Walmart Enjoying 6.2 billion in subsidies

[smackababy]

Nehalem didn't understand the figures he was linking (as usual) and you followed him.

It's not my fault that you didn't read the SEC filings that I linked, I even gave the page number. Why you are so intent on clinging to an argument that has been undeniably proven false is beyond me. The fact that you tried to make some comment about 'liberal math' in doing so is pretty funny, though.

Can you please then remove the $2 billion in revenue and credit the taxes that would have been paid and the costs of maintaining the membership payment system and report back the profits?

 

[fskimospy]

Can you please then remove the $2 billion in revenue and credit the taxes that would have been paid and the costs of maintaining the membership payment system and report back the profits?

I actually already did that. Based on my (very rough) calculations they would have made about $500 million.

 

[piasabird]

Corporations are owned by citizens.

 

[smackababy]

I actually already did that. Based on my (very rough) calculations they would have made about $500 million.

Sorry if I missed that in the thread already. So, their profits would be less than 1/3rd of what they had without the membership charge? That is a pretty large change.

 

[fskimospy]

Sorry if I missed that in the thread already. So, their profits would be less than 1/3rd of what they had without the membership charge? That is a pretty large change.

It most certainly is!

This whole ridiculousness came from nehalem claiming that Costco would lose money without their membership fees, which I imagine was meant to imply that their prices were unsustainably low. This isn't the case.

 

[PokerGuy]

Why do idiots want to bring costco into a discussion about walmart? They are fundamentally different businesses, with different business models and structures. Both are successful given their environment. There's no point in comparing them.

Walmart operates in an environment where the value of the labor provided is relatively low (much like mcdonalds), and their margins are relatively low. They don't need a highly educated labor force, and thus they pay a relatively low amount. Duh.

 

[momeNt]

Why do idiots want to bring costco into a discussion about walmart? They are fundamentally different businesses, with different business models and structures. Both are successful given their environment. There's no point in comparing them.

Walmart operates in an environment where the value of the labor provided is relatively low (much like mcdonalds), and their margins are relatively low. They don't need a highly educated labor force, and thus they pay a relatively low amount. Duh.

Walmart could pay as much as Costco if they released half their retail employees and required the remaining half to be competitive and productive. I think that is what most of the people want to see in this thread. A competitive working environment where Wal-Mart doesn't just accept any old min. wage worker, but wants people with motivation to compete for higher wages.

Wal-mart has a come one, come all attitude, which is bad for wages. They need to start picking and choosing, to make themselves a desirable employer and to bring in competitive talent.

 

[WackyDan]

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.

Nope. They could still pay minimum wage and have plenty of workers. There are tons of people who just want a part time job or job in retirement and it has nothing to do with whether they get gov't support or not.

 

[smackababy]

Walmart could pay as much as Costco if they released half their retail employees and required the remaining half to be competitive and productive. I think that is what most of the people want to see in this thread. A competitive working environment where Wal-Mart doesn't just accept any old min. wage worker, but wants people with motivation to compete for higher wages.

Wal-mart has a come one, come all attitude, which is bad for wages. They need to start picking and choosing, to make themselves a desirable employer and to bring in competitive talent.

So, what you're suggesting is that Walmart (assuming it works out linear for this argument) should do double their wages and cut half their employees (keeping only the best 50%). That is a loss of (if the numbers poster are correct) 700,000 US jobs. Yeah, I'm sure that is great for the economy.

 

[WackyDan]

Yes, same federal minimum wage of $15, and permanently pegged to inflation.

So that is what? A near doubling of the min wage? Fine, I should expect a doubling of my base pay and commissions then from my employer.

/s

Seriously though... I know certified EMT's that are making $15 and hour.

 

[Exterous]

Boeing, costco, american express, hbo, mortons, any airline, the company I work for (not interested in sharing it's name), google, microsoft, apple.

To be fair a large number of those only operate the way they do because they farm out\rely on a lot of the incredibly low wage jobs being done by someone else (See: any airline, costco, apple off the top of my head)

Nehalem didn't understand the figures he was linking (as usual) and you followed him.

