Walmart Enjoying 6.2 billion in subsidies

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Walmart isn't and will never be like Costco. Costco's business model is nothing like Walmart's and vice versa. This also applies to the consumer demographic who shop at Walmart versus Costco.

Sam's Club is direct competition.

Costco and Sam's Club, a few comparisons:

they throw some Wal-Mart figures in as well but there a few important specific Sam's/Costco comparisons

http://hbr.org/2006/12/the-high-cost-of-low-wages/ar/1

And an interesting take on the whats and whys of Costco's practices:

These 2 paragraphs stood out to me.

"A traditional view of business ethics is that is it acceptable, and even encouraged, to operate only for maximum profit. In his article “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profits”, Milton Friedman argues that having any sort of other “social responsibility” will only hurt a company in the long run. As he claims, your ethical responsibility as a business owner or executive is to ensure the highest profits possible, in order to maximize the gains of your stockholders. On the surface, this certainly appears to make sense. A prime example of this business model is Wal-mart Inc., Costco’s main competitor, who is famous for their high profit margins. Yet, Wal-mart is also notorious for their low employee wages and poor insurance coverage; according to one comparison of Wal-mart and Costco, in 2006, Wal-mart employees were spending 8% of their income on health care insurance- that is “nearly twice the national average” (Cascio, 33). Additionally, almost half of the children of Wal-mart employees were uninsured or on public health care. By comparison, “85% of Costco’s employees have health-insurance coverage, compared to less than half at Wal-mart and Target” (Cascio, 32). As of 2010, average hourly wages for Costco employees were $17 per hour, while average hourly wages at Sam’s Club were 42% less at just over $10 per hour (Schmaltz). By spending less on employee health benefits, we now have more money to invest back into the company. Surely, Friedman would approve of this. Won’t that give us the greatest profit?"

"Costco proves that the answer to that question may be no. Wal-mart may be able to save some money through depriving their employees, but the employee loyalty shown by Costco’s employees more than makes up for that difference. Atypical benefits for Costco’s employees include above average hourly wages, comprehensive health insurance coverage after 6 months, above average 401(k) matching, and mandated 86% of top position hires from within, although the real percentage ends up being 98%. Consequently, employees at Costco are much happier than their peers. Employee turnover for Costco is 17% per year, while Sam’s Club is 44% per year, close to the industry average. As Cascio explains, a conservative estimate of the full cost to replace an hourly employee at Costco or Sam’s Club is 60% of an employee’s yearly salary. At Costco, this is a cost of $21,216 per employee; at Wal-mart, this is a cost of $12,617. When you put these figures together, you realize that Costco saves almost $368 million each year in employee turnover costs. That is a staggering amount of lost profit. Yet, it is not just turnover that proves the worth of Costco’s exceptional employee treatment. Costco’s employees appear to be more productive than their competitors. In 2005, while Sam’s Club generated $37.1 billion in US Sales, Costco generated $43.05 billion with 38% fewer employees (Cascio, 35). Imagine if they had the same numbers of employees! Additionally, Costco’s employees sell $886 of sales per square foot of store, compared with $525 of sales per square foot at Sam’s Club and $461 at BJ’s Wholesale Club."

http://bizgovsoc2.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/the-costs-of-being-costco-why-ethics-matter/
 
Last edited:

cuafpr

Member
Nov 5, 2009
179
1
76
EMT jobs overseas? Yeah, that's gonna happen :D

EMT isn't low skill...

but I'd fully expect more auto checkouts, and auto order takers(?) at fast food places if the min wage is raised to high.

What i'd expect to see if min wage suddenly becomes a living wage at double the cost to wal-mart (and others). Hours/employees cut, prices up.. and then people that keep their hours/jobs lose that gov't check / removed from housing suddenly realize its now harder actually and want it all back and complain till the poverty line for assistance is raised to the point it gets them back on the gov't's hand out + the higher wage. Only now even more people qualify as anyone making less than 15/hr is considered qualified for gov't help. (yes i'm that jaded towards how people are with money) No one wants to give up their checks from people on gov't assistance to the CEO racking in billions at wal-mart. They all want more money.
 

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
The bottom line is every company paying below a living wage for a 40 hour work week is enjoying corporate welfare. Personally I think a living wage should be implemented and then coupled with a massive scale back on benefits. End the corporate welfare, let people be able to put food on the table by putting in work (even if it's as benign as cash register) and I think society would benefit greatly. McDonald's (the company infamous for directing people towards food stamps & welfare programs) $1 menu may go to $2.00 but my taxes are already going to help them.

