• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Federal Employees' Wages Growing Faster Than Everybody Else’s

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Can you explain why exactly walmart should pay more for labor than what the market would dictate? Just for grins? Why would walmart or any other company need to go beyond their legal requirements?

Notice that you picked out companies that have a relatively small highly trained workforce with specialize skills that aren't easily available in the workforce? Also, companies that require creativity. Does that sound like the description of the average WM or MCD's worker to you? Of course not, they are vastly different type jobs and pay accordingly.

I've already pointed out the differences. Further, there is a federal and local minimum wage law. Companies are obligated to pay at least that amount. Where is the obligation that they pay more than what they do, if the market already supplies the labor they need? That makes no logical sense.

I agree that companies should pay whatever is compatible with the greatest possible profit for them within the law. I really think if you look into the causes of why federal wages are growing faster than overall wages it makes perfect sense within our current employment demographics.

One thing to note though, is that not all companies that treat their workers decently are home to small, highly trained workforces. Costco is of course the poster boy for a company that uses a relatively low skill workforce and treats their employees excellently.
 
Can you explain why exactly walmart should pay more for labor than what the market would dictate? Just for grins? Why would walmart or any other company need to go beyond their legal requirements?

I've already pointed out the differences. Further, there is a federal and local minimum wage law. Companies are obligated to pay at least that amount. Where is the obligation that they pay more than what they do, if the market already supplies the labor they need? That makes no logical sense.

It's not a legal issue, it's a moral issue. Morally, if your workforce is doing a good enough job to convince people to purchase items from your company in enough volume to make you a billionaire, maybe you should pay them more and/or give them benefits as opposed to telling them how to sign up for welfare. Realizing unprecedented profits off the backs of workers that you don't pay enough to keep off the government dole is morally reprehensible, and it shouldn't require government intervention for business owners to realize it.
 
You're suggesting the private sector can simply pay more to compete with public sector jobs, but you're not accounting for the fact that private sector employers have to compete in a marketplace, often against competitors in other countries. There is significant pressure on the private sector to compete and keep costs low. With the public sector, not so much. There's no competition. How could the private sector compete against essentially a limitless budget?

No one is going to address this valid point because then it dampens the narrative that the private sector is being "Stingy" on wages for the sake of it, rather than the obvious fact that the private sector is made up of many, many firms all competing against each other in this country and with other private firms around the world.

That costs are real and need to be kept in check for any firm in the private sector to stay in business and that they cannot and do not have the ability to charge whatever they want for goods and services just to prop up higher wage costs without any care to how their consumers will react. All of which is not a factor for government which can just raise taxes or print more money and/or increase its debt load, etc in a way no private firm could hope to do in a competitive marketplace, locally, regionally, nationally and globally.
 
I agree that companies should pay whatever is compatible with the greatest possible profit for them within the law. I really think if you look into the causes of why federal wages are growing faster than overall wages it makes perfect sense within our current employment demographics.

I don't disagree, I thought your earlier point to that effect makes sense.

One thing to note though, is that not all companies that treat their workers decently are home to small, highly trained workforces. Costco is of course the poster boy for a company that uses a relatively low skill workforce and treats their employees excellently.

Costco might be that poster child, but it's a terribly flawed comparison to other companies. Costco is a premium brand that services a statistically very high end demographic of customers. Customers willing to pay for a membership, and are willing to have essentially no point of sale help or service in the isle of the 'store'. That's great for costco, but there are preciously few other businesses that exist in that environment.
 
It's not a legal issue, it's a moral issue. Morally, if your workforce is doing a good enough job to convince people to purchase items from your company in enough volume to make you a billionaire, maybe you should pay them more and/or give them benefits as opposed to telling them how to sign up for welfare.

Oh, so companies have a moral requirement to pay more than what the market would dictate and more than legal requirements. Can you explain exactly how much "more" is? What is the appropriate level that a company should pay? Enough to support a family of 4? 8? 10?

Also, publicly traded companies have shareholders. The shareholders are the ultimate bosses. If they feel some sort of moral obligation to pay "more" , they can make the company do it. Why is the onus on executive leadership of the company to just arbitrarily pay more for no reason?

Realizing unprecedented profits off the backs of workers that you don't pay enough to keep off the government dole is morally reprehensible, and it shouldn't require government intervention for business owners to realize it.

You realize the "owner" of the mega companies is the shareholders?
 
I agree that companies should pay whatever is compatible with the greatest possible profit for them within the law. I really think if you look into the causes of why federal wages are growing faster than overall wages it makes perfect sense within our current employment demographics.

One thing to note though, is that not all companies that treat their workers decently are home to small, highly trained workforces. Costco is of course the poster boy for a company that uses a relatively low skill workforce and treats their employees excellently.

