% of the taxes, subsidizing increased wages at Walmart through higher food prices disproportionately hurts the poor, while saving the richer Americans more money. Just some... food, for thought.
If there are tax brackets for earned income, there should be wage brackets based on market caps. Less than 1 billion dollar market cap pays minimum (wage mom and pop shops fall in this category), greater than 1 billion up to 10 billion pay more, 10 billion and up have to pay the most.
***** - Yeah, well Australia doesn't have to deal with retarded, Bible thumping, gun loving, flag waving, black and latino hating, homophobic, social Darwinist, red-blooded American right wing fucking nutjobs, so what the fuck ever.
The six heirs to the Walmart fortune are worth as much as nearly half of all American households. The Walton family was worth $89.5 billion in 2010, the same as the bottom 41.5 percent of U.S. families combined, according to Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute. That means that every single day, the Walton family made $91 million! Meanwhile, most Walmart workers made less than $68 a day on average based on Walmart's own admission that the majority of its 1.3 million employees make less than $25,000 annually back in 2010. If the Walton family would have given up just half of their profit (still making over 45 million a day), they could have raise all the employees pay by 50%!
That's not exactly how things work. The reason cashiers don't get paid much is their job is very low skill. If you don't like your job as a cashier and start demanding more money, they can fire you and hire someone younger and more eager than you. Better yet (worse for you) they can automate your job because the machine costs less (over time) than the minimum wage you demand. See, this is how the market works. You offer a service, you get offered a price. Like it? An exchange can be made. Don't like it? Move on and look for another customer who would take your offer. No one likes your offer? It's probably because what you're offering isn't worth as much as you think it is. If you want to get paid better, learn better skills so you can negotiate a higher salary.
+hasen195 Sure, the capitalistic way to "get what you pay for" and this applies to getting paid what your worth. The Walton family "gets" MILLIONS of times more then the any store workers, or you! Do you feel the Walton family has skills millions of times better then you? A Cadillac cost more then compact Chevy, but not MILLIONS of times more. It has also be the adage that if you work harder, you deserve more. I suppose you feel the CEO of Walmart, Douglas McMillon, works MILLIONS of times harder then you do?
TheRightThing There's nothing stopping other businesses from competing with WalMart by creating a better store with better services and better paid employees. WalMart owners are rich because they facilitate the creation of millions jobs and the delivery of groceries to millions of people. If WalMart disappeared tomorrow, the owners will continue to be rich, but all the employees will become unemployed, and all the poor people who rely on WalMart to get cheap stuff will have to resort to other stores that cost more money. In other words, WalMart owners got rich by creating a service that helps millions of people buy cheap stuff. They provide services to literally millions of people. It's only natural they would be making millions of dollars.
+hasen195 "If WalMart disappeared tomorrow, the owners will continue to be rich..." And how is this so, being the Waltons receive it's billions from the Walmart chain? Do you actually think they'd be the richest family in the world from there other entities like Sam's, or do they have a magic lantern somewhere? "WalMart owners got rich by creating a service that helps millions of people buy cheap stuff." You forgot to add the part about underpaying their employees to save the profit for themselves, while most of the employees live below poverty standards and have to supplement using foodstamps (which you have to help pay for in taxes, nice savings, eh?). Gee, I guess it would really hurt the Walton family to give up billion from their 17 billion (NOT million) annual income to help their 1.2 million employees. Or is the the "millions" of people you trying to say they somehow help? And you still haven't answered, you actually think the Waltons millions of times harder workers and more skilled then you are?
TheRightThing If anyone could do what WalMart does, they would have already done it. Do you seriously think that you or me could create a grocery store chain that delivers low price groceries and clothing to millions of people across North America? I know I personally can't. For the millionth time. Being a cashier is a low skill job. If you don't do it, millions of teenagers are eager to take your position for an even lower pay. This is how you know that your skill is low and your contribution to society is tiny. Learn a skill and get a better job instead of whining and complaining.
Sadly, I think the people commenting that these jobs pay this way because the people working them have no skills suffer from a lack of knowledge about this level of the workforce and the job market as a whole. A decent portion are our unskilled, yes. But, many people are angry at Walmart because it came in and closed the places they used to work for under the illusion that aggressively low prices were good for Americans regardless of where all the money was going (China, and the Waltons). They had jobs with local shops and manufacturing, and the companies that supported them, but were forced to take a job that was beneath their skills or paid less so they could keep the lights on. Now, Walmart is one of the foremost employers in our market and as such sets the bar for others to follow. However, the bar they're setting is one of being predatory of the workforce and ultimate greed. As others have mentioned, it's basically the railroad barons all over again. They've managed to push more and more workers into the lower class, and then trap them, so that Walmart is the only place where these people can shop. When this became apparent to me, I had to realize I was to blame, I had fallen for it. I can proudly say I haven't been in a Walmart in over 2 years now. We honestly don't need any of that JUNK. We need to save and pay off our debts, then occasionally spend that money on quality products that help the economy behind our own boarders. Companies that don't try to swindle their way out of paying taxes through highly funded lobbyists and seedy pocket politicians. And, the more we continue to let places like Walwhore grow and do this, it's less likely that's going to happen for a majority of our lower workforce. Shoot yourself in the foot or not, it's up to you.
Boat Can you reference where Karl Marx said the sentence quoted for me? Simply wondering how it led you to that, or is your auto response to opinions you don't agree with to just refer to the poster as a socialist? I guess asking people to buy American and help their own economy is akin to Socialism to people like you these days. Sorry I lost you there Boat, it must have been my clearly worded sentences. ;)
FlyBoyBigBlue I didn't say you were quoting Marx, I said you talking points are Marxist. There's a difference. The reason it is Marxist is because it's based on emotional language tied to the theory that corporations are evil and the worker is being exploited. It's been around for years especially with unions, but had reemergence recently with the pathetic Occupy Wall Street movement. Same talking points, same old song and dance. Same ignorance of economics. It's trash Marxism. You probably don't know any better, so it's not your fault...you were taught it like everyone else that spews these same progressive talking points. "I guess asking people to buy American and help their own economy..."
Boat Actually, you didn't say that either. You made an emotional statement based on nothing, "It's Marxist Trash". Using your logic, we could assume you were Marxist as well. But that's just it, we're not. See, someone has to follow Marxism... to be a Marxist. Did I say that clear enough for you? I know I lost you with the long paragraph up there, just want to make sure you can follow. You can't just take a theoretical millimeter of what makes a speech Marxist and then go around saying everyone's speeches are as such because they include some sort of emotion. Well, you could, but then you'd just be showing everyone what a butt headed ass you are. And, if you think buying American products doesn't help our own economy, well then I guess you just straight up ignore solid factual evidence as well, nothing based on emotion there. Furthermore, you're letting your emotions tell you who you THINK I am, just look at that humdinger of a rant after the Occupy Wall Street remark. What you are utilizing is basically akin to a form of McCarthyism. You're morphing the term to fit you're own idea of what a Marxist is so that you can use it as a label. But it's o.k., you were probably raised that way, and don't know any better. I'll just give you a sympathetic pat on the head and move along now. Take care.
+TheMcMater When you increase wage you increase prices because wealth is relative. We are doing great in Texas ($7.25 minimum wage). So well that most company's don't even pay minimum wage, I've never met someone who actually got minimum wage. Then liberals say that states with higher wage have more money then Texas, but don't mention the fact the standard of living is lower here. So someone who makes $100,000 per year lives in a hut in California where someone who makes $50,000 in Texas lives in a nice roomy home in a great city.
Benedict Feser Like they say money isn't wealth, innovation is wealth. Calculators were several hundred dollars back then and due to innovation you can get them for chump change. In the future everything we see as unobtainable will be available to every one at nearly no cost.
I volunteered for a food bank in Vancouver, Canada... and people receiving assistance from our food bank... get A LOT of food... like, A LOT. I remember when we had to fill out a box of a combination of junk food (like candy and cookies) for every recepient. The box was HUGEE
We should put a "CAP" on corporate profits. I'm not sure of the ratio maybe something like a 10 to 1 margin i.e. they can only make 10x more then their lowest paid employee. If the boss/owner wants a raise then "Everyone" gets a raise... Problem solved...
I'm an EMT for the state of Iowa, and in only make about $11.25 an hour. I had to go to school and pay thousands of dollars to pay for books, supplies, and said classes. I don't think it's fair for someone who scans all day should make more than I do.
Kyle, is it that you are unhappy with the wage you are receiving, or is it that someone else might make more than you for doing a job you consider less valuable than your own? And while I am admittedly unaware of the unique circumstances surrounding your employment situation or the laws in Iowa, I'm not convinced that you "had" to go and do any of that (school, books, supplies and said classes). Did you have no other reasonable choice(s) in choosing your profession, or is that decided for you by others? Is there a caste system in Iowa that limits your career paths? I've never lived there so my knowledge of the situation up there is limited to what I have found on Wikipedia, which is arguably not the final, or seemingly the most accurate, authority on almost anything.
Cashiers should be making more, and EMTs should be making a lot more! I'm surprised that you're not complaining about the people working in jobs who are making more than you but didn't have to go to college. Again, I agree with you that EMTs should be paid at least double what you're making! But everyone else also deserves to make enough to live on. Cashiers should be paid $20 per hour. CNAs should be paid $25 per hour. LPNs and EMTs should be paid $30 per hour. And RNs should get paid $35 per hour. Everyone should get paid enough to live on. All jobs require skills. However those people who have skills that were acquired through education that cost them time and money should be paid more for sure. The economy works best when people have money to spend.
See, the thing that this video does not address is the billions that salary Walmart workers receive. If some of the ludicrously paid salary workers and Executives took paycuts, the hourly wages could be raised. This option is being purposefully left out because of greed. It's easy to forget that single mother struggling to keep food on the table when you own a yacht. I am not promoting communism here, but attention must be drawn to the obesely wealthy in the world. Walmart CEO C.Douglas McMillon is worth millions and he recieves about $10 million a year. He does not come close to some of the real moneymakers out there. It's just sickening that when paycuts need to happen or wages are in question, the ones that can afford to take the cuts still get raises and bonuses while the struggling lot are forced to wait another year for a raise as gas prices rise. Where the fuck is Robin Hood?
All those 1 cent add up to be a lot of money. This video ignores other factors in the economy, like the monopolization of money by governments. Taxation and regulations that cost companies money to hire people, money the employer might be able to get.
+Nicholas Zounis Yes, like Obamacare. I know a lot of people who lost their jobs because of that, and companies are trying to run around that by making part-time jobs... part time Is not good enough when you have a family to feed! Hours and wage go hand in hand. What's the point of a higher wage, at the cost of less hours?!
+SquallyParkour Preach someone finally said it. If you get $1 p/h raise then get your hours cut to 6 to 10 h/w when you used to get 20 h/w you come home with less money than you did at a lower pay rate. The few full timers (probably been there about 10 years) aren't safe either. By eliminating them and replacing them with part timers companies pocket more money w/o benefits to it's 'new' employees. Job security is dead
naturegirl2110 Yes, it's a balance! I know too many people who have already lost their jobs because of that. We are making it harder and harder for companies to thrive. Especially here in CA, and we are seeing more jobs get outsourced. I know how much it sucks to receive minimum wage paychecks... but minimum wage was not meant for single mothers to survive on, and raise their child(ren). All the while having fancy/expensive things... A family is made for TWO workers to be bringing in the doe. And in the first place, why would you bring a child into this world without having financial stability?? This system was made for future oriented individuals... If you're not going to college, learn a skill, a trade... I didn't go to college... But I do have a career. College isn't for everyone. I knew that if I got stuck on minimum wage, I'd become a welfare for life kind-of-person. Welfare isn't suppost to raise your kids. It's suppost to give people a helping hand between a hardship. Now, I have no problem with families that need assistance for a long time- it's the people who abuse the system that I don't like. That sell their food stamps instead of feeding their kids. Who's kids don't even LIVE with them. And those who get comfy, and continue to bring kids into this world, can work, but don't! Sorry for the rant :) Moral of the story... get a career, not just a job. You are responsible for your own success.
