6 Waltons (Walmart) have more wealth then the bottom 30% of Americans.

[Craig234]

In other Lucky Sperm Club news, Chelsea Clinton seems to be producing reports for NBC Nightly News. I'm sure she would still be doing just that if her parents weren't Bill and Hillary Clinton. (It's just a little more evidence to suggest that success is more about who you and your parents know than hard work and merit.)

That's the least of the corruption to worry about. It's really harmless. There are real issues.

 

[TheSpy007]

Very well said. This is my main beef with excessive wealth. As i said in the OP i dont mind people making money and even becoming rich. But there does become a point where enough is enough and any more is just taking money from people who could actually use it, but instead you just want to pad your wealth just for the sake of having more wealth than you know what to do with. If i ran walmart id bump everyones pay from minimum wage to like $25/hour. Why? Because i can and i have the money to do so. Given my employees a better life is much more rewarding that having a bigger bank account..IMO.

So a quick check on wiki says walmart revenue is 421 billion. their operating income before tax says 25 billion, 12 after tax. 25$/hr is probably triple the avg hourly employee wage. with all the hourly employees they have that would be at least 10 billion $ or more a year in cost.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

And here folks we see the "fairness" fallacy being displayed as nothing more then mere jealousy. A fallacy which is based on assumptions and generalizations without any verifiable evidence provided to support the actual claim that is being made by the poster.

I didn't mean it as an expression of jealousy, though I don't see any reason why members of the lower class cannot rightfully feel jealous of members born into the upper classes. Rather, it's just blatant evidence the we do not have a real meritocracy and that not everyone who succeeds really earned it. Seeing Chelsea as a news broadcaster almost reminded me of a system of royalty and class stratification.

 

[Craig234]

I didn't mean it as an expression of jealousy, though I don't see any reason why members of the lower class cannot rightfully feel jealous of members born into the upper classes. Rather, it's just blatant evidence the we do not have a real meritocracy and that not everyone who succeeds really earned it. Seeing Chelsea as a news broadcaster almost reminded me of a system of royalty and class stratification.

Slaves were jealous of their owners.

That completely invalidated their agenda to end slavery.

 

[Ninjahedge]

TS7... Don't take it literally....

I would, however, recommend making people full time rather than part time and try to include them on company programs.

If they wanted to expand, they could even try their own insurance plans and include their staff on it. Their cost would be minimized, and they might make a profit from external participants/customers....

You can get by on minimum wage a lot easier if your company helped with employee discounts, health care, lunch programs and the like. Each of these programs, per person, could cost less than the wage increase needed to do all of these things OUTSIDE the company.

 

[bradley]

There's no way the Walton's would have accumulated anywhere near that wealth pre-1971. In addition, as Americans, this paradigm shift has demanded we purchase cheap Chinese goods (potentially even dangerous goods) in order to stay ahead of a deflating fiat currency and indirectly a non-existent fed funds rate. It has truly become a vicious cycle.

Every American has a fair shot only if each of us is designated a lobbyist.

 

[blackangst1]

There's no way the Walton's would have accumulated anywhere near that wealth pre-1971.

And yet, their fortune is pretty paltry compared to Rockefeller.

Which was pre-1971.

 

[bradley]

And yet, their fortune is pretty paltry compared to Rockefeller.

Which was pre-1971.

Though drilling for oil has always been a license to print money. The question is could the Walton family have made as many billions in mere retail pre-1971, before trade with China, before deregulation, before consumerism took hold? I say no.

 

[soundforbjt]

And yet, their fortune is pretty paltry compared to Rockefeller.

Which was pre-1971.

Rockefeller's fortune was built up over a much longer period of time.

 

[blackangst1]

Though drilling for oil has always been a license to print money. The question is could the Walton family have made as many billions in mere retail pre-1971, before trade with China, before deregulation, before consumerism took hold? I say no.

Rockefeller's fortune was built up over a much longer period of time.

Fair enough.

And prior to 1971, Bill Gates couldnt have made his fortune. Or Michael Bloomberg. Or Larry Ellison. Or Paul Allen. etc etc etc.