Yet Costco can afford to do so because it main demographic is the middle-high wage earning consumers. In other words they won't open up stores in areas that do not have a large number of people earning above the national average in yearly income. Which means their main target consumer is someone who can afford their yearly membership fee to shop at their stores.

Also their warehouse model and in-house brand items ensures that employee costs and product costs stay low because the square footage of each store is smaller than say a Target or Walmart. Additionally the number of name brands they carry is small (again compared to a Target or Walmart) along side the number of staff needed to run each warehouse store.
 
Yet Costco can afford to do so because it main demographic is the middle-high wage earning consumers. In other words they won't open up stores in areas that do not have a large number of people earning above the national average in yearly income. Which means their main target consumer is someone who can afford their yearly membership fee to shop at their stores.

Also their warehouse model and in-house brand items ensures that employee costs and product costs stay low because the square footage of each store is smaller than say a Target or Walmart. Additionally the number of name brands they carry is small (again compared to a Target or Walmart) along side the number of staff needed to run each warehouse store.

What does that have to do with anything? WalMart is one of the most profitable companies in the world; you're saying they can't afford to pay their employees more because they cater to a different demographic of shopper? That makes no sense.
 
Yet Costco can afford to do so because it main demographic is the middle-high wage earning consumers. In other words they won't open up stores in areas that do not have a large number of people earning above the national average in yearly income. Which means their main target consumer is someone who can afford their yearly membership fee to shop at their stores.

There's nothing stopping another company from catering to the exact same customers that could reap a significant competitive advantage from paying their employees less and providing lesser benefits. Why don't they?

Maybe because it's not about what Costco can 'afford' to do, but their limited turnover provides significant benefits that offset the increased labor costs. (turnover costs are often somewhere between 20-25% of an employee's annual salary for each case)

Also their warehouse model and in-house brand items ensures that employee costs and product costs stay low because the square footage of each store is smaller than say a Target or Walmart. Additionally the number of name brands they carry is small (again compared to a Target or Walmart) along side the number of staff needed to run each warehouse store.

Well that sure sounds like a smart business move that other companies would want to copy.
 
Oh, so companies have a moral requirement to pay more than what the market would dictate and more than legal requirements. Can you explain exactly how much "more" is? What is the appropriate level that a company should pay? Enough to support a family of 4? 8? 10?

Also, publicly traded companies have shareholders. The shareholders are the ultimate bosses. If they feel some sort of moral obligation to pay "more" , they can make the company do it. Why is the onus on executive leadership of the company to just arbitrarily pay more for no reason?

Corporations don't have a moral obligation to anything; morality is a human concept, and despite the Supreme Court's insistence, corporations aren't people. The executive leadership of a corporation (the board and the corporate officers) are the ones with morality, and it's a moral failing on them to see the colossal wealth divide between them and their employees and think "yes, everything is really working out well here." They have the ability to raise wages, but their greed trumps that, and I personally view that as a moral failing.
 
Corporations don't have a moral obligation to anything; morality is a human concept, and despite the Supreme Court's insistence, corporations aren't people.

The supreme court has never once said that corporations are people. It has ruled that corporations should have some of the same rights as people, that's an entirely different thing.

The executive leadership of a corporation (the board and the corporate officers) are the ones with morality, and it's a moral failing on them to see the colossal wealth divide between them and their employees and think "yes, everything is really working out well here." They have the ability to raise wages, but their greed trumps that, and I personally view that as a moral failing.

They are not the ultimate owners of the business. The shareholders are. Executives are beholden to their shareholders, they work at the behest of the shareholders.

Also, morals are a subjective thing. What you see as a moral failing someone else might not. Hence, companies have to play by the rules that society sets. I don't see how you can blame them for doing that. The blame falls on legislators/government and those who elect them.
 
Oh, so companies have a moral requirement to pay more than what the market would dictate and more than legal requirements. Can you explain exactly how much "more" is? What is the appropriate level that a company should pay? Enough to support a family of 4? 8? 10?

Also, publicly traded companies have shareholders. The shareholders are the ultimate bosses. If they feel some sort of moral obligation to pay "more" , they can make the company do it. Why is the onus on executive leadership of the company to just arbitrarily pay more for no reason?



You realize the "owner" of the mega companies is the shareholders?

And guess who owns the majority...
 
Corporations don't have a moral obligation to anything; morality is a human concept, and despite the Supreme Court's insistence, corporations aren't people. The executive leadership of a corporation (the board and the corporate officers) are the ones with morality, and it's a moral failing on them to see the colossal wealth divide between them and their employees and think "yes, everything is really working out well here." They have the ability to raise wages, but their greed trumps that, and I personally view that as a moral failing.

It's worse than that. The board and executives have a fiduciary responsibility to screw the employees. This is why unions are so important, they create conditions where paying a better wage is the most profitable thing to do.