+SquallyParkour I do agree with some of your points but not all. What the point of college if there is not job/career after years of school not to mention the debt. A degree is just a glorified high school diploma. Most skilled position and customer service position (except face to face) are already overseas or they have imorted these individuals to fill that positions. For example doctors can't tell the last time I've seen an American doctor, most are indians or chinese. At the end of the day people need jobs for this country to thrive. What these companies fail to realize is some of their employees are actually are their customers. When their jobs are sent overseas they no longer have disposable income so that company loses that sale which then causes more job cuts and the cycle continues. Again what's the point of college if there aren't any jobs. These companies need to bring back our jobs but of course that will never happen the found cheap labor. Not only that once the US economy has been decimated these once third world countries will become their new customers. As you can see China is on its way to become a first world country, why you may ask, because US. corps sent all their jobs there. In the process of this America will be the new third world Sorry for my rant. Please excuse any typos. Sometimes my mind goes faster than hands can type.
naturegirl2110 No, no, I don't mind at all. I like a good chat. Lol. I already know college is pointless, which is why I didn't attend. In fact, Now my college graduate friends are working minimum wage jobs while I am rolling in the doe... Although I wouldn't say that just because doctors are of different ethnicities that means they are foreigners. This is a diverse country, and unfortunately, kids no longer have drive to go to school. But people who have deep cultural roots that promote education (Indians, Chinese, ect) will always strive to continue. Nowadays people want to major in art... and English... and although I find these to be good for the mind... they are shit if you want to be in a "real" profession. I say, choose a career. I did. You don't need college. The hardest thing I have seen my peers struggle with is jobs after college- and the ridiculous debt that I avoided... lol. I know people with degrees working in the fields- but hey, we of humble beginnings all did our time in the field. Lol. We will never again have jobs like we used to. But then again, the baby boomers are retiring... that could open lots of opportunity in our market. But nothing will get better by raising the minimum wage to an unreasonable amount. We just need to assess what "reasonable" is. I don't think "minimum wage" is equal to "living wage".... we get X amount of money... and make it happen.... With X amount you can afford a rice and bean burrito for dinner.... and with XXX amount, you can dine out in your brand new 2016 vehicle... and that's just the way it is. We will never be able to compete with Vietnam cheap labor... but that doesn't mean we should become more company unfriendly... I love the company I work for. A lot of things we didn't choose in life- but who we work for is something we did. Don't sell your soul to just anyone.
The service economy is the new economy of America, and not only is the pay scale low, the costs to society are high. This video didn't factor in the cost of Medicaid, children's insurance programs, and Section 8 housing. If you want to escape the downward economic cycle , even if you are educated and still struggling, the answer is to stop spending anything at big box stores, stay out of debt, and learn to put your money into investments in yourself, not to service the "consumer economy". I've always known that food stamps were just a way to keep money flowing to manufactured food product companies. We don't need either.
Big pharma is corrupt. Medicaid feeds big pharma. Section 8 housing is also corrupt . They overclaim a project's cost, and pocket the remaining cash. It seems that many of the government's programs just feed big corporations. The taxpayer loses, the government loses, the corrupt wins. Canada doesn't have food stamps, and many people see today's Canada as more progressive than USA.
what you refused to calculate into that was how much of a cost hike that would be on walmart as a whole. hundreds of thousands of employees getting a 5 dollar per hour hike in wage. that means an extra 500k per hour that walmart would have to shell out on the low end. That's 15 million a week on 30 hours, 60 million a month, which leaves is at 720 million per year extra that walmart shells out All of that is coming out of their 3% profit margin. 3% of what the store rakes in is profit, the rest goes to mandatory costs; property, acquisition of goods, taxes, and wages as well as regular maintenance. That price hike adding 720 million dollar cost at bare minimum. Factor in all of the added cost to the company before assuming how much they'll hike prices to compensate. That 68 cent box of mac would turn into over a dollar worst case scenario. Imagine how much of a hike that would equate to with milk or bread. Or, to try to hold back the hike as much as possible, they'll cut hours and invest less into training. Maybe shut down a couple of stores altogether laying off many employees. Fire pregnant employees, or single parents, favoring those with highly flexible schedules to guarantee higher productivity.
You refused to calculate how much the CEO and Executives are paid and the profits that disappear overseas... and how much did Walmart pay in taxes last year?...
R. H. you refused to consider the reason behind the offshore accounts in tax havens [can you say, highest corporate tax rate in the world?]. Not to mention the vast number of employees they have overall, the costs of maintaining and stocking each store and other property costs including water and electricity.
In 2015, 27 giant profitable companies paid no taxes... The reason: greedy bastards escaping paying taxes. What love of country, fighting tooth and nail to hide obscene amounts of money overseas while truer Americans pay taxes while struggling to live on stagnant wages. You know what would happen if corporations and the elite that run them paid their fair share of taxes? They would still be filthy rich.
R. H. and their profit margins would go in the red unless they started cutting hours, firing people, closed facilities, and/or raised prices. That's how much an effect the excessive regulation and high taxation has. And it's the political Left who's to blame here.
If Walmart paid a living wage it would be Amazon. The VASTLY fewer workers would have to bust their humps but they would be paid more... Until we can automate their jobs.
$13 an hour for Walmart is $3 more per hour than the money I got in my first research position six years ago. It is about exactly what I make now teaching differential equations as a math grad student. A job checking groceries is not as skilled a job as a PhD candidate teaching math. If we tried to raise the wage like this, the employees would be fired and replaced with self checkout stands.
All my Walmart has is 1 open register (out of 40, except during holiday season of coarse..then all 40 are going) and 8 self checkout stands. (open at all times). So that is 3 people total checking everyone out. By comparison my mom and pop local grocer has 5 registers open at all times with 5 'bag boys' who take your groceries to the car for free. (We tip of coarse) They all wear ties and strike friendly conversation as well. Sure the groceries are a little more than Walmart, but the experience of not feeling like you are shopping at the bread line is worth it. It has been a successful business model for over 50 years.
Not what I said. I said that if the minimum wage were raised it would be more likely these people would be replaced by machines than receive a higher wage.
![Summer Walker - Heart Of A Woman [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SFddctbZzw8/mqdefault.jpg)
When he said from 68 cents to 69 cents I started crying 😂😂😂
Me too, i thought it was going to be like a dollar or so1😅
0.68c? More like $1.27 that's what happened at my walmart.
@@DividendFiend half for the workers' wages, half for the traumatized stockholders.
Walmart and McDonald's can afford $15/hour...most small businesses can't.
If $15/hour became law, the big corporations would swallow up what's left of the mom-and-pop businesses...
Who said anything about Law? We're talking exploitation by the mega-rich here.
Past research on how business costs rise with minimum wage hikes indicates that a 100-percent minimum wage hike can be expected to produce a cost increase for the average business of less than one percent of their sales revenue. This cost figure includes three components. First, mandated raises: the raises employers must give their workers to meet the new wage floor. Second, “ripple-effect” raises: the raises employers give some workers to put their pay rates a bit above the new minimum in order to preserve the same wage hierarchy before and after minimum wage hike. And third, the higher payroll taxes employers must pay on their now-larger wage bill. If the average businesses wanted to completely cover the cost increase from a 100-percent minimum wage hike through higher prices, they would need to raise their prices by less than 1 percent.
But then who wants to work for small businesses? You create more barriers to entry and now you will have the large corporations the left hates so much. They will be even more powerful than before will no competition at the local level at all. Minimum wage laws like that are what's horrendous.
yay
Hell yes! Social Darwinism!
I find it amazing how okay so many people are in the comments with Walmart, a private company, subsidizing its payroll with Gov. assistance.
would you be happier if they fired the people???Work is only worth so much and it has nothing to do with your circumstances.. As wages go up jobs are eliminates & hours are cut....
@@rackets7991 didn't happen in Seattle when they raised the min wage
Work is a value assessment, this value assessment is made multiple times a year ( per financial quarter). If a business such as Wall Mart operates under a scarcity model, it is harmful to everyone who integrates with it; customers, workers, producers, etc. If they are destroyed slowly over time, real businesses (like CosCo) will take their place amidst a sustainable economic model that isnt parasitic towards the system it operates in.
Walmart will automate soon.. Just like everyone else. My mom lost her job to a kiosk. A buddy lost his bartending job to a robot. So find solace in the fact that soon, walmart wont have any employees...
But with what it pays in tax it makes up for, as well as the service it provides to the US citizens
This is why I shop at Costco
I'd pay the extra penny. I'm pretty sure the Walmart employee would too.
Because they would be able to almost afford it.
I'd pay way more than the penny. Raise it 30 ¢. BUT PASS IT TO THE WORKER INSTEAD.
Let me get your math right. Walmart would have to spend 4800 Million dollars (yes, 4.3 B) extra to save just 300 Million dollars in foodstamps? Trading 4300 in expense for a 300 savings doesn't add up.
He said that the whole company's employees take 13B in tax dollars and then said it would only need to take 4.3B to raise wages. Therefore, 8+B is theoretically transferring from taxes to Walmart bottom-line because they don't raise wages.
Dr Judgement 500 in rent wtf. Most are paying at least 1.2k for even a crap apartment.
remember food stamps paid with our tax money. Wal-mart is a private business its expenses are its own. They'll try to pass the cost to us or cut employee hours.
J. Webb you need to watch the video again.... $13B from the entire us population.... assuming Ohio was representative 15% of all walmart employees make up on $300M of those dollars... it would cost walmart $4.3 BILLION a year to save tax payers $300 MILLION... which is less than $1 per person per year in the US... VS the quick math I just did for my family personally for at walmart where that extra 1.4% mark up would be (roughly) $1008.00 a year. I'd rather pay the extra $4 to the government to cover the 4 people on my household helping out with their food stamps.
Also the employees do receive a discount to, though not factored in.
R.I.P Economics :'(
Yea, "economony" is just pseudo-science and can be ignored. When will the workers overthrow the capitalists so that Everyone can be rich and have food enough for everyone?
Damn companies, they are all so evil, if just Wallmart was collectily owned by the workers!
Socialism never works out.
And when it does we mount a coup so that it doesn't work out and if that doesn't work lets stop trade so that it doesn't work out and if that doesn't work lets bomb them so it doesn't work out.
Socialism never Needed help to fail. That is the One thing it is really good at.
Socialism is also called "The One To Loose It All"
Social security is rate is 12.4% of pay, employer pays half and employee pays half - this was not included in these calculations, if you don't know how to or don't want to include all of the facts the whole argument is suspect. Misleading information is worse than no information and does nothing to solve problems, it does however, help create a lot of animosity.
In the government calculation for food assistance, they look at your gross income, so the $20,449 number would include employee contribution to FICA.
Correct. It also fails to account for income tax, which is usually paid the same way (half paid by employer, half by employee). This video is riddled with fuzzy math and misleading figures.
Yeah, I bet that 12.4% dramatically increases the cost to consumers . . .
Employees pay every penny. The employer doesn't care if he has to keep his half from you first. Come on....
Oh man, so my box of mac'n'cheese might cost me 75 cents!!! THE HORROR!!!
I laughed at the end, I thought the prices would go up a fuckton
Lenard Lindsey They actually would. This video is intentionally misleading.
Oh hell ya they would reality is that Mac and cheese for $0.68 would now cost more like $1.50
@@TrailerKeller no it wouldn't. Those big box stores can have hundreds and hundreds of people shopping in a single day.
@@TrailerKeller [citation needed]
That's because the employers who don't want to pay more encourage this belief. They say stuff like, "If we raise pay 50%, we'll have to raise prices 50%," which is ridiculous if you understand math, but they count on the fact that most working class Americans don't.
No great fan of WalMart here, but...
Know what happens when you make just above the Food Stamps level? You actually make less than you did when you qualified for Food Stamps. There's a narrow margin many people fall in where if they make just under the Food Stamps amount, the extra boost from Food Stamps supplements them enough to live at a normal lower-class level. If their employer raises their wages by just a dollar, that could bring them over the Food Stamps limit and ultimately cost them more out-of-pocket each month.
It's the terminology in this video that's disturbing. By "not qualifying" doesn't mean you're living above the poverty level. You could "not qualify" for Food Stamps but barely make enough to feed yourself and pay rent. It's not just WalMart that has to change, but the Federal Minimum Wage that needs to change as well as a readjustment of the legal "poverty level" in the country and the programs that rely on that poverty line.
A federal increase in the minimum wage would just drive prices up, thus the living-wage would also increase, and the problem would not be resolved.
@@antonioarreola3097 prices have been going up for alot of things for many years and only recently have we seen any change to minimum. It's an invalid argument.
What needs to change is the government f*ing off and stopping draining so much on society. It's a big set of weights everyone carries around, but then thinks that their problems are caused by something else.
Maybe, hear me out on this, Walmart should pay their workers a living wage *and* welfare programs should have that perverse incentive redesigned out of them. Say, the assistance money you get is whatever is the difference between your take-home pay and the poverty line. Two things can be bad.
@@antonioarreola3097 no it wouldn’t. Are you actually retarded or did you not watch the video lmao 😂
My sentiments exactly. I suppose their stock might go down a few pennies short term but rise longterm. Logically companies need to be held accountable for how the economy is structured instead of always taking a backseat like some self-entitled adolescent.
This video literally argues that a $300 million savings is worth a $4.8 billion cost.
+Libertarianist Why should we pay for Walmart's employees? If they can't afford to stay in business then they should fail.
+Libertarianist
+Libertarianist You are so smart! This video literally argued that millions of americans even the ones who doesn't shop at walmart shouldn't have to bear $300 million cost of welfare for the walmart employees so that the walton family can keep their $4.8billion dollars! That is mind bogglingly wrong!
Denise Cunning You're deliberately misunderstanding my argument.
The video argues that it would cost Walmart $4.8 billion dollars to raise the wages of its employees sufficient to get them off Welfare and would pass that cost on to the consumer. That is definitively a greater cost to the general population than the $300 million dollar welfare cost. Get it? Re-read my comments and re-watch the video until you at least understand what I'm pointing out.