So what?

 

[halik]

Everyone here has more wealth than bottom 25% of Americans. (bottom 25% have zero wealth). Misleading stats are misleading.

 

[bradley]

Fair enough.

And prior to 1971, Bill Gates couldnt have made his fortune. Or Michael Bloomberg. Or Larry Ellison. Or Paul Allen. etc etc etc.

So what?

There's a huge difference between someone who creates wealth and entire industries vs. someone who shifts paper or distributes wealth from other sectors.

 

[blackangst1]

There's a huge difference between someone who creates wealth and entire industries vs. someone who shifts paper or distributes wealth from other sectors.

And since the OP is about the Walton's, do they not create and help sustain entire industries?

 

[soundforbjt]

Fair enough.

And prior to 1971, Bill Gates couldnt have made his fortune. Or Michael Bloomberg. Or Larry Ellison. Or Paul Allen. etc etc etc.

So what?

Those people couldn't have for technological reasons, not applicable when comparing to the Waltons.

 

[blackangst1]

Those people couldn't have for technological reasons, not applicable when comparing to the Waltons.

And the Waltons couldnt have before globalization.

Your point? The extremely wealthy get that way based on opportunities AT THAT TIME. Just as the Waltons couldnt have amassed their fortune prior to globalization, Rockefeller couldnt have amassed his, in the same way he did, today.

 

[Ninjahedge]

ba, it is more than just the boats from China.

You can site individual cases that would break the assertion that NOBODY could have made that much money in that amount of time, but doing a comparison to the venue and methods used to accumulate their wealth, you would find that it would be nearly impossible to accumulate it if those same scope restrictions were applied.


IOW, apples to apples.

 

[Darwin333]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/six-waltons-more-wealth-bottom-172819426.html

I have no problem with people making money and being rich. But it does seem very odd to me to live in a world or country where 6 people can have more wealth than 92million people combined.

/head assplode

Did you not read the entire article? If you have more assets than debt, by even a small amount, you likely have more wealth than the entire bottom 25% combined as well. Why is that? Because the bottom 25% generally has more debt than assets.

 

[blackangst1]

ba, it is more than just the boats from China.

You can site individual cases that would break the assertion that NOBODY could have made that much money in that amount of time, but doing a comparison to the venue and methods used to accumulate their wealth, you would find that it would be nearly impossible to accumulate it if those same scope restrictions were applied.


IOW, apples to apples.

Yes, it is more than just boats from China, although thats a good chunk of it. But I said globalization, not Chinese products. Walmarts latest numbers show 55% of their almost 10,000 stores are OUTSIDE of the US, in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Japan, Mexico, Nicaragua and the United Kingdom.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, it is more than just boats from China, although thats a good chunk of it. But I said globalization, not Chinese products. Walmarts latest numbers show 55% of their almost 10,000 stores are OUTSIDE of the US, in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Japan, Mexico, Nicaragua and the United Kingdom.

In that respect, Walmart is good for our society, bringing in outside money and helping to balance our trade deficit. Walmart is also a boon to poor people, lowering the cost of most everything. The converse of that though is that Walmart and stores like it have definitely accelerated our outsourcing, nice in the short term but devastating in the long term.

 

[HeXen]

i think theres a point to where your just too rich.

 

[palehorse]

Won't a lot of the bottom 30% have negative wealth thanks to debt?

I mean if I have $1 net worth and every one else owes $1, I can have more combined wealth than an infinite number of people.

That's exactly the point of the article in the OP...

gg.

 

[blackangst1]

In that respect, Walmart is good for our society, bringing in outside money and helping to balance our trade deficit. Walmart is also a boon to poor people, lowering the cost of most everything. The converse of that though is that Walmart and stores like it have definitely accelerated our outsourcing, nice in the short term but devastating in the long term.

Yes, it is a dichotomy. I honestly dont know how it would be possible to pull the majority of manufacturing back to the US, pay those workers what many call a "living wage", include bennies, and keep the net prices of those goods where they are now. I just dont see it happening. I know for example its cheaper to send raw steel to China to get it refined and shipped back than it is to refine it here. Same with lumber. I would guess its the same for widgets.