They are not the ultimate owners of the business. The shareholders are. Executives are beholden to their shareholders, they work at the behest of the shareholders.

Also, morals are a subjective thing. What you see as a moral failing someone else might not. Hence, companies have to play by the rules that society sets. I don't see how you can blame them for doing that. The blame falls on legislators/government and those who elect them.

This is quite true.
 
What does that have to do with anything? WalMart is one of the most profitable companies in the world; you're saying they can't afford to pay their employees more because they cater to a different demographic of shopper? That makes no sense.

Walmart is one of the most profitable businesses in the world because it has tapped into a market that others like Costco ignore, i.e., a lower income demographic that is very price sensitive compared to the group of consumers who Costco targets.

Even if Walmart wanted to be price competitive with Costco on wages they could not do so without pushing costs back onto that price sensitive group which they are targeting. Of which doing so would reduce the rate of return for each store they operate when they compensate for any significant wage increases in areas where the yearly income for residents in those locations is way less on average then in areas where Costco operates. This isn't to say that they can't raise wages but they will never be competitive with Costco on wages for various reasons, most of which has to do with the differences in their business models and who they are targeting as their core group of consumers.

So in the end blurting out how well Costco pays SOME of its employees while ignoring the reasons behind how and why they are able to do so is a dubious argument that is reliant on over-simplification of the matter to say the least. Especially when you look deeper into the subject to try to understand how and why they are able to do so versus other retail stores who operate on a different playing field then Costco.
 
Last edited:
There's nothing stopping another company from catering to the exact same customers that could reap a significant competitive advantage from paying their employees less and providing lesser benefits. Why don't they?

Why do you think they would reap a significant competitive advantage by paying their employees less? They employ less than 150k full time workers. I don't see how another company paying those workers a little less gains any major advantage, considering the demographic served by costco is willing to pay a little more. There have been others in that same sector (BJ's, Sam's club) that have not fared nearly as well, so paying a little less doesn't provide a major advantage in that particular niche.

Maybe because it's not about what Costco can 'afford' to do, but their limited turnover provides significant benefits that offset the increased labor costs. (turnover costs are often somewhere between 20-25% of an employee's annual salary for each case)

Well that sure sounds like a smart business move that other companies would want to copy.

What you're saying is that paying more actually increases the bottom line. If that was the case and it was applicable to other companies, every company would do the same and it would be a no-brainer. The fact that most other companies are *not* doing it is a good reflection of the reality that other marketplaces are not the same as costco's.
 
Why do you think they would reap a significant competitive advantage by paying their employees less? They employ less than 150k full time workers. I don't see how another company paying those workers a little less gains any major advantage, considering the demographic served by costco is willing to pay a little more. There have been others in that same sector (BJ's, Sam's club) that have not fared nearly as well, so paying a little less doesn't provide a major advantage in that particular niche.

That would basically by definition be a major advantage as they could target the same market with lower costs. I do agree that other companies trying to do this against Costco and failing is a good example, but that would just reinforce my point that high wages are not necessarily a competitive disadvantage, no?

What you're saying is that paying more actually increases the bottom line. If that was the case and it was applicable to other companies, every company would do the same and it would be a no-brainer. The fact that most other companies are *not* doing it is a good reflection of the reality that other marketplaces are not the same as costco's.

I'm saying that in some cases paying more increases the bottom line. Employee turnover costs are one of the largest components of labor costs for low skill employers. Costco's turnover is much lower than its competitors. This is a significant advantage.
 
Why can't we just level the playing field and all work for the government? It's a democracy after all, everybody should have a seat at the table here.

Seriously, the only people who can complain about this would be the ultra wealthy because federal pay is capped at whatever the president makes. 99% of Americans would have no problem with a cap on their pay of 400k.
 
That would basically by definition be a major advantage as they could target the same market with lower costs. I do agree that other companies trying to do this against Costco and failing is a good example, but that would just reinforce my point that high wages are not necessarily a competitive disadvantage, no?

Higher wages are not a competitive disadvantage --- in that particular, highly unusual, situation and marketplace. Relatively small number of employees, highly educated and affluent customers willing to pay more, etc. In that scenario, it's not a disadvantage, and I applaud costco for their business model and paying higher wages. I just don't see how it can be applied in other markets the same way easily.

I'm saying that in some cases paying more increases the bottom line. Employee turnover costs are one of the largest components of labor costs for low skill employers. Costco's turnover is much lower than its competitors. This is a significant advantage.

Agree 100%, in some cases paying more also increases loyalty, makes employees work harder and be good ambassadors for the brand. There are potentially many benefits, but I'm sure there are a lot of very smart people who evaluate those things. Companies don't just willy-nilly make such decisions, the evaluate all options. The fact that most companies don't just pay more indicates that they believe it not to be an overall net benefit.