When walmart increases the wage, worst case scenario is they jack up the price and have the walmart shoppers bear the price not the general population. But doing so reduces their competitiveness. In the case of having low wages and low product prices with their employees relying on welfare, the general population pays through tax.
+Denise Cunning You're right, Walmart shoppers aren't the general population, just the lower income demographic. You're advocating that Walmart employees should have their income supplemented at the expense of what effectively amounts to a tax on poor people. Good job.
Ah math, numbers can be manipulated to show your point but can also be manipulated and show how far off you may be.
One cent a box means one billion for the 1% at the top of the pyramid. That's why it's going this way.
Imagine working for Walmart for several years, and after much hard work and dedication you've advanced to the point where your salary has risen from $8.81 to $15. Good times.
Then, after they force Walmart to pay a minimum of $15, the high school kid coming in the door to work over the summer is now making the same as you...
Imagine having to bust your butt for several years in order to earn a salary high enough to live on.
@@spongeintheshoe I did bust my butt for several years and was barely scraping by. Then I realized that I wasn't going to get anywhere, and went back to school. I went to a 2 year tech school for programming. Sucked it up, ate ramen noodles for 2 years, graduated, and now I am very well off. Funny how that works. But if you just want the government to hand you a free ride, have at it.
@@dougsholly9323 You do realize that even if everyone went to school, _someone_ would still have to work at Walmart, right?
@@spongeintheshoe would they though? Maybe this world would look completely different if everyone was educated. But we don't live in that world. And you know who works in Walmart in this world? Uneducated, unmotivated people. And you know what you pay someone who is uneducated and not motivated to change that? Not $15 an hour.
@@dougsholly9323 So what you're saying is that uneducated and unmotivated people don't deserve to live?
It really pisses me off that companies always pay the minimum wage. Yes, it's the minimum wage you're allowed to pay your employees, but that doesn't mean you HAVE to pay them that little. Walmart can easily afford to pay its employees more, and should. I'm tired of companies being so fucking greedy.
False. Most companies pay way over the minimum wage.
The companies are greedy for not paying more than the market (& regulations) necessitate. But employees are not greedy for wanting to be paid more than the market (& regulations) necessitate.
Got it.
Frank Ch. Eigler False the market doesn't necessistate it. It exactly because of goverment that their allowed to pay so little. Without government help these people would literally start dying off and these corporations don't even pay taxes.
Wal-Mart pays more than any of their other competitors in the same market... Marsh, Kroger, What not...
lalmvpkobe
TOP LOL
then this means that taxpayers are still paying for the employees' wage increase if the cost is passed down to consumers
because a penny on a box of mac and cheese is going to break the bank...
@@hyperashitive3217 it literally adds up karen LOL
@@yashveer1x 1.4%....... Take your current grocery bill and add on 1.4% and tell me how that would break the bank and how you would rather have walmart's workers in poverty than pay that incredibly small sum.
yashveer1x if you can’t afford groceries maybe you should ask for a better wage I here from these financial gurus in the comments that that is an effective way to raise your wage. Lol
exactly. the video doesn't even make sense. How all the consumers pay 1.4% more on grocery will save us $300 million per year? Please do calculation on how much more consumers have to spend on buying groceries for 1.4% then?
These always contain some kind of fallacy.
The fallacy here is that those 18% percent of 76,000,000,000 (13,000,000,000), right at 00:58, are assumed to be net Walmart's profits when, in fact, only a percentage of those are actual Walmart gains (the amount correlated to their mean profit margin, which is not declared in the video). This fallacy is then carried onward to issuing calculations with a straight face, if videos had such.
I am not saying there wouldn't be social and even possible economic advantages in raising the minimum wage of Walmart workers.
I am only saying that if you're going to support that reasoning with calculations, be honest about them.
+NimbusKhan NK Dude - you missed the point. You should be angry that Walmart gets your tax dollars because they underpay their workers such so they can get proceeds from food stamps. A living wage they could pay if they just raised the price of a box of mac and cheese.
Can't you see? We're Walmart's bitch even if we don't shop there.
+mr7wi dude never tell someone who they should be angry at. this video is 2 years old and the figures listed in it are very out dated. last year Walmart increased there starting wage to $9hr and in the next few months a new higher after completing the required training will make $10hr. keep in mined that these rates are for the bottom level of employment at Walmart as you move up you will be making more money.
joshua neill Am I the only one who's pissed pissed that Walmart takes my money even if I don't shop there? Really? You're good with that? Because if you are, that's socialism.
So joshua neill you're ok with them paying $20k a year and having your taxes back fill the living wage at $24k per year ($12 per hour, assuming full time employment is 2,000 per year)? I'm not: Walmart - hike your price by 1 cent on mac and cheese and fabreeze or tide or whatever else and pass on those earnings to your workers. If not, I want like my money back, thanks.
I fail to understand why everybody is so in awe of these corporations getting rich off everyone else's work. Sure people may move up the pay scale - but they still start at the bottom and the cost of living doesn't go away.
+NimbusKhan NK Interesting as I provided a critique of this clip, based on actual data from Walmart's Annual Report, and I found out that his calculations were totally off beam and meaningless. I actually wrote quite a long article including economic theory and financial fundamentals, and it has been taken down. I wonder why. Just to reiterate, the data the author provides is not valid.
+joshua neill And yet its been proven time and again that $15 is whats neccessary to end corporate welfare. In 2015 48% of Americans didnt pay taxes. Trickle-down economics is the real fallacy here; and you wont agree until that 48% is 75% and theres no one left to pay taxes.
Okay, then explain why Walmart doesn't already raise their prices 1.4% and earn an extra $300 million for the owners? Oh yeah, because there's probably more repercussions than this glib video assumes.
Exactly... they only increased the prices for the employees on food stamps... what about the rest of their employee... how do you pick and choose who gets the raise... now do the math with giving every wallmart employee a raise and let's see how much the products go up then!
Why would that money go to their owners? They are saving the tax payers. If they tax payers wanted to save themselves that money, they could vote to end the stupid program.
If you are more than 30 years old and work as a cashier at Wall-Mart, the problem is with you. not with anyone else. Go finish high-school, search for a better job, open a business, don't have 5 kids if you can't afford them. Better yourself and the results will come. No one is responsible for your well-being, you shouldn't have to wait for others or the government to better your life. The only one that can really do that is you.
Please make sure you understand the situations other people are in before making ignorant comments like this.
starting a business isn't that easy man. There are trials and errors, and not everyone is up to the task. We all need one another from customers, to people serving customers. Not everyone can see that. People complain to go make your money on your own hard work, then when they do people call them losers. So which is it? Starting a business also costs capital, and not everyone has the capital to start one.
Dreamscape Oz I am just saying better yourself, don't wait for handouts from the government. There are high schools that have programs for working parents, If you have a will, there is a way. Waiting for help from the outside is the only thing that is stooping us from bettering ourselves.
Joseph Stone You have a wrong mentality. A small business can be making something at home and selling it on the internet. There are sites like freelancer where you can work and gain knowledge at the same time. I bet you can earn more than McDonalds there and she could also stay at home and take better care of her children. There are possibilities, you just have to have the will to do better and not wait for help from the outside.
Your comments are very arrogant, you haven't thought about it for someone else's view point, if you are a cashier at 30 maybe they had an extremely shit life and you cant go on government programs as you have no time because you have kids and if you go to these programs how will you earn and look after your kids and this is just one example.
30 hours is part time, try working 40
indonesian here. I could say our average working hours are around 50hours/week
I'm full time, under-staffed, and being forced to pick up the slack, pushing my hours up closer to 50 for the past 3 weeks.
North Korean here. Average working hours are 162 hours/week
Fuck, the company I work for won't let anyone work 40 hours or more, and we're understaffed.... I still gotta get all 'my' work done though...
I have been working ~40-60 hours a week for the past 2 years, in company where I work u either except overtimes either u are fired
Damn corporations, damn them to Hell.
I call bullshit.
explain?
Sure, nobody else wants it
***** Umm... $0.68 * 1.014 = 0.68952 , or rounded up: $0.69 (so the increase to the mac & cheese was a bit more than 1.4% [if rounded to the 10th of a %, it would be a 1.5% increase, 100th of a percent would be 1.47%])
And judging by the profit margin the company makes on a variety of products this increase would be "to maintain current profitability" - ie not cutting into the bottom line of the company. (The company operates on a loss on specific sets of merchandise, with marked up profits on 'accessories' or 'related purchases' to increase sales in big-ticket items, and make up the loss, and then some, on the small-ticket items with the logic of "if they can buy this expensive item cheaper, they will be more likely to purchase these cheaper items to go along with it down the line" [it is easier to justify inexpensive purchases than it is to justify expensive purchases]).
The exact % markups and such vary store to store, especially when you move from district to district or regional to regional.
***** I'm guessing from your response, that you'd probably be surprised to see how much of Walmart's profit is generated from products in the $0.25 - $1.50 range. While not the 'rule', as there are exceptions, as you go higher in the price at walmart, you'll notice the mark-up shrinks, and in the higher ranges, even becomes negative [ie they lose money on things like TVs, to give incentive to the purchase of accessories/items such as DVDs, DVD players, cords, etc.
Of the tens of thousands of products (if not hundreds of thousands, since I've never counted for total quantity, only 'outs') - you would be surprised how large of a sample set is in these 'low price points' - and how heavily these sell.
“What good does it do a black youth to know that an employer must pay him $2 an hour if the fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him from getting a job?”
― Paul A. Samuelson, Economics, 1948
Samuelson is considered by The New York Times to be the "foremost academic economist of the 20th century".
+theknifesong There are economists and there are economists. NOBODY is "the greatest economist". Consider that the New York Times recently was acquired by Rupert Murdoch, I believe. Better would be to see what the L.A. Times thinks.
Yes, the New York Times is notorious for their right wing propaganda. Give us all a break.
+theknifesong
Why does the employee have to be black?
Why does that make it right to pay someone a nickel an hour?
This is a straw man.
Kriegar1964
That's the quote from NYT's Economist of the Century and it just so happens that Black Americans are severely hurt by minimum wage laws but of course you bigots only care about your own self interests.
theknifesong
I do not care where the quote comes from, because it sure as hell does not help poor people of other races either. And the "Economist of the century" is a pretty subjective term. I KNOW you're not calling me a racist, unless you are assuming something other than what evidence is presented to you.
But yes, let's have only blacks wear it, live it, and respond to it-because that seems to be incredibly helpful, I guess?
But either way, we pay (taxes vs. higher walmart prices) so why is this good for me? Shell game?
***** At least his icon is fitting.
I know it's meant as a troll - but it's a valid question. There are two ways to avoid caustic inequality (which leads to ugly things like revolutions and oligarchies). You can use taxation and redistribution, producing a massive lower class welfare state or you can raise the minimum wage to a level that a 40 hour work week is enough for an adult to live just above the poverty line -- the result of which is actually a thriving middle class and a much more stable economy.
The best example is Australia. Minimum wage there is significantly higher. They are the only modern western style economy that did NOT suffer recession in the latest round of financial instability, and have a thriving middle class. McDonalds still exists and does not cost significantly more than anywhere else.
Andrew Pollack Excellent points.
*****
what he is saying is he still pays for somebody else's macaroni .
Your mom swipes her EBT card, how much did she pay for that macaroni ?
oh never mind, I see by your foul language you don't think it is a valid point.
Ask that question again when you get to the point that you need food stamps. You'll wish your employer had just raised prices a bit so you could avoid visiting a welfare office periodically, having your personal belongings gone through, and feeling like some sort of criminal bum. All the while having ANY income monitored by these people. It's a good feeling not having to rely on the government teet and buying your own food.
I live by a Walmart
Cool story bro.
Quick, do an AMA. We need to know your experiences in life.
AbePacko12 I can't, I have a headache
More like Wal Mart lives near you
Joseph Peters We don't in the rest of the world
Question1: If Walmark raises the products by 1.4%, wouldn't it lose market space for other companies?
Question2: I wonder if I missed some info, but the video is assuming that all "low wage workers" work at Walmart?
Question3: By raising all low wages, wouldn't be inflation and therefore the money would lose value?
Random Comment: $8 dolares per hour here in Brazil is actually a well paid job. Given $1 = R$ 1, to buy a brand new car, the brazillian worker would need 30x more hours than a "single US mom"
+Xano Trevisan Kothe Point 1. No they wouldn't; people shop at Walmart for their variety of goods, price points and a numbers reasons. Point 2 - No, not all low paid workers work at Walmart, but they are the easiest example of corporate avarice. Point 3 No, the increase in wages would not affect inflation in the slightest because the lowest on the corporate ladder, collectively, could not affect the price of any commodity.
You missed the point of the video. Walmart benefits from the proceeds of social programs (food stamps) because they don't pay a living wage - which they could afford if they raised the price of a box of mac and cheese and passed it along to their workers.
Don't know about you, but I am TIRED of Walmart getting MY MONEY (in the form of taxes we all pay) WHEN I DON"T SHOP THERE - ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE WALMART COULD EMPLOY.