It's not my fault that you didn't read the SEC filings that I linked, I even gave the page number. Why you are so intent on clinging to an argument that has been undeniably proven false is beyond me. The fact that you tried to make some comment about 'liberal math' in doing so is pretty funny, though.

Maybe because you didn't actually make it easy to find the information you were talking about. Page numbers on the actual document vary by section so Page 2 is repeated about 8 times that I saw in the link. Chrome reader's page 74 corresponds to one of the documents page 58 which details Costco's Investments not profit.

Now if you are talking about an income page listed as page 74 in the document that Chrome tells me is page 102 then why are we discussing 2011?

Maybe everyone should jump up to the present and use Costco's 2013 FY2013 filings on their webpage which lists their Operating income as $3bn. Costco's Net Income is listed as $2bn while their membership fees are listed as $2.28bn. Given the nearly $1bn in taxes paid you are likely correct that they would not have lost money (unless for some reason membership fee taxes are calculated differently than other incomes). However, would the company be the same as what it is today with 45% less income? I highly doubt it (ancillary to the point you were making I know)

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=83830&p=irol-irhome

 

[nehalem256]

So, what you're suggesting is that Walmart (assuming it works out linear for this argument) should do double their wages and cut half their employees (keeping only the best 50%). That is a loss of (if the numbers poster are correct) 700,000 US jobs. Yeah, I'm sure that is great for the economy.

It would seem to be neutral overall for the economy.

Sucks for those who lose their jobs though.

 

[smackababy]

To be fair a large number of those only operate the way they do because they farm out\rely on a lot of the incredibly low wage jobs being done by someone else (See: any airline, costco, apple off the top of my head)]

Not to derail the thread from Walmart bashing; I think it was proven that airlines, regardless of nearly any factors were simply unsustainable. That is why they are continuously allowed to file for bankruptcy. The service they provide is pretty essential to the US economy, so the government allows the unprofitable business to continue.

 

[fskimospy]

Maybe because you didn't actually make it easy to find the information you were talking about. Page numbers on the actual document vary by section so Page 2 is repeated about 8 times that I saw in the link. Chrome reader's page 74 corresponds to one of the documents page 58 which details Costco's Investments not profit.

Now if you are talking about an income page listed as page 74 in the document that Chrome tells me is page 102 then why are we discussing 2011?

Maybe everyone should jump up to the present and use Costco's 2013 FY2013 filings on their webpage which lists their Operating income as $3bn. Costco's Net Income is listed as $2bn while their membership fees are listed as $2.28bn. Given the nearly $1bn in taxes paid you are likely correct that they would not have lost money (unless for some reason membership fee taxes are calculated differently than other incomes). However, would the company be the same as what it is today with 45% less income? I highly doubt it (ancillary to the point you were making I know)

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=83830&p=irol-irhome

I was giving figures for the same year that nehalem appeared to be talking about, and then I provided a link later to the current year. Not sure how you missed that.

I could have been clearer with the page numbering, you are right. It is also quite clear that nobody bothered to look at it anyway.

 

[Chiropteran]

Because Walmart certainly doesn't have greeters

Walmart greeters don't check your membership cards, they serve a completely different purpose.

Anyway, the point stands, if Costco changed strategy to remove the need for a membership card, while they would lose that revenue, expenses would also go down.

 

[Chiropteran]

It would seem to be neutral overall for the economy.

Sucks for those who lose their jobs though.

Nonsense, it would be a net gain for the economy.

Walmart would be paying out the same amount of money, but welfare for former and current walmart employees would be cut in half, presuming the idea that double the current wage is enough for a walmart employee to live unassisted.

Net gain for the economy because less tax dollars are being wasted on supporting walmart.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Walmart greeters don't check your membership cards, they serve a completely different purpose.

Anyway, the point stands, if Costco changed strategy to remove the need for a membership card, while they would lose that revenue, expenses would also go down.

Costco greets don't perform a detailed check of the membership card, so they're no different that Walmart door greeters so no expense reduction would be seen.