Of course, the overall net benefit for society is something else entirely, I'm just looking at it from the employer perspective.
 
The trade agreements were only possible due to the collapse of the union movement.


Trade agreements were only possible because of the traitor Democrats

.http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-democrats-betrayal-of-labor-unions

For decades unions have unwaveringly supported the Democratic Party, sticking with them through thick and thin. However, in recent years, the Democratic Party has repaid union loyalty by pushing through pro-corporate legislation at the expense of the working class. It very well may be time for the unions to break from the Democrats and form their own party.


The betrayal of labor by Democrats began with NAFTA, which would allow free trade between the US, Mexico, and Canada. It was touted as a great deal to expand and grow American’s economy, even though there was resistance to it not only from labor unions but from ordinary people.


Fear was part of the arsenal used to get the bill passed. Then-President Bill Clinton predicted that “international competitors [would] themselves forge free trade agreements with Mexico if Congress fail[ed] to approve the North American Free Trade Agreement, giving nations such as Japan an economic windfall at U.S. expense.” [1]



However, he was quite incorrect. A New York Times article published at the time stated that “most European and Japanese companies [would] be much more interested in investing in Mexico if NAFTA is passed, so they can gain free access to the U.S. market.” [2] (emphasis added) There were also elitists such as Andrew Tobias pushing for NAFTA. In a Time Magazine article on the subject, he stated:


The problem with NAFTA is that, like almost any change, it will disrupt the lives of some Canadian workers, some American workers and some Mexican workers. They are a tiny minority, but anyone who thinks he or she might wind up in that tiny minority is understandably fearful and upset. And vocal. Compounding this, there are those who would play to those fears with demagoguery, rather than minister to them with reassurance and support. [3]


One can see his contempt for the working class, acting as if the lives of Canadian, Mexican, and American workers aren’t really that big of a deal, that what occurs to them is negligible. In that same article he states that “over the long run, NAFTA will employ more of everybody,” however, just as with Bill Clinton, he was quite incorrect. A while after NAFTA was signed into law by Bill Clinton in the name of the “free market,”



The US Department of Labor “certified that well over half a million U.S. workers lost their jobs due to NAFTA” [4] and the Economic Policy Institute stated that “The resulting $30 billion U.S. net export deficit with these countries [Mexico and Canada] in 1993 increased by 281% to $85 billion in 2002” [5] and that NAFTA has resulted in job losses in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.


Under President Obama, things have only gotten worse as multi-billion dollar corporations are given handouts and labor is left to suffer. Just last month, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner revealed that the Obama administration wants to lower “the top corporate tax rate from the current 35 percent to less than 30 percent and as low as 26 percent.” [6] The Democrats have now gone the route of the right-wing by allowing “the super rich to recklessly dominate the economy while giving them massive handouts.” [7]


All the while this is going on; unions are running a fool’s errand as they continue to support the Democratic Party when they are blatantly looking out for the interests of corporations instead of the worker.


Since unions can’t match the money that the super rich are able to give out to the political elite, the best thing for them to do as of now would be to cut their losses and break away from the Democratic Party in order to form a labor political party, funded and supported by unions to look out for union interests.



Only then will unions be able truly look out for their interests.
 
union-membership-48-12.jpg
 
Pretty simple explanation here. The private sector market is reflecting a surplus of labor due to more than a decade of shitty economy on top of decades of unfettered illegal immigration, off-shoring, and loss of domestic production. All those things drive down or suppress wages. The public sector has the ability to decide how much income it has plus a lack of profit motive, so it has zero pressure to surpress wages.
 
Pretty simple explanation here. The private sector market is reflecting a surplus of labor due to more than a decade of shitty economy on top of decades of unfettered illegal immigration, off-shoring, and loss of domestic production. All those things drive down or suppress wages. The public sector has the ability to decide how much income it has plus a lack of profit motive, so it has zero pressure to surpress wages.

Yeah that's probably wrong.
 
keep on signing those free trade agreements and importing tons of H1Bs and illegals, itll all work out in the end. or not.
 
Pretty simple explanation here. The private sector market is reflecting a surplus of labor due to more than a decade of shitty economy on top of decades of unfettered illegal immigration, off-shoring, and loss of domestic production. All those things drive down or suppress wages. The public sector has the ability to decide how much income it has plus a lack of profit motive, so it has zero pressure to surpress wages.

So, uhh, tax cuts for the Job Creators won't really create jobs at all, will they?

They've just allowed more capital to proceed with automation & globalization as rapidly as they can sniff out more profit.

Righties love to pin it on Clinton, but it was Ronnie's baby all along-

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/reagan-embraced-free-trade-immigration

Cut taxes at the top. Beat down the Unions. Remove trade restrictions. Build an altar to greed.

What could go wrong?
 
Back
Top