This isn't about labour, or employment levels or job opportunities - This up load is about how Walmart games the system and gets a free pass to keep wages low so they can continue to profit from a government social assistance.
Buddy - these guys make money from you and me, whether we shop there or not. And in my books, that wrong.
+mr7wi thanks for the answers. I'm actually from Brazil, and we have a similar problem. I'm tired of given money to government. You could "choose" where to buy your thinks, but you "can't" choose to pay or not taxes
Xano Trevisan Kothe Brilliant quote - choose where you buy; can't choose taxes. I am going to quote you, with permission. Direct and eloquent. Thank you.
+mr7wi let's say Walmart just vanished overnight, so it no longer pays cashiers salaries that are only slightly higher than minimal wage. Will Walmart keep getting your money, even though you don't shop there? What if it simply didn't exist? Would it still be responsible for your tax money spent on unemployment?
Alex I don't get your point.
If Walmart is no longer a going concern or never existed they don't get anyone's money.
Walmart isn't responsible for funds spent on unemployment - that is fiscal policy / the law.
Here's an idea...how about we get rid of the foodstamps FIRST, then adjust the wages afterwards. Chances are when all the free government cheese stops pouring in, they'll start to lower prices for mac n cheese which will make it more affordable for those at lower wages. This is precisely why medical costs continue to increase; they in a fixed model lacking competition.
The sad fact is, Walmart enjoys the government cheese. Let's stop feeding it's addiction.
***** That's not an attack. That's a solution. Foodstamps are the closest thing to corporate welfare in this situation. I don't think you understand corporatism. Money isn't paid to the rich CEOs, and it isn't even a fraction of our tax dollars compared to social welfare programs which outweigh even our military budget.
Boat And how long would the transition period be? If a family is already struggling...how long would they be deprived of basic nutrition just because all they can afford are ramen noodles and tap water? The transition period for the poor would be en epidemic...whereas, I'm pretty sure that the wealthy would get by just fine with the video's transition phase.
Or maybe you could raise the minimum wage in your backwards country and continue to offer food stamps for those who need them.
Why do you think there is even room to lower to price of the Mac and Cheese? Prices at a discount store are already cut to thin margins. I understand what you major point is but your analysis is wrong. If you stop paying food stamps to employees, workers would find that they don't have enough to live on and would go do something else or get on full assistance. Food stamps and the like help to raise the Walmart wage to a point that people will actually work there. Basically, Walmart is using tax payer subsidized work force. That is a problem.
Stephanie Morin I would grandfather those on the benefits when the cut happens and then allow the natural deadlines on the SNAP program expire for each person that needs them. People seemed to survive in this country prior to the food stamp program.
And before you say I'm not compassionate or sympathetic, I volunteer and food shelters; I see the real needy. I was a starving college kid at one point too, it made me hunger for a better more secure life. America needs that ambition again, not handouts.
No, that's not how math, economics, or anything that has to do with money works. This video is all well and good if you assume 3 things:
1. Only people who work at wal-mart on food stamps shop at walmart
2. People who work at wal-mart shop nowhere else for anything
3. People who work at wal-mart buy only mac and cheese and need nothing else to get by their daily lives.
Good on you for pointing these things out. A bigger point is that for walmart to make the 'living wage' then the government would have to step in to make it so - which means it increases for everyone - right down the line. Right from the seed growers to sell the seed to farmers who grow the wheat to make the pasta, blah blah blah. Don't forget those pumping the gas to get the product from one point to another...yada yada yada. Ya - it only costs walmart 1 cent per box of mac and cheese to cover their employee raises, but that doesn't account for the increase of the the price of the product that walmart is now paying.
it also doesn't take into account the single parent with 2 3 or 4 kids who would need more money or the person with no kid that would need less... this purposes that a person should be paid based on their life choices (even if they were bad) not the skill level of tge job they are performing or conditions of the work place, and rewarded with higher pay.
Yes, but Walmart may also fire that single mom outright and replace her with a full time employee or a self checkout. What I have proposed is the more likely option.
Why should Walmart have to pay someone more than what they're worth?
666Leosch If my labor only produces $9 an hour of profit for Walmart, then why should Walmart have to pay me $10?
666Leosch Because wages are based on how valuable that specific person is, not how hard they work. Just about anyone could be a walmart employee, you don't have to have any unique skills or talents or anything. You're easily replaceable, that's just the way it is. And for every current walmart employee, there are countless others waiting for a position to open up. That's who the job is for, people who just want to get a job so they can start building work experience. Walmart isn't supposed to be a place you work at your whole life; you work there as your first job for a few years until you go to college or figure out what you want to do for your career.
captainclayman Nobody should be allowed to build his business model such that a person who works full time for them is not consiered valuable enough to pay them a livable wage. That is just way to greedy. I don't care who owns the place and what the stock owners might want. This is destructive to society and should not be allowed to stand. And since (1) you can't have gouvernement monitoring all corporations and (2) you have to keep competition fair the only option seems to be a sensible minimum wage.
I don't see why so many people defend the status quo. The system is obviously not working for a lot of people and they need help.
qazwsx6525 they produce more like 50+ dollars per hour...
Maybe walmart should pay a % of what they sell instead? Good old commision? Every day, people log in how many hours they work, and based on the % of total hours they clock in, they get a % of that 10% or so...
Guess what, that 10% would be about 20,000 PER DAY spread across the store...
www.statisticbrain.com/wal-mart-company-statistics/
36 million spent every hour, times 24 hours
846 million every day, divided between 4253 stores
200 thousand EVERY DAY FOR EVERY STORE!
Hell, even ONE PERCECT would mean an extra 20-30 dollars given to the employees every day!!! And at those wages, thats a LOT!
Tell me again they are getting paid what they are worth?
qazwsx6525 That would make sense except Wal-Mart pays less than what each employee is worth.
Walmart isn't in the business of giving away money. They continue to thwart worker's attempts to form unions because they like the current arrangement.
WAIT WAIT
What it doesn't look at is how many jobs Walmart would have to cut.
That extra penny per box covers the entire cost to the company for raising the wages. Ergo, the company could raise the wages, keep the same number of workers, and not lose any total profits.
Luminous Dark if it does work that way why don't they? oh right because companies hate there employees.
Companies like walmart don't really care about their employees.
Luminous Dark Funny, I did a case analysis on Wal-Mart. They give out generous bonuses to employee's. They also have a college aid program for employee's. Tell me again how they dont like there employees?
Mo Qui So then I assume you understand why there shouldent be a minimum wage? Because it's not like I study the economy or anything. And Ford, made good strides back in the day but he also cared about his company and many other things. how do you know he wasn't wrong about that. Because he was.
If it was this simple Walmart and other stores would just pay their employees more and be done with it. Right now walmart pays what they can realistically and safely pay their employees. When I do the math loosely at a $4 more per hour per 2 million employees (2.2 million if counting all of them), the increase would be closer to a 3% for each product. This means that while mac and cheese may only go up a cent or so. Products like TV's would have to go up $10 to $20 (or more). When you factor in competition this could be devastating as lowering their price would cause them to loose money on the item. If they don't drop the price they lose to the competitor. Lost sales will hurt everyone and will lead to layoffs. In other words some products can't have a price increase meaning others would have to have to go up over 3%. We also have to look at the fact that walmart will have to pay their employees more money before they even made the profit. If sales are below projections they will loose more money and have to staff fewer employees. In the end prices would be much higher and fewer employees would have to work harder. Also employees with less experience/education would be passed up for ones with more. This doesn't even get into fears from stockholders. So the moral of the story is it isn't this simple and anyone that knows business and economics would know this.
Thank you.
This is true if they leveled the cost completely across their inventory... I think walmart is smart enough to know where they can increase prices. Even if they shifted a fair amount of that onto strictly food it would be 5-7% versus the 3% you say. I dont think it's impossible.
"If sales are below projections they will loose more money and have to staff fewer employees."
They'd still be massively profitable though. My definition of "have to" is just different than yours I guess.
you're math is flawed...
>They'd still be massively profitable though. My definition of "have to" is just different than yours I guess.
By whose standards? Yours? Keep in mind that Wal-Mart still has to compete with other companies for market share and cutting their profits in the name of fairness will only end up hurting Wal-Mart and their employees.
So a roll of hamburger would go from like $8.00 to $8.05 in exchange for workers going from like $11 an hour to $15 maybe.
If you ever make a wage increase mandatory you have to make it mandatory for every single employee above minimum wage
Not once does this video mention payroll taxes. I doubt the author knows anything about payroll processing.
The employer has to pay additional tax on top of the employee's gross wages. If Minimum wage is increased to $10 an hour, the employer would be paying $12 an hour, and the employee only gets $8 an hour. All because of federal and state income tax, FICA, and unemployment taxes.
Here's an idea: lower the payroll taxes.
so raise the minimum wage to $12 so the employee gets $10 and that mac and cheese goes up 3 cents...ouch that hurt...
NEXT!
PS...oh, and dont forget, every penny the 99% get paid, they spend (and not store under there bed so when the economy tanks again, they can invest and ride the wall street wave up again and make a quick 40% on there money!)
am m Not sure what you're talking about. There is no reason not to lower the income taxes.
am m Does it hurt to be that dumb? ManOfDeath is very correct. People think it is just that easy to raise an entire work forces wage but it is WAY more complicated than that.
The only way people will get higher wages is if the government lowers income taxes. Lowering income taxes:
A) Puts more money in the pockets of the employers to begin with
B) There is more money to spend on wages by employers because they have more of a tax break.
Minimum wage cannot go up with out taxes coming down. If minimum wage goes up, and taxes stay the same, then inflation will just increase making the cost of living go up and negating the raising of minimum wage. It's hard to put it any more basic than that, so if you can't understand that I feel sorry for you.
It's sad that finance isn't taught in high school any longer.
Apparently the term "inflation" and "hyperinflation" may as well be sci-fi movies from the 80's.
"am m" if you understood a mere fraction of why what you said was laughably ignorant you'd cry yourself to sleep on a daily basis.
am m Ah, but increasing minimum wage without lowering taxes will raise prices and cause job loss.
Cutting taxes would result in lower prices and more hiring, even with minimum wage currently where it is now. Goods and services would be that much more affordable.
And not every middle class person spends everything they have. That would be ludicrous.
This is weird. Why, as a government, would you give out food stamps before setting a decent minimal wage? That's just pouring money down a drain.
Because when minimum wage goes up the worth of a dollar drops, causing the issue to continue.
That's the best argument I've heard for raising the minimum wage; it's quite interesting. That said, people will need food stamps whether there's a minimum wage or not, but just less people.
Because minimum wages are meant to keep poor people from getting into the job market. It started out as a way for white middle class people to keep uneducated blacks from coming in and taking jobs from them.
zav3nd Even if the value of the dollar does drop, it won't drop very much at all and if the minimum wage is increased then all of the jobs that pay slightly to moderately more will also go up in pay. A working class that has money to spend on food, entertainment, etc will result in demand going up because they actually have money to spend on things, meaning that companies get more customers which boosts the economy overall. If demand increases enough it will result in them hiring more people to keep up with the increased demand. Poor people get paid more, companies get more customers, the number of jobs in the economy goes up, companies make more money because of the increase in customers, and everybody wins. Your argument against raising the minimum wage becomes a moot point after taking into consideration all of these other factors.
Lukeor
Low minimum wages lead to stagnant growth, many economists agree on this point. Larger companies rely on the masses to make decent wages because decent wages lead to high liquidity in the market place. If all wealth is concentrated, there is nobody left to buy up everyday items and growth slows down. The rich obviously don't consume products at the same rate as the masses do. How many restaurants can a wealthy person visit, how many cars can they own? Definitely not enough to maintain the current supply. In Asia, specifically China there has been a push to get people to spend more on concerns that if/when demand for goods slows in the west there won't be enough domestic demand for goods to stimulate goods because the 'middle class' doesn't have the purchase power that is familiar to westerners.
Waiting for the video on "When the minimum wage goes up, how many workers lose out to automation?"
Fair question, that I can answer! I was press operator earning $7.50 per hour, running two presses on manual, making rubber caps for plastic tubes, and another making the tubes itself. Every 11 seconds, the machine's would create 64 caps and tubes, that had to be inspected and packed.Then, we automated. Then, I was running 6 presses in Auto mode, making caps, buckets, and vases. (plastic mold injection) These presses run at 600 degrees, and there are 36 of them. Imagine all the heat added to the 100 degree mid-west summer heat! (miserable) The presses run 24-7, with 3 shifts. They do not stop, except for Thanksgiving and Christmas. You must run, to keep up with inspecting and packing all these parts. The only time you are allowed to stop, is on your 10 minute break, which is given to 4 people at a time through relief, and that is seldom going to happen on time. What was the reward for getting awarded 6 times the work? A five cent raise, and 3 people unemployed! And today, with automation becoming more common, people are actually checking their own items, and putting more people out of work, and not even getting a discount on checking their own items! I hope that these people are the next ones to lose a job to automation! So, check your own items, and increase the corporate profits! Those machines, will never get sick, and never need to send their kids to school!
