• 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.

Walmart Enjoying 6.2 billion in subsidies

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
tweaker2 said:
For comparison, let's start with Costco, a unionized company:

http://www.businessinsider.com/costco-ceo-supports-minimum-wage-hike-2013-3
Click to expand...

Yeah, Costco's employees are paid by Member dues as 70% of the company's operating income comes from them.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2013/12/02/why-costco-is-beating-wal-mart/3691555/

Unlike Wal-Mart, Costco uses a paid-membership business model. Customers need to become Costco members in order to purchase merchandise at discounted price, paying at least $55 per year for the membership. This allows Costco to collect most of its profits 12 months in advance. Roughly 70% of the company's operating income is generated in this way.
Click to expand...
 
smackababy said:
If Walmart pays their workers, which there are no shortage of right now
Click to expand...

Why isn't there a shortage of workers?

Do you have any idea?

I'll give you a hint: it's because Walmart workers can survive thanks to government handouts.

If working at Walmart made you ineligible to receive assistance, the workers wouldn't do it.

Remove the government hands outs, and Walmart workers wouldn't be able to make it. Walmart would actually have to pay a reasonable wage.
 
Matt1970 said:
This just in. Working a cash register will not give you enough money to support a family of 4 without Government help.
Click to expand...

smackababy said:
This! Since when does the most unskilled of unskilled labor provide wages that are high?

Also, Walmart isn't a charity. They exist to make profits. That it is. If Walmart pays their workers, which there are no shortage of right now, more, they either raise prices or take a profit it. Guess which one is more likely? And, then people will cry about the prices and Walmart leading the march against the middle class!
Click to expand...

They taught you that all through school. They even try to incorporate some vocational schooling in there as well to keep you from having to resort to that kind of work. Woodshop, metal shop, small engine repair. LOL, we even had cosmetology in our shit hole school. I guess it's just easier to ignore all the advice you given since you were a child and just blame it on the corporations. I guess it would be the equivalent of smoking your whole life and then blaming your lung cancer on global warming.
 
nehalem256 said:
Here was the chart comparing Walmart and Costco which clearly explains why Costco can pay higher wages:

1353972586639.cached.png
Click to expand...

Thanks for providing the chart. It was a good read.

However, the bottom line that I get from the chart and the article I linked to is that Costco is willing to derive a much lower profit margin than Walmart to pay their employees a much better wage, which speaks volumes about where Walmart's priorities lie.
 
You should also assign some of this public assistance to the cost of implementing ACA or Obama Care. A lot of people working at part time jobs had their jobs cut to 15-20 hours a week due to the regulations in Obama Care. The ACA is increasing poverty.
 
piasabird said:
You should also assign some of this public assistance to the cost of implementing ACA or Obama Care. A lot of people working at part time jobs had their jobs cut to 15-20 hours a week due to the regulations in Obama Care. The ACA is increasing poverty.
Click to expand...

So businesses have shortened people to part time to comply with a regulation that's never been implemented? Fascinating. Tell me more!
 
nehalem256 said:
Pretty sure Minneapolis is not the middle of no where. And last time I looked it up actually had a higher than median cost of living.
Click to expand...

It absolutely is. Minnesota is pretty much nowhere. Does anyone go there? No.

It also doesn't even support your argument. While the living wage for a single adult is just barely less than the *average* walmart pay, it's almost certainly above the actual pay for a very large portion of employees who make below the average, and it's absolutely much higher for anyone with any dependents.
 
Chiropteran said:
Remove the government hands outs, and Walmart workers wouldn't be able to make it. Walmart would actually have to pay a reasonable wage.
Click to expand...

No, they would just find people who can make it on the wages that are paid as they are single and/or their spouse works another job. It isn't Walmarts fault that people make bad life decisions and have children they can't afford.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
No, they would just find people who can make it on the wages that are paid as they are single and/or their spouse works another job. It isn't Walmarts fault that people make bad life decisions and have children they can't afford.
Click to expand...

That makes sense, I worked at Walmart for a couple of months, my wage was 9.80 per hour and I don't have kids or a spouse. Many people I worked with were married, or had kids to support, though.
 
tweaker2 said:
Thanks for providing the chart. It was a good read.

However, the bottom line that I get from the chart and the article I linked to is that Costco is willing to derive a much lower profit margin than Walmart to pay their employees a much better wage, which speaks volumes about where Walmart's priorities lie.
Click to expand...