 

[Matt1970]

Nehalem didn't understand the figures he was linking (as usual) and you followed him.

It's not my fault that you didn't read the SEC filings that I linked, I even gave the page number. Why you are so intent on clinging to an argument that has been undeniably proven false is beyond me. The fact that you tried to make some comment about 'liberal math' in doing so is pretty funny, though.

I couldn't find your page number as well. For your guess of $500 million to work out you would have to assume they are paying a full 35% on their corporate profits. If they are then so be it.

 

[Chiropteran]

Costco greets don't perform a detailed check of the membership card, so they're no different that Walmart door greeters so no expense reduction would be seen.

It's not about what they do, it's about how much they are paid. Costco pays significantly more than Walmart.

One fewer employee is a much more significant cost savings for costco than it would be for walmart. Besides, it was just one of many examples. In addition to the greeter employee, there are others who assist in new membership signups, the costs involved in printing the cards, keeping space set aside for membership photos, etc.

 

[smackababy]

Nonsense, it would be a net gain for the economy.

Walmart would be paying out the same amount of money, but welfare for former and current walmart employees would be cut in half, presuming the idea that double the current wage is enough for a walmart employee to live unassisted.

Net gain for the economy because less tax dollars are being wasted on supporting walmart.

And the 700,000 unskilled, unmotivated workers would not be any drain on the economy?

Let me get this straight; you're all for consolidating money to poor people, thus eliminating wages spread to all, but against consolidating money of rich people, and for spreading all that out?

I have never had a Costco "greeter" check my id card. They do that when you check out.

And, do you really believe the cost of maintaining the membership is anywhere close to the amount of money they make from selling them? Is Costco a charity? Does it operate as a not for profit?

 

[BoberFett]

Just another bit of info to take from the Walmart/Costco chart.

Walmart $11,142 profit per US employee

Costco $15,887 profit per US employee

There's an oft stated hatred of the idea that companies profit on the backs of their employees. So tell me, which company is profiting more on the backs of their employees?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

It's not about what they do, it's about how much they are paid. Costco pays significantly more than Walmart.

One fewer employee is a much more significant cost savings for costco than it would be for walmart. Besides, it was just one of many examples. In addition to the greeter employee, there are others who assist in new membership signups, the costs involved in printing the cards, keeping space set aside for membership photos, etc.

Actually it would work out to be the same as Walmart as they normally have two entrances/two greeters to Costco's one greeter. Walmart also has personnel working in customer services so here again no different than Costco having someone processing membership application, clicking to take a photo and the all so difficult task of clicking yet again to print a photo.

 

[fskimospy]

Just another bit of info to take from the Walmart/Costco chart.

Walmart $11,142 profit per US employee

Costco $15,887 profit per US employee

There's an oft stated hatred of the idea that companies profit on the backs of their employees. So tell me, which company is profiting more on the backs of their employees?

Actually the complaint is that profits are unequally shared, not that profits exist at all.

So the average hourly wage of a Walmart worker is about $12. According to Bloomberg the average wage of a Costco employee is about $21. That's 75% higher.

Costco's profit per employee is only 42% higher than Walmart's (and of course this is after factoring in their higher wages). That means their employee compensation per dollar in profit is higher than Walmart's.

 

[smackababy]

Just another bit of info to take from the Walmart/Costco chart.

Walmart $11,142 profit per US employee

Costco $15,887 profit per US employee

There's an oft stated hatred of the idea that companies profit on the backs of their employees. So tell me, which company is profiting more on the backs of their employees?

How dare you use numbers to invalidate my rage against Walmart!

 

[Zaap]

Just another bit of info to take from the Walmart/Costco chart.

Walmart $11,142 profit per US employee

Costco $15,887 profit per US employee

There's an oft stated hatred of the idea that companies profit on the backs of their employees. So tell me, which company is profiting more on the backs of their employees?

In light of this new evidence, it seems counterproductive to keep up the inane Walmart bashing...



























...unless we start bashing Costco too!!!!!

Guess a new *ideal* company will have to be found for the "why can't Walmart be more like them????" bellyaching.

...K-Mart?