I'm waiting for the video, "How to stop billionaires from stealing the value their employees create so the billionaires don't own the machines that reduce the hours of labor required to produce goods & services."
@@ConvairDart106 Employees like you created wealth that your employers used to buy machines to replace you. Those labor-saving machines should belong to the people who created the wealth to buy them. If you & your co-workers owned the machines, you could pay yourself the same amount plus have more time off.
That's a ubi is for. Jesus. Its simple the more money people have to spend the more they will spend. Plain and simple. Y'all are idiots.
@@evonline stop hiring entitled employees. Done. Liberals come out of high school and think they are owed half of someone thats worked and owned a business for 30 yrs.
All these people bitching sitting behind their computers, phones, and tablets because they can't go out and make something for themselves. Instead of hating on the "rich pigs" why not take in some inspiration and work your ass off to go from broke to comfortable or even better. I see it happen all the time, but this generation would rather criticize the "greedy" corporations than work and be successful.
I knew this single mom who used the food bank to feed her kid. She always complained but she smoked a lot and spent a lot on smokes. So poor choices is a factor as well
WALMART CEO MAKES It's a tough time to be in retail. But Walmart is doing okay -- and CEO Doug McMillon is cashing in. The top executive's pay rose nearly 13% to $22.4 million during the company's fiscal year that ended on Jan. 31, according to a company filing.
30 hours a week?
What happened to the 40-hour work week?
It's a loophole to keep the employees on the books as part-time.
Automation.
They don’t give 40 hours because then they’d have to pay vacation, sick time, health insurance, and other benefits that big corporations don’t want to spend on.. all retail does this to limit costs yet if you look at their profits it’s crazy greed and answerable to investors that keep the status quo.. look at in -n - out hugely profitable pays employees living wages difference here is that it’s privately owned and answerable to no one but herself and her own conscience..
@@beachlife3738 its the benefits and holiday pay 100% part time employees don't qualify for any benefits and accrue vacation/sick time at a much slower pace. At Walmart you have an allotted 4 absences are allowed to call out per 6 months, being even 1 minute late counts as a "half sick day" no pay of course but you have to earn vacation slowly, roughly 1 day earned per 6 weeks or so. In about 6-8 months I've earned 6 days in a supervisory full time position with tons of overtime this year making up for understaffing but had to use 1 vacation day for Christmas and 2 for 2 sick days through the year. Its kinda a bummer its hard to earn a little vacation. Part time accrues it more slowly and with less hours worked I imagine they never earn more than maybe 5 days per year or something not sure.
The issue here isn't whether you think Walmart employee's deserve higher wages. It's the fact that Walmart increases it's profits by shifting part of the responsibility of supporting it's employees to the taxpayers. So in effect you are paying much higher prices for Walmarts products whether you realize it or not.
Walmart needs to pay their own way, not ride on the backs of the american taxpayers just to increase their already substantial profits.
Isn't the point to uh, give those jobs to teenagers?
How is being a cashier supposed to be enough to raise a family in today's economy?
First: The single mom shouldn't be single. Being a single parent nigh guarantees poverty.
Second: The single mom should look for another source of income other than teenage allowance money. She needs to go for promotions. Work smart not hard.
Yeah. I know what its like to be trapped down there.
*You* are in control of your life. The best thing I ever did was quit work at the grocery store in exchange for studying programming books in the library. I was impoverished for about one more year of struggle.
I sure as ain't struggling now. '_'
The very definition of a minimum wage is a livable? According to who?
Who said that?
Oh, and straight out of college I ended up working at a grocery store. Couldn't do much. Life really sucked. Spent every off hour at the library learning and teaching myself.
Life is better now. Never took a government check.
But I guess poverty is just impossible to escape without the help of our wise politicians.
Wait. So, what should teenagers get paid then?
+TheHolyDarkness Most of our "wise" politicians are in power because if they DON'T do what the powerful corporations want, they end up having some jerk run against them that is supported by BILLIONS by the rich and powerful. It happened with Tom Daschle of S.D. It almost happened in Minnesota in 2014. It DID happen in Wisconsin and they got Scott Walker who wants to build a wall along the Canadian border.
Thundy TheWeeaboo I am very much aware of the TPP, have been well-informed by Thom Hartmann's daily program, and by Mike Papantonio of Ring of Fire. These are fascinating times, almost like Orwell's 1984 scenario being established or something.
Thundy TheWeeaboo But the idea of Google recording this conversation isn't?
I feel like it should be a law for huge companies like Walmart and mc Donalds to pay at least $15 an hour. they can afford it and I am willing to pay a fucking penny for it. I throw them at shit drivers on the highway for not using blinkers anyways.
but, if we truly consider it, there is no such thing as a living wage. minimum wage is often viewed as the earnings of the worker but if we look from the employer's perspective, it is the cost of labor. the costlier is it, the less supply of it there will be, and this effectively prices people out of the labor market.
additionally consider that most who earn minimum wage or below are teenagers working part-time/summer jobs, or who simply haven't gained enough skill to command a higher salary. also, consider non-hourly workers. but also consider the workers that are full-time. they usually get a raise or move up the corporate ladder, and subsequently get a higher wage. the thing is, the minimum wage issue actually isn't as bad as you think
Wow. Very well explained, Slate.
This is 100% bullshit. Im a hardcore wal-matt hater and refuse to shop their but this video is just full of lies and bias.
Excellent! Thanks for posting.
Problem is the government - speaking from Canada. They tax us to death to pay for their pet projects for saving the environment (which doesn't do diddle). Then businesses move elsewhere where they don't have to pay ridiculous energy fees and taxes. There go the jobs. Then they allow businesses to hire pretty much all their staff as part time shift workers so no one can even find a minimum wage job for 40 hours a week. On top of that, everything is coming from china so that we have no choice but to buy their products which break quickly and we then have to buy more of their crap. I am willing to pay more for things made in Canada or the United States.- products that give us North Americans jobs and give us quality products that are made to last past one damn use. I just can't find them. I am tired of buying shirts with material so thin I can spit through them and after one wash they shrink down to fit a barbie.
And here's the rub - we can't find good paying jobs anymore because they have moved away. They have moved away so no one has money to pay for quality products made in our own country.
Check this out - on Canada day, I defy people to go out and look for merchandise - like flags - and have it say made in Canada. If you can do it I would like to know about it. You go buy a Canadian t-shirt or flag or any kind of tourist items - they are made in China! If you truly love your country, show pride and stop buying crap made in a different country. Wear your country colours on Canada day and Independence day but don't buy a shirt promoting your country and patriotism when it is made in China or India. Have your children draw a flag and glue it onto a stick! - at least then you showing you love your country without shipping your money offshore!
*ahem* *ahem* import tarrifs *ahem* *ahem*
Destroy the environment to make jobs. 10/10 best solution ever. Everything is made in the East because those Asian people are willing to work shitty jobs and destroy the environment to make all the stupid, worthless, consumerist shit that everyone here buys.
People arguing the video: go work for less than $9 an hour and try live off that and support a family then rethink your arguments.
Families used to earn $50 a week and be much better off. Most people never figure out who the real culprit is.
Yeah, that was probably when the costs of things were much cheaper
Brendan Lamb Inflation doesn't just happen, it's socially engineered.
Exactly. Money/economy is just an idea, and it rules us
Who told some idiot making $9 an hour go have kids they can't afford? In the real world before all this socialism, if you spit out kids you couldn't care for - they died. Or they dragged down the rest of the tribe by over-burdening them. People pumping out kids they can't afford is only over-burdening the extended tribe as a result of all this wealth redistribution. Successful people are punished by higher taxes and prices, to sustain the weakest link. You're driving evolution backwards.
The cool thing about math is it gives correct answers ... when you use correct numbers to calculate with. I, for one, am not biting on the propaganda.
First, you are using minimums and averages, rather than keeping consistent. In addition, you ignore increases in payroll expenditures. These are two factors you ignore out of many.
If we just figure the percentage of expenses employees take up, you have a minimum of 12% increase. This is also supported by calculating raw dollars of the impact of the increase in employee expenditures. And, it focuses on only raising everyone below minimum wage to minimum wage (ie, screwing your better paid employees).
This still ignores payroll tax expenditure increases, and increases in wholesale and transportation costs. Once you add those in, you are closer to 17%, and this is assuming Walmart is going to just break even, which is ridiculous. Once you factor in what a decrease in net profit ratios does to stock valuation, you realize 17% is pie in the sky.
No, a 54% increase in cashier salary will not increase prices by 54%, but it will be closer to 54% than 1.4%. And, as the prices rise, you will have to increase cashier wages again the following year, just to try to keep equilibrium.
There is a nice dream world where corporations decrease their profits to make the utopia envisioned. But even in that utopia, it is more than 1.4%
lefist and lie but logic and math will prove that thay are wrong
Price elasticity of demand on their non-inferior goods also needs to be taken into account. An increase in prices doesn't always mean an increase in revenue. Even when the increase is just a couple cents, some people who buy a lot at a time will just go elsewhere and buy cheaper saving a couple dollars in a couple days.
Not sure you realize this, but up here in Ontario (Canada) our minimum wage is $15. Our Walmarts are doing just fine. I'm not even a leftist, and I personally think wages should be increased even more.
@@anovosedlik cost of living in Canada is higher than here. You also have different currency. That 15 dollars is 11.34 in our currency
@@chronictwister It depends where you live in Canada. I live in Toronto, where rent is high, but suprisingly, the food isn't too pricey and way higher quality that of NYC (used to live there). Some cities are way cheaper than others. On top of that, we have universal healthcare, which drastically reduces the cost of living. Walmart is notorious for hiring only PT staff so they can get outta providing benefits.
Hey, don't throw around math and facts! It confuses and frustrates republicans.
No. I simply record that Republicans are the only ones I've ever heard gripe about how the U.S. shouldn't raise minimum wage because it would make prices go up a LOT!!! They don't care if people live or die as long as it's not the 1% upper class. Because they cause the trickle down affect that TOTALLY works....... oh, wait... it doesn't.
*sigh* It is a miniscule increase! And yet they will get paid a decent amount MORE. Get it? I'm willing to pay 1% more on items so that people can afford to live. So yeah, it sure as hell IS me.
***** What this video also forgets to mention is all the benefits to there employees. After 3 months you get a 10% discount, after 6 months you are open to all the other benefits including quarterly bonuses, scholarship programs and walmart will pay for you to get your GED, there are also tons of other benefits because they want you to succeeded in life. Also it was proven that this video 1.4% increase was incorrect it should be near 3% (this also doesn't make up people price matching) also his math on ohio walmart associates that are eligible for food stamp was incorrect he claimed 300 million I calculated around 7.5 million, this coming from all his information ($130 a month or $1560 a year for food stamps per person, 40 employees per store, there are 120 stores in ohio or 4800 WM associates eligible for food stamps ( count found online in 2010, you do the math) this video is full of propaganda bullshit trying to put walmart down, you don't see this video even mentioning about target, best buy, kmart and etc who virtually pay there employees the same amount, i'm not sure about those stores benefits as well.
one other major factor is raises, if wages go up yearly pay raises will decline.
And if they have raised wages, they won't necessarily NEED raises. The whole reason people get paid so little when the company makes billions, is because the CEOs and upper management are greedy and get paid too much. Yes, they should get paid more when they're management, but shouldn't give themselves millions in raises!!!
The entire assumption that Walmart should pass the expenses of paying their employees properly over to the consumer is wrong. Walmart should shoulder the burden of paying their employees a decent wage themselves.
Business works by passing costs on to your customers. Their not printing money. Where do you think the money form their current wages come from?
But were does the money to pay the employees come from. I comes from generating revenue from costumers. If you pay employees more you need to generate more revenue. To generate more revenue you need to raise the prices. If the price of food goes up slightly but the employees are payed enough to live a okay life then that's fine by me.
scott Pilgrim You don't understand. Walmart makes staggering profits from which only a tiny subset is used to pay its employees. They're essentially hoarding wealth at the expense of the well-being of its employees.
How crazy of an apologist must you be to argue that a company should have the salary it pays subsidized from the state!? Walmart can easily afford to pay its employees more and they should be mandated to do so by legislation. Despite productivity having risen steadily since the 40's there hasn't been a pay increase since the 1980's!
The big corporations like Walmart are now becoming part of the problem, not the solution.
Tyler Silverstein This is simply not true. Why? Walmart makes staggering profits from which only a tiny subset is spend on wages. They can just accept a relatively small loss in their gross revenue and wages could be higher without passing the bill on to the consumer.
Taxpayers are already paying for walmart employees via food stamps. Even the folks that refuse to shop there are paying for them in taxes. Wanna rethink your stance?
What the government should do is bill those food stamp costs to Walmart, since they're enjoying the cheap labor that is necessitating it. Then Walmart could make an informed choice on what to pay.
No , what you do is cut the extra government taxpayer assistance for minimum wage income earners . Minimum wage is not intended to support yourself . It is an entry level position for unskilled individuals . When you attain skills , your pay goes up .
If there were no subsidies , people would not work there , they would need to earn more money and go elsewhere , which would force
Wallmart to increase their pay in order to retain employees .