He was also wrong for the most recent year.

http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com...374-160495&type=sect&dcn=0001445305-13-002422

I'm pretty sure he's trying to compare after tax profits to membership fees, which is a clear no-no.
 
tweaker2 said:
For comparison, let's start with Costco, a unionized company:

http://www.businessinsider.com/costco-ceo-supports-minimum-wage-hike-2013-3
Click to expand...

Costco employs less people per dollar of revenue they earn than walmart, and they employ less people per sqft of stores.

So do you want walmart to lay off approximately half their retail work force so that the half that remains can get paid better? Because that's what a union would do.

But now what to do with the extra 1m employees out of work. Maybe they can join an unemployed union and collectively bargain with the government for better pay.....
 
eskimospy said:
Pretty sure he is looking at after tax profits. The SEC filings are extremely clear. He's wrong.
Click to expand...

You will have to explain this liberal math to me. A company that only made $1.7 Billion in profit can have $2 Billion less in revenue and still make a profit?
 
Chiropteran said:
Why isn't there a shortage of workers?

Do you have any idea?

I'll give you a hint: it's because Walmart workers can survive thanks to government handouts.

If working at Walmart made you ineligible to receive assistance, the workers wouldn't do it.

Remove the government hands outs, and Walmart workers wouldn't be able to make it. Walmart would actually have to pay a reasonable wage.
Click to expand...

So you're against gov't handouts?
 
Matt1970 said:
You will have to explain this liberal math to me. A company that only made $1.7 Billion in profit can have $2 Billion less in revenue and still make a profit?
Click to expand...

Well, "liberal math" looks at profit before income taxes when trying to see if Costco would have still made money without membership fees because income taxes are based on... get this... your income. If Costco made $2 billion less in income due to a lack of membership fees, they would have paid a lot less in income taxes.

All of this information is located in the SEC filings I linked to. Sounds like you could use some liberal math, huh?
 
Matt1970 said:
You will have to explain this liberal math to me. A company that only made $1.7 Billion in profit can have $2 Billion less in revenue and still make a profit?
Click to expand...

I would say yes, but not nearly as much. Making $2 billion less in total revenue will equate to them paying less in taxes, thus it is possible they would still make a profit. However, it would be considerably lower.
 
tweaker2 said:
Thanks for providing the chart. It was a good read.

However, the bottom line that I get from the chart and the article I linked to is that Costco is willing to derive a much lower profit margin than Walmart to pay their employees a much better wage, which speaks volumes about where Walmart's priorities lie.
Click to expand...

If you apply Costco's profit margin to Walmart, and give 100% of that to employees. Which would be $8b given to 2.1m you get something like $3,840 per employee, which is like $1.50 an hour.

Is $1.50 an hour in employee compensation, not take-home pay really the only difference between Walmart and Costco? No.

Walmart employs A LOT more people than they probably have to, because they cater to minimum wage workers that don't want to work as hard or be as productive as the costco employees, or even sam's club for that matter.

So if you want to get even remotely close to the same level of pay, you have to get rid of employees, make the remaining work harder, and then you can pay them more.

So Wal-Mart should lay off half its workforce and be nice and lean like Costco right?
 
smackababy said:
I would say yes, but not nearly as much. Making $2 billion less in total revenue will equate to them paying less in taxes, thus it is possible they would still make a profit. However, it would be considerably lower.
Click to expand...

You can look at their SEC filings and pretty much estimate exactly what they would have made. They made about $2.7 billion in profits with about $2 billion in membership fees. They also paid a corporate income tax rate of about 35%.

Minus the membership fees they would have paid about $245 million in income taxes and made about $500 million in profit. Unless you're paying more than 100% in income taxes, it's not possible for income taxes to take you from a profit to a loss.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
No, they would just find people who can make it on the wages that are paid as they are single and/or their spouse works another job.
Click to expand...

Well now you are just making stuff up. Where are those people now, why aren't they already working at Walmart? My theory: they aren't interested in working at all, at least not for the current wages offered by Walmart.

Londo_Jowo said:
It isn't Walmarts fault that people make bad life decisions and have children they can't afford.
Click to expand...

You are correct. It also isn't Walmart's fault if it rains. It's not Walmart's fault when an online video game lags. And it isn't Walmart's fault when you lose a call due to poor cellular service. But I must ask: why do you even bother mentioning such an irrelevant fact?


Mursilis said:
So you're against gov't handouts?
Click to expand...

I'm against government handouts for a corporation that is making plenty of profit. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't ever be some sort of government assistance for some people in some situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top