Skip to main content

That's 20 bucks more a year on 1500 dollars worth of annual merchandise.

People have done the math on this. Who would possible reject to paying 20 dollars a year more to double wages?
Doing this won't affect sales, or profits, in fact, it would probably increase income as workers would have more disposable income to spend at walmart.

This could be done, and it could be easily, but walmart doesn't want it to be done. WHY? For whatever reason, they have a vested interest in perpetuating poverty. as do all republicans that want to cut benefits, eliminate the minimum wage, and rollback worker rights.

as soon as we understand that they want serfs instead of workers, the sooner we will understand the depraved truth.

Man this group in the peanut gallery always spout the same crap over and over.

Look at walmart revenue per employee, doubling sales won't double the price of products.
Look at compensation, in relation to revenue and profits for 2013.

Look at us sales for 2013, look at average sale per customer in 2013. Adding a little over a buck to the average sale for a cart full of goods would generate close to ten billion in extra revenue. That would flow directly to the associates. That's one dollar and change per cart full, not per item.

Those associates would in turn purchase more walmart products with that pay-raise, and if they paid a living wage, more libs would end the boycott and begin to shop at walmart, increasing sales ever more.

Originally posted to csainvestor on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 11:13 AM PST.

Also republished by In Support of Labor and Unions.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Hell, if they did that, I would shop there. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden

    Which would be nice, since it is the only store within a 70 mile radius of where I live, forcing me to drive down to the low desert (Palm Springs, Palm Desert) to shop or to use Amazon which is only marginally better.

    I could save well over $20 a year in gas alone.

  •  That's not how these people think (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock

    I've seen similar calculations that if price of tomatoes were increased by 10 cents a pound at the supermarket, the workers who pick them in the field could be paid reasonably (e.g., $18 to $24/hour).

    Of course, that's NOT going to happen due to a combination of owner greed and consumer "race to the bottom" mentality.

    •  Yeah They Talk About $10 Lettuce. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roadbed Guy, jayden

      Maybe, if the workers took 30 minutes to pick one head.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 12:00:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, and further more, who wants to eat (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        lettuce anyways?

        If all the chlorophyll isn't bad enough, a recent experience where I ordered "vegetarian pizza" (it sounded healthy, and what with all the anti-meat diaries right here at DailyKos it just seemed like the right thing to do) and it showed up with lettuce on it.  Seriously, lettuce!!

        Yuck, who wants that??

    •  yeah, (0+ / 0-)

      they'd raise the price of the crop by 10 cents a pound and pocket it rather than raise their workers' wages.

      hope springs eternal and DAMN is she getting tired!

      by alguien on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 03:11:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  csainvestor - do you have a link to the "math" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lina, coffeetalk, Rich in PA

    Given the profit margins at Walmart it is hard to believe that an 1.3% increase in retail sales would finance a doubling of their labor costs. On it's face it seems nonsensical, however I would be happy to read anything by a reputable financial analyst, or accounting firm, that outlines the data in detail and proves the point.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 11:41:31 AM PST

    •  This does not compute. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gooserock, coffeetalk, VClib

      I am tryihng to figure out how you can double wages but not increase the cost of goods to the consumer by a comparable amount.

      •  Well There's Material and Shipping so Wages Are (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coffeetalk, VClib

        less than 100% the cost of goods. So prices would not be forced to fully double.

        On the other hand WM is investing billions into buying back stock, so if labor cost were to increase they clearly have a source of funds to pay for it without affecting the operation of the company.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 12:06:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The buy back versus wages is a separate issue (0+ / 0-)

          but even then buybacks are ad hoc events that can be stopped at any time, and aren't a recurring expense. The issue suggested in this diary just makes no sense, that a very modest increase in retail sales would cover a doubling of labor costs. I haven't got the time or patience to go look for what percentage of total costs at Walmart is represented by labor, but I guess it has to be at least 20%. How does the "math" work?

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 12:21:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Stock Buy backs (0+ / 0-)

          do not count against revenue in GAAP accounting.

          Reacquiring equity is a form of distributing profits without having to pay dividends.  

          And do we know if they are buying it back as Treasury Stock or if they plan to retire it?

          Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

          by Wisper on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 12:26:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Walmart exists by running razor thin profit margin (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coffeetalk, Rich in PA, VClib, jayden

    thats how they've managed to become the biggest retailer in the world.  How the hell is raising their average customer annual spending amount from $1500 to $1520 going to offset a 100% increase in wages?  (and that's 100% increase in gross-wages, not counting the added cost of FICA and Benefits)

    That math does not come ANY WHERE close to adding up.  At all.  Which is why I assume there are a grand sum total of ZERO links in this "diary".

    And besides, the only thing any sizable increase in Walmart prices is going to accomplish is a proportionate bump in the sales numbers for Target, KMart and Amazon.com.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 11:56:09 AM PST

  •  Can we stop all this fantasizing? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, jayden

    It's not that Walmart shouldn't pay low wages.  It's that nobody should pay low wages.  If only we had some kind of  public entity that could set the conditions under which private companies operated with regard to wages.  I know, I'll call it "gummint," from the Latin "duh!"

    My comments are coming from a place of love.

    by Rich in PA on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 12:20:15 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site