Part time and minium wage jobs are not a career , it is not designed to raise a family or yourself on
If you don't like your job , you are free to go elsewhere where there is room for advancement .
@@ynot6781 bernie 2020
Lol, if you make Walmart pay for the food stamps, it's the same as if you had done nothing at all. That just means that the food stamps are essentially part of the salary itself, just with a stupid label on the same dollar bill.
@@ynot6781 Since when are Walmart jobs not intended to be careers? If a whole bunch of people got more skills it would lower the wages of those higher paying jobs because now more people can do it plus there are just not enough higher paying jobs for everyone.
This assumes that if Walmart raises their prices 1.4%, that their revenue would rise 1.4%. Not true. Any price increase will start to motivate shoppers to buy less and/or spend their money elsewhere.
Which is why people stopped buying Great Value products when their prices jumped through the roof?
Shinashi I don't understand. Isn't Great Value their store brand? And isn't it always cheaper than all the other options?
Shinashi you've obviously never stepped foot inside a walmart, and realized that the Great Value products are the cheapest things on the shelves.
Oh my god, mac and cheese went up 1¢? IM SHOPPING ELSEWHERE FUCK WALMARTS ENORMOUS PRICE INCREASES
Does that make sense to you?
I'm not saying a 1.4% price hike will make a huge difference in spending and shopping habits. I'm saying it will make SOME difference. If hiking prices 1.4% doesn't deter shopping at all, why doesn't Walmart raise their prices 1.4% right now and just pocket that extra money? They don't because they know it will deter spending. It won't deter spending much, but it will be enough that they've determined that they make more money keeping their prices low. Does this make sense to you?
One slight problem I've experienced from co-workers (at a law firm for crying out loud): they'll turn down raises in order to stay on food stamps, medical aid, etc.
Law firm employees and food stamps?
Minimum wage can only guarantee a minimum wage, but it can't guarantee jobs...People need to wake up.
+Brian Vasquez I agree! Obamacare already screwed some people out of their jobs, please, don't screw us again. (At least that's what happened over here in CA)
+elhaupto If some income is better than no income, then it's worthwhile. So we need to reduce welfare in order to make it worthwhile.
+canopeaz Or raise the minimum wage to making working worthwhile? If you limit welfare and keep the minimum then not working and working are both undesirable.
+canopeaz Or raise the minimum wage to making working worthwhile? If you limit welfare and keep the minimum then not working and working are both undesirable.
Mark Rubin ?? If you limit welfare and don't raise the minimum wage, then working becomes more desirable. X=What you make on Welfare, Y=what you make on Minimum Wage. If Y>X, then working becomes desirable. So we need to lower X so that people are incentivized to be productive in order to make money as opposed to bumming off of others to make money. You don't need to increase the incentive to work, that should be a natural requirement. You need to DECREASE the incentive to NOT work.
Why did you stop. That was only one box of mac n cheese. Now you take the amount of money that the 40 employees spend in Walmart. It looks like you are saying they spend $300 million at Walmart. Now, if you are correct, that's $300 million divided by 136 (number of walmarts in Ohio) divided by 40 (the average employees per Walmart you said are getting the food stamps) times 1.4% (the amount of increase).
You are now talking an increase of $770 per person per year for food. Maybe the thousands of shoppers who make a lot of money, but don't work at Walmart can afford that, but your low income earners are now paying hundreds of dollars more at Walmart and you forgot, you calculated the increase based on the 40 employees' old salary and spending. That extra $770 per person, $30,800 per store is needed to be another pay increase, and then another product increase.
Such price increases will also need to be applied to Mom's Everything Store and it's 10 employees. Mom's can't cover that increase in wages, which is a higher percent on her, so either she raises her prices above Walmart's or she lets somebody go.
You're implying that Walmart employees would foot 100% of the bill of Walmart passed the cost of a wage increase to the consumer. That $300 million gap that Walmart needed to fill would be covered by the entire Ohio Walmart shopper demographic as opposed to exclusively employees.
There is an awful lot of "Let's say...", and "If Ohio is representative...", etc. in this video. I feel like the answer is much more complicated than that.
I'm not saying Walmart doesn't do anything bad, but I think they get an undeserved bad wrap. There are plenty of other companies that pay minimum wage, and I think over all Walmart does more good than bad.
There is too much fluctuation to do the calculations for every single state where minimum wage is different and costs are different. A liveable wage is going to be different everywhere in the country so you need to take an average of everything to explain the basic consent.
You just gained a subscriber. I've been trying to explain to my friends why higher wages at huge companies actually help the economy using math, but they don't follow the math close enough and some of them are not book smart at all. I will share this video with them.
Replace the minimum wage with the "living wage". It'd solve so many problems.
No one is getting paid $13 an hour to work at Walmart. There are tons of jobs that pay around $13 an hour and aren't near as easy as working at Walmart. Therefore, if walmarts employees get a raise then so should the people who already make $13 an hour and so on.
Why? There are loads of easy jobs that pay worse than hard jobs. In fact I'd wager some of the shittiest jobs pay the least.
You are not your bank balance.
How is working at Walmart easy? Those low level retail service jobs are the worst, standing all day in a shitty store, working for a company that does not value you, treats you like shit, denies your right to unionize, fires people casually, Dealing with customers day in day out who may or may not trample you to death the next Black Friday, being forced to endure humiliating North Korea style team building exercises.. And watching the hours of your life tick away selling the precious minutes of your life at $9 an hour, in utter boredom and hopelessness.
I wouldn't work there for any amount of money.
As someone who worked at Walmart for $7/hour, and as someone who currently works at an office for $11/hour, I can tell you Walmart employees are being paid just as much as they should be.
*****
I worked as a cashier at a grocery store for 4 years during school, then at BestBuy for a year, again as a cashier. Now as an Mechanical Engineer out of school making 70k+ a year, I can confidently say that anyone working in these sectors are being way under payed. $13/hr seems like a fair wage for the shit that they have to put up with. I would have to be paid much more than I make now to go back to working retail.
*****
If they need government assistance how are they being paid enough?
Long story short the video argues that the $300,000,000 dollar savings to tax payers is worth the $4,800,000,000 cost to consumers.
Libertarianist they mixed the USA and ohio numbers... the 300k was only in Ohio.
Libertarianist According to the 2014 estimates, there are roughly 320 million US citizens. A lot of people are in afamily of 4, so let's say that 1/4 of people buy groceries for their family. That makes 80 million people. That puts an extra $60 per family per year. That is $5 a month, or $1.15 per week, or 16 cents a day. Would that really hurt anybody? Plus, That gives families living near the poverty line more money to put into the economy. This would help with families that have 2 income earners at, or near minimum wage, putting even more money into the economy.
raney150 Employees are more than 20% of Walmart's expenses. As the minimum wage would also impact suppliers and transportation, which account for 73% (plus depreciation), you are having a rather large increase in close to 93% of Walmart's total revenues. How can you only get a 1.4% increase in prices (1 cent on a mac & cheese box) and make up for a 54% increase in costs in 93% of the business?
If the impact were only 16 cents a day AND it solve the problem, then we would all be for it. It would be a no brainer. But the video is not using correct figures or comparing apples to apples, which means the real impact is completely different. Using simple calculations, and only adding a few factors, the impact will be more than 12%, likely much more.
So, the real question is not "are you willing to pay 16 cents more per day", the real question is "are you willing to pay another $1000 per year, or more, on groceries"? Then add the increase in all of the other goods you can buy at stores like Walmart. Still interested?
Hmm your math is a little skewed X3 (by a factor of a thousand)
...yes. Because raising everything by 1.4% would cost shoppers the 300 millions the government would save.
So the question is: better take that money from customer's pockets, many poor, or from government's (which takes most of its revenue from the rich)?
People don't understand this is a shell game. Food stamps come largely from the rich and corporate taxes. Increased price from the poor.
Yes, I know that.
Tyler Allain
If every one increased their employees pay then every one would have to charge more and everything would cost more thus making the employees in the exact same place they currently are.
Australia Minimum wage is $16 an hour. Everything is more expensive though so It works out that it takes close to the same amount of time working to buy lunch as the US where minimum wage is $7.25
Sexy BoBo
well, it shouldn't be exactly in the same place as before; it would if everyone got a raise, but as only the minimum wagers did, and as also better off citizens shop, the measure should transfer wealth from the second group to the minimum wagers.
However, that's a heck of a regressive tax. Paying subsides directly with tax money is clearly better once you think of it.
This video isn't talking about minimum wage for those commenting that hadn't noticed.
Corporations don't create jobs, People with spending money create jobs.
You're wrong because money doesn't just appear in people's bank accounts magically. Money comes from wealth creation. Wealth creation is possible when the market is free to expand business.
I never got any money from magic.I earn my money from hard work,
***** Magic is work too. :)
So what ma and pa company could produce what ford could? there were cars before ford-produced at absorbent cost, making cars available only to the wealthy-It took a Corporation, Ford, to be ableto produce enough to drop the price down so that everyone can afford cars-Read about economics. Supply and demand.
nic nicholas"Tucker: The Man and His Dream" is a good movie. Have you ever seen it?
so not only do waiters/waitresses not make a living wage but also people working for a huge company like walmart too... from a non american perspective america looks like such a terrible place to live. cut back on military spending, really
american military spending is not that high in terms of percentage of gdp. you cant compare a small european nation to a country thats 50 times bigger when you compare actual money figures. besides, there are many nations that spend a lot more of their gdp on the military and considering recent events in russia and the problems with north vs south korea cutting the US military is a really stupid idea unless you live in a fantasy world where everyone gets along with eachother nicely.
ok, well that point aside, this issue of illegal wages is ridiculous, i thought america was a 1st world country yet the citizens are treated so badly
Most of the people who work at stores like Walmart are either highschool dropouts or never got a collage education. They work there because that's the inky type of job they have the skills for.
Most of the people who work at stores like Walmart are either highschool dropouts or never got a collage education. They work there because that's the inky type of job they have the skills for.
*****
maybe so but everyone deserves a living wage if they work
Wildly inaccurate. How much of walmart's income comes from bargain mac and cheese? My guess is not too much. They'd have to increase prices 1.4% storewide, so on some bigger ticket items such as a $1000 television that would mean $14 more, etc. This would really change their entire game plan of selling items at the absolute lowest cost.
No one buys a $1000 TV at Walmart...
MoeTheFro exactly, your typical purchase is a grocery item on the highend scale we're talking 1.4 cents more on a $10 item
dude i really had to log on to reply. did you really say that 14 dollars on a 1k item is a big deal? please tell me you typed that drunk.
But...That's what the video DID say. They listed the Mac and Cheese as an example, but stated that it would be a 1.4% increase throughout the store. Try and pay attention.
the anti-walmart circlejerk is so powerful here, reddit must have arrived.
that means that literally dozens of 20-somethings who act like they know about retail businesses are going to refute what I just said.
I understand his math is wrong, but imagine if the government reduced Walmart’s taxes by 5% but required Walmart to pay workers a wage that would cover the food stamps
Yes, this works for Walmart. Problem is, a minimum wage always hurts small businesses a lot more than massive companies like Walmart. All raising the minimum wage would do is hurt small businesses, force them to either raise prices massively and lay off workers, or simply close down. This would create an oligopoly for big businesses, and as a result with lower competition, the prices could be raised even further.
No it doesn’t. I’m writing a 5 page essay on this now in college. I have done hours of research. I implore you to research this before you comment.
There are 33 million small businesses in America, 70% a vast majority of them have no employees, they are sole proprietorships.
Furthermore only 5 million of these small businesses have employees and 85% of these businesses are high wage jobs ie law firms small doctors offices etc. meaning they would not be affected by this law.
And now we get to the last percentages. 1.6 million of these jobs are considered low wage businesses making only 6% of small businesses being affected by this law. What we would do in this situation is. If the company cannot afford to pay their workers a living wage the government employs a grant called the benefits accrued grant, what this does is, since most of these low wage employees are making under the amount to live they often get government assistance. And if the business raises their wages then the government gives the money that they were giving to the employees now to the business, the government breaks even and the employees make a living wage, and the company makes enough In benefits to pay for these wages. It’s quite simple really. Most developed countries do something like this. And the best part is that when these workers are making living wages the small businesses actually make more profits and the economy spikes making it so the small businesses actually can now pay a living wage without the benefits accrued grant. It’s a win win for everyone.
@frost1183 could you provide some of you source please would love yo read it.
I'm sorry what? Have you ever worked at walmart? It's not easy.
let's not bullshit around, you don't need an education for the job, but it's not easy.
If you got paid based on how easy a job was, then let's face it, manual labor jobs would be getting paid a lot more than the guy screwing around at an office desk doing nothing and getting paid twice as much.
And the thing is, you could let a highschooler do that office desk job if you just taught him.
It's not about the job, it's about opportunity
I'm getting paid $20 an hour right now and watching RUclips videos.