Without a doubt the single greatest danger to our society is the public owned company chase for quarterly profit with great ignorance for long-term health. This race to the bottom for minimum wage is slicing through our middle class.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Personally I think a living wage should be implemented

Just what exactly is a "living wage", and who should implement it? Is a living wage enough for one person to support a family of 1? 2? 3? 4? 12? What kind of items should that person be able to buy for them and their family under that "living wage"?

If we conclude that $20 per hour is the magical "living wage" number, does that mean we just raise the minimum pay to that amount? We know that 95% of people already actually make more than minimum wage, so if we jack the minimum wage, all the other wages would have to go up accordingly, which would of course change the cost of living, meaning the $20 would again be to low to be a "living wage".

McDonald's (the company infamous for directing people towards food stamps & welfare programs) $1 menu may go to $2.00 but my taxes are already going to help them.

Does McDonalds operate in a vacuum? If they could raise the price of things without lowering demand, you don't think they would have done it already? If you raise that price across the board (not just mcdonalds, but everyone), the level of the living wage would shift, putting you right back to where you started.

People always seem to come at this from a fundamental misunderstanding of what drives pay. The company pays based primarily on two things: 1) supply and demand, and 2) the value of the work it gets in return for the pay. Trying to change the level of pay without changing one of those two sets of factors will ultimately fail, just like price controls on products always fail. There's a reason 95%+ of people already make more than min wage. Companies aren't doing that out of the goodness of their hearts, they're doing it based on items 1 & 2 above.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Because it's set too low.

Define "too low". What is the right amount, and why? Then, if you set what you think is the "right amount", it doesn't slve anything, see my prior post.

The notion that pay is based on some standard like "living wage" or anything like that is just plain wrong. It's based on the value to the employer and the supply/demand situation. Anything else is just symptoms, not the cause.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
Define "too low". What is the right amount, and why? Then, if you set what you think is the "right amount", it doesn't slve anything, see my prior post.

The notion that pay is based on some standard like "living wage" or anything like that is just plain wrong. It's based on the value to the employer and the supply/demand situation. Anything else is just symptoms, not the cause.

If huge swarthes of people are working yet still have to rely on government handouts in order to survive then it means wages are too low.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
If huge swarthes of people are working yet still have to rely on government handouts in order to survive then it means wages are too low.

But aren't most of the huge swarthes of people relying on government handouts children? At least that is what liberals like to tell me when...

Are you suggesting we repeal child labor laws perhaps?
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
But aren't most of the huge swarthes of people relying on government handouts children? At least that is what liberals like to tell me when...

Are you suggesting we repeal child labor laws perhaps?

Nehalem non-sequitur strikes again.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
"Costco proves that the answer to that question may be no. Wal-mart may be able to save some money through depriving their employees, but the employee loyalty shown by Costco’s employees more than makes up for that difference. Atypical benefits for Costco’s employees include above average hourly wages, comprehensive health insurance coverage after 6 months, above average 401(k) matching, and mandated 86% of top position hires from within, although the real percentage ends up being 98%. Consequently, employees at Costco are much happier than their peers. Employee turnover for Costco is 17% per year, while Sam’s Club is 44% per year, close to the industry average. As Cascio explains, a conservative estimate of the full cost to replace an hourly employee at Costco or Sam’s Club is 60% of an employee’s yearly salary. At Costco, this is a cost of $21,216 per employee; at Wal-mart, this is a cost of $12,617. When you put these figures together, you realize that Costco saves almost $368 million each year in employee turnover costs. That is a staggering amount of lost profit. Yet, it is not just turnover that proves the worth of Costco’s exceptional employee treatment. Costco’s employees appear to be more productive than their competitors. In 2005, while Sam’s Club generated $37.1 billion in US Sales, Costco generated $43.05 billion with 38% fewer employees (Cascio, 35). Imagine if they had the same numbers of employees! Additionally, Costco’s employees sell $886 of sales per square foot of store, compared with $525 of sales per square foot at Sam’s Club and $461 at BJ’s Wholesale Club."

http://bizgovsoc2.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/the-costs-of-being-costco-why-ethics-matter/

So your argument is Walmart doesn't want to make money...
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Just what exactly is a "living wage", and who should implement it? Is a living wage enough for one person to support a family of 1? 2? 3? 4? 12? What kind of items should that person be able to buy for them and their family under that "living wage"?