One thing I do know, is this hatred (too strong of a word perhaps) and envy of teh ebil rich not only wont accomplish anything if we taxed them at 80%. It wont create jobs. It wont bring offshored jobs back to the US. It wont lower the cost of widgets. And it certainly wont raise the standard of living for anyone, save the one who receives those funds: the government.

i think theres a point to where your just too rich.

And this is just silly. Who decides when you go from rich to too rich? And what do you do about it when it happens? Theres quite a few people who could live very comfortably on $200,000/year; however, to many, this wouldnt cover their expenses for a month. Who's to decide whether that kind of lifestyle shouldnt be enjoyed by those who can afford it? These kinds of comments are nothing but pure envy and frustration.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, it is a dichotomy. I honestly dont know how it would be possible to pull the majority of manufacturing back to the US, pay those workers what many call a "living wage", include bennies, and keep the net prices of those goods where they are now. I just dont see it happening. I know for example its cheaper to send raw steel to China to get it refined and shipped back than it is to refine it here. Same with lumber. I would guess its the same for widgets.

One thing I do know, is this hatred (too strong of a word perhaps) and envy of teh ebil rich not only wont accomplish anything if we taxed them at 80%. It wont create jobs. It wont bring offshored jobs back to the US. It wont lower the cost of widgets. And it certainly wont raise the standard of living for anyone, save the one who receives those funds: the government.



And this is just silly. Who decides when you go from rich to too rich? And what do you do about it when it happens? Theres quite a few people who could live very comfortably on $200,000/year; however, to many, this wouldnt cover their expenses for a month. Who's to decide whether that kind of lifestyle shouldnt be enjoyed by those who can afford it? These kinds of comments are nothing but pure envy and frustration.

Well said.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Yes, it is a dichotomy. I honestly dont know how it would be possible to pull the majority of manufacturing back to the US, pay those workers what many call a "living wage", include bennies, and keep the net prices of those goods where they are now. I just dont see it happening. I know for example its cheaper to send raw steel to China to get it refined and shipped back than it is to refine it here. Same with lumber. I would guess its the same for widgets.

The issue is purchasing power. What if a 25% increase in wages was accompanied by a 15% increase in prices combined with less need for government expenditures to help the poor, less money spent on criminal justice, and a decrease in social problems?

You can't just look at front-end costs, it's also necessary to consider back-end costs. For example, suppose that as a result of foreign outsourcing, prices decrease by 20% but wages decrease by 40% with a rise in the need for government expenditures to help the poor, increased crime, and increased social problems.

What's really going on is that foreign outsourcing allows the rich to keep larger percentages of workers' contribution to the act of wealth production as profit. It's consistent with basic principles of supply and demand--as the supply of labor increases dramatically relative to the demand (capital or the means of production) wages and purchasing power (the price point) must decrease and the owners of the capital will thus be able to keep larger percentages of the workers' added value as profit.

Foreign outsourcing, H-1B and L-1 visas, and mass immigration (collectively known as Global Labor Arbitrage) is great for the rich and a disaster for the lower classes.

 

[blackangst1]

The issue is purchasing power. What if a 25% increase in wages was accompanied by a 15% increase in prices combined with less need for government expenditures to help the poor, less money spent on criminal justice, and a decrease in social problems?

You can't just look at front-end costs, it's also necessary to consider back-end costs. For example, suppose that as a result of foreign outsourcing, prices decrease by 20% but wages decrease by 40% with a rise in the need for government expenditures to help the poor, increased crime, and increased social problems.

If only your numbers were realistic I would agree. However, the reality makes your proposition a non starter. According to many sources, like this one or this one for example, the cost for building a widget in China is 30-50% less than in the US. And the average labor cost per employee is $200/month.

So the reality is, just using these numbers, the cost of manufacturing would increase 50%, while labor costs would increase 1600% (using a "living wage" of $40k/year).

How do you suppose that would affect the economy?