TheYourface85 So what you secret, I'd love to get pay $20 an hour to watch youtube videos and read postings from people bitching about how Walmart sucks lol. :-)
1. Full time employees work 40 hours per week, not 30.
2. You need to raise the salaries of the supervisory positions further then too, or else nobody will want to be a supervisor (More work for equal or less pay? fat chance)
3. With increased wages comes increased taxes, so that has to be factored in as well.
4. I'm not familiar with the retail industry, but if it's anything like a restaurant you probably measure labor costs by the percentage of your revenue. At my store a good labor percentage would be around 21% of my revenue. If I make 5000 in a day requiring 135 hours of labor at 8 dollars an hour that is 21.6% of my revenue. If I raise my prices 1.6% and pay my employees 13 dollars an hour like this video suggests, I'm running 34.9%.
+Lacaras21 depends. some places will purposefully keep an employee at 30 hours so they do not have to pay benefits. The place I work at now doesn't allow people to work overtime because it would mess up our budget.
Almost doubling the wage makes a 1.4% difference. I'm not to sure about that.
double the wage, of 15% of people (so they can live independently) and everyone has to pay 1.4% more on all products. (which you are already paying for foodstamps)
Close but not quite. When you increase the price of things, the demand goes down, meaning that you sell less. To make up for this, you'd likely have to increase the price of the mac n cheese just a bit more than 1 cent, possibly 2 or 3 cents.
Also, I'd love to see why you chose Ohio, a classic rust belt state with a relatively low average income, instead of somewhere more representative.
I personally support an increase int he minimum wage to a living wage, but there's no reason for subpar math.
But a single cent of cost increase surely is within a psychological limit that surely goes practically unnoticed. Granted, for bigger products that cost more, this change isn't as small. But even then it'll be barely noticeable.
And even those 3 cents would easily be worth it.
Kram1032 I like how duffy ignores that completely and makes a case for wal mart instead of humanity.
you missed the point. We need to raise the minimum wage so that companies like Walmart do not have a choice to exploit government programs like food stamps. It doesnt matter what state or what company, we need to stop this practice. Its worse for the economy if you abuse the poorest work force to save the middle class or upper class 3 dollars a shopping trip.
Jim Lahey Raising the minimum wage for all companies means that most smaller companies can't employ a lot of workers. Duffy was obviously wrong because a freakin penny isn't gonna ruin anyone's day and won't stop people from shopping there. But in reality, we'd lose jobs by raising the wage. I think bigger businesses should have to raise it and the smaller businesses should be able to keep it lower...
2isTheNew1 I agree, that not all businesses should have the same rules. Bill Gates argues that, once the minimum wage is increased and companies with budgets to purchase technologies to replace workers has occurred, then we're screwed. I remember a time when profits were paramount, the value of a worker meant something and we were able to take pride in what we did. It's kinda hard to do that when the businesses are taxed before they even make profit, have to pay employees wages set by billionaires who are likely wanting automated workers to increase profits as it is. I am a capitalist. But I also have morals.
I'd feel bad if I saw any cashiers when I walked into a Walmart.
Or 1.4% more than the total on your receipt. Not just 1 penny.
Okay so so 89 cents boo hoo
he never truly explained how he got 1.4% that should be dependent on the items that are sold some items will go up higher than 1.4% because there is also cost/profit that needs to be involved. he forgot to mention vendor items and Wal~mart price matching to ads. If wages go up there can also be huge hour reductions and the yearly raises will go down to make up the large pay increase, also unlike other stores they are not a union so they don't take any money from your pay check.
I also don't know where they got there average wage for cashiers he might taken a small sample size, it might very from state to state because that depends on the min wage and how long an associate has worked there. people who've worked at Wal-mart also get many benefits for example if you were hired before 2011 you also get a dollar more an hour during Sundays, worked for at least 3 months you get a 10% discount card (on most items) and if you worked there for 6 months you can take advantage of there GED program and scholarship programs, the list goes on.
Working at Wal-mart is also easy work from personal experience, I rather work at Wal-mart for 8.80 an hour over a fast food chain that pays you min wage (ohio 7.95). Thats almost a dollar more an hour and 20-30% reduction in hard labor ( if you don't include the unloaders which get paid more).
PS - Walmart raise increase - 20,30,40 cents as of 2014 Burger King raise increase 10,15,25 cents
He also assumes that every walmart employ that is eligible takes advantage of food stamps. I'm trying to do the math right now to see if I get the same statistics as he did for 300,000,000. i'll be back
JappyChan he did his math wrong or i did, i want to know how he got 300 million dollars of food stamps for empolyees that work at walmart in ohio. this is what i did, the average food stamp is any where from 116-213 dollars depending on which state you live in (this is from a study in 2010), a month. so, i took the middle number (164.5 times it by 12 for the number of months in a year that will equal $1974) , he said that walmart average amount associates at a walmart that are eligible is 40 per store, there are 120 stores in Ohio so you want to multiply 40 with 120 which is 4800. now you have the population of people that work at walmart that are eligible for food stamps, 4800. now you take that and give each person $1974 that should equal to a total of 9,475,200 not even close to the 300,000,000. but i can be wrong in some part of my math, would anyone like to double check my calculations?
JappyChan
He's using Ohio as a representative of the United States.
jannecechmanek I understand that, i actually only used ohio in my calculations as well.
JappyChan Exactly. You went wrong with the "there are 120 stores in Ohio", whilst in the video he used every store in America. Or at least I think so, he said "If Ohio was representative", but what exactly he means by that I can only assume "Representative of the rest of America".
I know how to do math. I learned it in elementary school. Based on the numbers given hear... Walmart employs 663,900 people in the US... but they actually employ over 2 million. That means this is all completely false. Do the math yourself. Not to mention the wage increase does not account for additional costs the employer has to pay the worker such as vacation monies and any money to the Government on workers behalf. Along with that, showing a 1 cent increase on mac n cheese if false because even if all these others numbers were accurate, it does not take the exact same amount of revenue to replace the additional wages... remember, the employer has to buy the products they are selling.... they need that money back first.
if this was true, walmart would do it in immediately
+davis kampschror Why would walmart want to immediately start paying $4.8 billion/yr? 1:35
whatsurrp because, according to their math, it would increase worker happiness and efficiency without burdoning the customers
***** neither does socialism
***** i didnt say capitalism did either
+davis kampschror You lack a brain. For fucks sake.
Actually, the ideal minimum wage is $0.00.
Free market is the way to go.
profile pic does not check out
We’re not in China. Sorry
lmaooo
You have to also factor in the extra spending people will do if they earn more. Higher demand = higher prices. That's why in affluent cities, the prices of everything is higher.
They're trying to raise the price of Mac and Cheese! That's a tax on the poor! (/sarcasm)
really shows how fucked up things are
The funny thing is that increasing food prices is a "regressive tax", where as food stamps are paid for through "progressive taxes". Since the top 10% wealthiest Americans pay 70% of the taxes, subsidizing increased wages at Walmart through higher food prices disproportionately hurts the poor, while saving the richer Americans more money. Just some... food, for thought.
John Holden Any sources on your statistics?
Thomas Jackson Here. Google and literally 5 seconds worth of searching. money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/
If there are tax brackets for earned income, there should be wage brackets based on market caps. Less than 1 billion dollar market cap pays minimum (wage mom and pop shops fall in this category), greater than 1 billion up to 10 billion pay more, 10 billion and up have to pay the most.
Something about the fact that this hasn't been done makes me think it's actually way harder than you make it out to be -.-
***** - Yeah, well Australia doesn't have to deal with retarded, Bible thumping, gun loving, flag waving, black and latino hating, homophobic, social Darwinist, red-blooded American right wing fucking nutjobs, so what the fuck ever.
***** The black labor market in Australia is fucking huge, that's how they overcome it.
The six heirs to the Walmart fortune are worth as much as nearly half of all American households. The Walton family was worth $89.5 billion in 2010, the same as the bottom 41.5 percent of U.S. families combined, according to Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute.
That means that every single day, the Walton family made $91 million! Meanwhile, most Walmart workers made less than $68 a day on average based on Walmart's own admission that the majority of its 1.3 million employees make less than $25,000 annually back in 2010.
If the Walton family would have given up just half of their profit (still making over 45 million a day), they could have raise all the employees pay by 50%!
That's not exactly how things work. The reason cashiers don't get paid much is their job is very low skill. If you don't like your job as a cashier and start demanding more money, they can fire you and hire someone younger and more eager than you. Better yet (worse for you) they can automate your job because the machine costs less (over time) than the minimum wage you demand.
See, this is how the market works. You offer a service, you get offered a price. Like it? An exchange can be made. Don't like it? Move on and look for another customer who would take your offer. No one likes your offer? It's probably because what you're offering isn't worth as much as you think it is.
If you want to get paid better, learn better skills so you can negotiate a higher salary.
+hasen195 Sure, the capitalistic way to "get what you pay for" and this applies to getting paid what your worth.
The Walton family "gets" MILLIONS of times more then the any store workers, or you! Do you feel the Walton family has skills millions of times better then you?
A Cadillac cost more then compact Chevy, but not MILLIONS of times more.
It has also be the adage that if you work harder, you deserve more. I suppose you feel the CEO of Walmart, Douglas McMillon, works MILLIONS of times harder then you do?
TheRightThing There's nothing stopping other businesses from competing with WalMart by creating a better store with better services and better paid employees.
WalMart owners are rich because they facilitate the creation of millions jobs and the delivery of groceries to millions of people. If WalMart disappeared tomorrow, the owners will continue to be rich, but all the employees will become unemployed, and all the poor people who rely on WalMart to get cheap stuff will have to resort to other stores that cost more money.
In other words, WalMart owners got rich by creating a service that helps millions of people buy cheap stuff.
They provide services to literally millions of people. It's only natural they would be making millions of dollars.
+hasen195 "If WalMart disappeared tomorrow, the owners will continue to be rich..."
And how is this so, being the Waltons receive it's billions from the Walmart chain? Do you actually think they'd be the richest family in the world from there other entities like Sam's, or do they have a magic lantern somewhere?
"WalMart owners got rich by creating a service that helps millions of people buy cheap stuff."
You forgot to add the part about underpaying their employees to save the profit for themselves, while most of the employees live below poverty standards and have to supplement using foodstamps (which you have to help pay for in taxes, nice savings, eh?).
Gee, I guess it would really hurt the Walton family to give up billion from their 17 billion (NOT million) annual income to help their 1.2 million employees. Or is the the "millions" of people you trying to say they somehow help?
And you still haven't answered, you actually think the Waltons millions of times harder workers and more skilled then you are?
TheRightThing If anyone could do what WalMart does, they would have already done it.
Do you seriously think that you or me could create a grocery store chain that delivers low price groceries and clothing to millions of people across North America? I know I personally can't.
For the millionth time. Being a cashier is a low skill job. If you don't do it, millions of teenagers are eager to take your position for an even lower pay.
This is how you know that your skill is low and your contribution to society is tiny.
Learn a skill and get a better job instead of whining and complaining.
Wow... I did not expect that at all
Sadly, I think the people commenting that these jobs pay this way because the people working them have no skills suffer from a lack of knowledge about this level of the workforce and the job market as a whole. A decent portion are our unskilled, yes. But, many people are angry at Walmart because it came in and closed the places they used to work for under the illusion that aggressively low prices were good for Americans regardless of where all the money was going (China, and the Waltons). They had jobs with local shops and manufacturing, and the companies that supported them, but were forced to take a job that was beneath their skills or paid less so they could keep the lights on. Now, Walmart is one of the foremost employers in our market and as such sets the bar for others to follow. However, the bar they're setting is one of being predatory of the workforce and ultimate greed. As others have mentioned, it's basically the railroad barons all over again. They've managed to push more and more workers into the lower class, and then trap them, so that Walmart is the only place where these people can shop. When this became apparent to me, I had to realize I was to blame, I had fallen for it. I can proudly say I haven't been in a Walmart in over 2 years now. We honestly don't need any of that JUNK. We need to save and pay off our debts, then occasionally spend that money on quality products that help the economy behind our own boarders. Companies that don't try to swindle their way out of paying taxes through highly funded lobbyists and seedy pocket politicians. And, the more we continue to let places like Walwhore grow and do this, it's less likely that's going to happen for a majority of our lower workforce. Shoot yourself in the foot or not, it's up to you.
You lost me at "predatory workforce and ultimate greed." I can't take people seriously when they speak Marxist trash.
Hear hear, well said flyboy.
Boat Can you reference where Karl Marx said the sentence quoted for me? Simply wondering how it led you to that, or is your auto response to opinions you don't agree with to just refer to the poster as a socialist? I guess asking people to buy American and help their own economy is akin to Socialism to people like you these days. Sorry I lost you there Boat, it must have been my clearly worded sentences. ;)
FlyBoyBigBlue I didn't say you were quoting Marx, I said you talking points are Marxist. There's a difference.
The reason it is Marxist is because it's based on emotional language tied to the theory that corporations are evil and the worker is being exploited. It's been around for years especially with unions, but had reemergence recently with the pathetic Occupy Wall Street movement. Same talking points, same old song and dance. Same ignorance of economics. It's trash Marxism. You probably don't know any better, so it's not your fault...you were taught it like everyone else that spews these same progressive talking points.
"I guess asking people to buy American and help their own economy..."
Boat Actually, you didn't say that either. You made an emotional statement based on nothing, "It's Marxist Trash". Using your logic, we could assume you were Marxist as well. But that's just it, we're not. See, someone has to follow Marxism... to be a Marxist. Did I say that clear enough for you? I know I lost you with the long paragraph up there, just want to make sure you can follow. You can't just take a theoretical millimeter of what makes a speech Marxist and then go around saying everyone's speeches are as such because they include some sort of emotion. Well, you could, but then you'd just be showing everyone what a butt headed ass you are. And, if you think buying American products doesn't help our own economy, well then I guess you just straight up ignore solid factual evidence as well, nothing based on emotion there. Furthermore, you're letting your emotions tell you who you THINK I am, just look at that humdinger of a rant after the Occupy Wall Street remark. What you are utilizing is basically akin to a form of McCarthyism. You're morphing the term to fit you're own idea of what a Marxist is so that you can use it as a label. But it's o.k., you were probably raised that way, and don't know any better. I'll just give you a sympathetic pat on the head and move along now. Take care.
Hah a box oc mac n cheese is now 2$ in canada
+TheMcMater When you increase wage you increase prices because wealth is relative. We are doing great in Texas ($7.25 minimum wage). So well that most company's don't even pay minimum wage, I've never met someone who actually got minimum wage. Then liberals say that states with higher wage have more money then Texas, but don't mention the fact the standard of living is lower here. So someone who makes $100,000 per year lives in a hut in California where someone who makes $50,000 in Texas lives in a nice roomy home in a great city.
+MrSirFluffy
Lol, i know, right? Why do you think Texas is a cheap yet great place to live? High minimum wage is why Detroit is bankrupt.
Benedict Feser
Like they say money isn't wealth, innovation is wealth. Calculators were several hundred dollars back then and due to innovation you can get them for chump change. In the future everything we see as unobtainable will be available to every one at nearly no cost.
No it's not. There's no such thing as 2 cents anymore only 5 and above.
+TheMcMater thats 12 cents in america
I volunteered for a food bank in Vancouver, Canada... and people receiving assistance from our food bank... get A LOT of food... like, A LOT. I remember when we had to fill out a box of a combination of junk food (like candy and cookies) for every recepient. The box was HUGEE
We should put a "CAP" on corporate profits. I'm not sure of the ratio maybe something like a 10 to 1 margin i.e. they can only make 10x more then their lowest paid employee. If the boss/owner wants a raise then "Everyone" gets a raise... Problem solved...
Until YOU start making money in YOUR business... if you were smart enough.
I'm an EMT for the state of Iowa, and in only make about $11.25 an hour. I had to go to school and pay thousands of dollars to pay for books, supplies, and said classes. I don't think it's fair for someone who scans all day should make more than I do.
Kyle, is it that you are unhappy with the wage you are receiving, or is it that someone else might make more than you for doing a job you consider less valuable than your own? And while I am admittedly unaware of the unique circumstances surrounding your employment situation or the laws in Iowa, I'm not convinced that you "had" to go and do any of that (school, books, supplies and said classes). Did you have no other reasonable choice(s) in choosing your profession, or is that decided for you by others? Is there a caste system in Iowa that limits your career paths? I've never lived there so my knowledge of the situation up there is limited to what I have found on Wikipedia, which is arguably not the final, or seemingly the most accurate, authority on almost anything.
Cashiers should be making more, and EMTs should be making a lot more! I'm surprised that you're not complaining about the people working in jobs who are making more than you but didn't have to go to college. Again, I agree with you that EMTs should be paid at least double what you're making! But everyone else also deserves to make enough to live on. Cashiers should be paid $20 per hour. CNAs should be paid $25 per hour. LPNs and EMTs should be paid $30 per hour. And RNs should get paid $35 per hour. Everyone should get paid enough to live on. All jobs require skills. However those people who have skills that were acquired through education that cost them time and money should be paid more for sure. The economy works best when people have money to spend.
Because supermarkets never replace their employees with kiosks when the minimum wage goes up...
+digifreak10101 Martins started that
kiosks and technology are eventually going to replace everything no matter what
See, the thing that this video does not address is the billions that salary Walmart workers receive. If some of the ludicrously paid salary workers and Executives took paycuts, the hourly wages could be raised. This option is being purposefully left out because of greed. It's easy to forget that single mother struggling to keep food on the table when you own a yacht. I am not promoting communism here, but attention must be drawn to the obesely wealthy in the world. Walmart CEO C.Douglas McMillon is worth millions and he recieves about $10 million a year. He does not come close to some of the real moneymakers out there. It's just sickening that when paycuts need to happen or wages are in question, the ones that can afford to take the cuts still get raises and bonuses while the struggling lot are forced to wait another year for a raise as gas prices rise. Where the fuck is Robin Hood?
All those 1 cent add up to be a lot of money. This video ignores other factors in the economy, like the monopolization of money by governments. Taxation and regulations that cost companies money to hire people, money the employer might be able to get.
+Nicholas Zounis Yes, like Obamacare. I know a lot of people who lost their jobs because of that, and companies are trying to run around that by making part-time jobs... part time Is not good enough when you have a family to feed! Hours and wage go hand in hand. What's the point of a higher wage, at the cost of less hours?!
+SquallyParkour Preach someone finally said it. If you get $1 p/h raise then get your hours cut to 6 to 10 h/w when you used to get 20 h/w you come home with less money than you did at a lower pay rate. The few full timers (probably been there about 10 years) aren't safe either. By eliminating them and replacing them with part timers companies pocket more money w/o benefits to it's 'new' employees. Job security is dead
naturegirl2110 Yes, it's a balance! I know too many people who have already lost their jobs because of that. We are making it harder and harder for companies to thrive. Especially here in CA, and we are seeing more jobs get outsourced. I know how much it sucks to receive minimum wage paychecks... but minimum wage was not meant for single mothers to survive on, and raise their child(ren). All the while having fancy/expensive things... A family is made for TWO workers to be bringing in the doe. And in the first place, why would you bring a child into this world without having financial stability?? This system was made for future oriented individuals... If you're not going to college, learn a skill, a trade... I didn't go to college... But I do have a career. College isn't for everyone. I knew that if I got stuck on minimum wage, I'd become a welfare for life kind-of-person. Welfare isn't suppost to raise your kids. It's suppost to give people a helping hand between a hardship. Now, I have no problem with families that need assistance for a long time- it's the people who abuse the system that I don't like. That sell their food stamps instead of feeding their kids. Who's kids don't even LIVE with them. And those who get comfy, and continue to bring kids into this world, can work, but don't!
Sorry for the rant :)
Moral of the story... get a career, not just a job. You are responsible for your own success.
+SquallyParkour I do agree with some of your points but not all. What the point of college if there is not job/career after years of school not to mention the debt. A degree is just a glorified high school diploma. Most skilled position and customer service position (except face to face) are already overseas or they have imorted these individuals to fill that positions. For example doctors can't tell the last time I've seen an American doctor, most are indians or chinese. At the end of the day people need jobs for this country to thrive.
What these companies fail to realize is some of their employees are actually are their customers. When their jobs are sent overseas they no longer have disposable income so that company loses that sale which then causes more job cuts and the cycle continues.
Again what's the point of college if there aren't any jobs. These companies need to bring back our jobs but of course that will never happen the found cheap labor. Not only that once the US economy has been decimated these once third world countries will become their new customers. As you can see China is on its way to become a first world country, why you may ask, because US. corps sent all their jobs there. In the process of this America will be the new third world
Sorry for my rant. Please excuse any typos. Sometimes my mind goes faster than hands can type.
naturegirl2110 No, no, I don't mind at all. I like a good chat. Lol.
I already know college is pointless, which is why I didn't attend. In fact, Now my college graduate friends are working minimum wage jobs while I am rolling in the doe... Although I wouldn't say that just because doctors are of different ethnicities that means they are foreigners. This is a diverse country, and unfortunately, kids no longer have drive to go to school. But people who have deep cultural roots that promote education (Indians, Chinese, ect) will always strive to continue. Nowadays people want to major in art... and English... and although I find these to be good for the mind... they are shit if you want to be in a "real" profession. I say, choose a career. I did. You don't need college. The hardest thing I have seen my peers struggle with is jobs after college- and the ridiculous debt that I avoided... lol. I know people with degrees working in the fields- but hey, we of humble beginnings all did our time in the field. Lol. We will never again have jobs like we used to. But then again, the baby boomers are retiring... that could open lots of opportunity in our market. But nothing will get better by raising the minimum wage to an unreasonable amount. We just need to assess what "reasonable" is. I don't think "minimum wage" is equal to "living wage".... we get X amount of money... and make it happen.... With X amount you can afford a rice and bean burrito for dinner.... and with XXX amount, you can dine out in your brand new 2016 vehicle... and that's just the way it is. We will never be able to compete with Vietnam cheap labor... but that doesn't mean we should become more company unfriendly... I love the company I work for. A lot of things we didn't choose in life- but who we work for is something we did. Don't sell your soul to just anyone.
The service economy is the new economy of America, and not only is the pay scale low, the costs to society are high. This video didn't factor in the cost of Medicaid, children's insurance programs, and Section 8 housing. If you want to escape the downward economic cycle , even if you are educated and still struggling, the answer is to stop spending anything at big box stores, stay out of debt, and learn to put your money into investments in yourself, not to service the "consumer economy". I've always known that food stamps were just a way to keep money flowing to manufactured food product companies. We don't need either.
Big pharma is corrupt. Medicaid feeds big pharma. Section 8 housing is also corrupt . They overclaim a project's cost, and pocket the remaining cash. It seems that many of the government's programs just feed big corporations. The taxpayer loses, the government loses, the corrupt wins.
Canada doesn't have food stamps, and many people see today's Canada as more progressive than USA.
what you refused to calculate into that was how much of a cost hike that would be on walmart as a whole. hundreds of thousands of employees getting a 5 dollar per hour hike in wage. that means an extra 500k per hour that walmart would have to shell out on the low end. That's 15 million a week on 30 hours, 60 million a month, which leaves is at 720 million per year extra that walmart shells out All of that is coming out of their 3% profit margin. 3% of what the store rakes in is profit, the rest goes to mandatory costs; property, acquisition of goods, taxes, and wages as well as regular maintenance. That price hike adding 720 million dollar cost at bare minimum.
Factor in all of the added cost to the company before assuming how much they'll hike prices to compensate. That 68 cent box of mac would turn into over a dollar worst case scenario. Imagine how much of a hike that would equate to with milk or bread. Or, to try to hold back the hike as much as possible, they'll cut hours and invest less into training. Maybe shut down a couple of stores altogether laying off many employees. Fire pregnant employees, or single parents, favoring those with highly flexible schedules to guarantee higher productivity.
You refused to calculate how much the CEO and Executives are paid and the profits that disappear overseas... and how much did Walmart pay in taxes last year?...
R. H. you refused to consider the reason behind the offshore accounts in tax havens [can you say, highest corporate tax rate in the world?]. Not to mention the vast number of employees they have overall, the costs of maintaining and stocking each store and other property costs including water and electricity.
In 2015, 27 giant profitable companies paid no taxes... The reason: greedy bastards escaping paying taxes. What love of country, fighting tooth and nail to hide obscene amounts of money overseas while truer Americans pay taxes while struggling to live on stagnant wages. You know what would happen if corporations and the elite that run them paid their fair share of taxes? They would still be filthy rich.
R. H. and their profit margins would go in the red unless they started cutting hours, firing people, closed facilities, and/or raised prices. That's how much an effect the excessive regulation and high taxation has. And it's the political Left who's to blame here.
Trying to keep prices low is a lie... This video explains.
If Walmart paid a living wage it would be Amazon. The VASTLY fewer workers would have to bust their humps but they would be paid more... Until we can automate their jobs.
$13 an hour for Walmart is $3 more per hour than the money I got in my first research position six years ago. It is about exactly what I make now teaching differential equations as a math grad student. A job checking groceries is not as skilled a job as a PhD candidate teaching math. If we tried to raise the wage like this, the employees would be fired and replaced with self checkout stands.
Wow. It is astounding what you learn with a PhD in math!
They'll still tell you you're wrong.
And the automated stations are already coming.
All my Walmart has is 1 open register (out of 40, except during holiday season of coarse..then all 40 are going) and 8 self checkout stands. (open at all times). So that is 3 people total checking everyone out. By comparison my mom and pop local grocer has 5 registers open at all times with 5 'bag boys' who take your groceries to the car for free. (We tip of coarse) They all wear ties and strike friendly conversation as well. Sure the groceries are a little more than Walmart, but the experience of not feeling like you are shopping at the bread line is worth it. It has been a successful business model for over 50 years.
I wish them the best of luck in staying in business after the pay hike.
So denying someone the access to the resources they require to live because you feel you're more entitled than them because you have a PhD?
Grow up.
Not what I said. I said that if the minimum wage were raised it would be more likely these people would be replaced by machines than receive a higher wage.