Sounds familiar. Hmm...

When all the decent pleasures are forbidden, there’s always ways to get the rotten ones. You don’t break into grocery stores after dark and you don’t pick your fellow’s pockets to buy classical symphonies or fishing tackle, but if it’s to get stinking drunk and forget – you do. Fishing tackle? Hunting guns? Snapshot cameras? Hobbies? There wasn’t any ‘amusement allowance’ for anybody. ‘Amusement’ was the first thing they dropped. Aren’t you supposed to be ashamed to object when anybody asks you to give up anything, if it’s something that gave you pleasure? Even our ‘tobacco allowance’ was cut to where we got two packs of cigarettes a month – and this, they told us, was because the money had to go into the babies’ milk fund. Babies was the only item of production that didn’t fall, but rose and kept on rising – because people had nothing else to do, I guess, and because they didn’t have to care, the baby wasn’t their burden, it was ‘the family’s.’ In fact, the best chance you had of getting a raise and breathing easier for a while was a ‘baby allowance.’ Either that or a major disease.

“It didn’t take us long to see how it all worked out. Any man who tried to play straight, had to refuse himself everything. He lost his taste for any pleasure, he hated to smoke a nickel’s worth of tobacco or chew a stick of gum, worrying whether somebody had more need for that nickel. He felt ashamed of every mouthful of food he swallowed, wondering whose weary nights of overtime had paid for it, knowing that his food was not his by right, miserably wishing to be cheated rather than to cheat, to be a sucker, but not a blood-sucker. He wouldn’t marry, he wouldn’t help his folks back home, he wouldn’t put an extra burden on ‘the family.’ Besides, if he still had some sort of sense of responsibility, he couldn’t marry or bring children into the world, when he could plan nothing, promise nothing, count on nothing. But the shiftless and irresponsible had a field day of it. The bred babies, they got girls into trouble, they dragged in every worthless relative they had from all over the country, every unmarried pregnant sister, for an extra ‘disability allowance,’ they got more sicknesses than any doctor could disprove, they ruined their clothing, their furniture, their homes – what the hell, ‘the family’ was paying for it! They found more ways of getting in ‘need’ than the rest of us could ever imagine – they developed a special skill for it, which was the only ability they showed.

“God help us, ma’am! Do you see what we saw? We saw that we’d been given a law to live by, a moral law, they called it, which punished those who observed it – for observing it. The more you tried to live up to it, the more you suffered; the more you cheated it, the bigger reward you got. Your honesty was like a tool left at the mercy of the next man’s dishonesty. The honest ones paid, the dishonest collected. The honest lost, the dishonest won. How long could men stay good under this sort of a law of goodness? We were a pretty decent bunch of fellows when we started. There weren’t many chiselers among us. We knew our jobs and we were proud of it and we worked for the best factory in the country, where old man Starnes hired nothing but the pick of the country’s labor. Within one year under the new plan, there wasn’t an honest man left among us. That was the evil, the sort of hell-horror evil that preachers used to scare you with, but you never thought to see alive. Not that the plan encouraged a few bastards, but that it turned decent people into bastards, and there was nothing else that it could do – and it was called a moral ideal!
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Nehalem non-sequitur strikes again.

I think you are having difficulty understanding the difference between non-sequitur and being mocked for your stupidity.

Most working people getting government handouts need them not to support themselves, but to support their bastard children.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
And again.

That is in fact exactly what he is arguing.

He is saying that Costco's way of compensating their employees is clearly superior in terms of making money.

So if Walmart chooses a different way of compensating their employees clearly they don't want to make money. Or they are somehow grossly incompetent at running their business.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
That is in fact exactly what he is arguing.

He is saying that Costco's way of compensating their employees is clearly superior in terms of making money.

So if Walmart chooses a different way of compensating their employees clearly they don't want to make money. Or they are somehow grossly incompetent at running their business.

I'm just waiting for you to start blaming the feminists for everything.
 

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
Just what exactly is a "living wage", and who should implement it? Is a living wage enough for one person to support a family of 1? 2? 3? 4? 12? What kind of items should that person be able to buy for them and their family under that "living wage"?

If we conclude that $20 per hour is the magical "living wage" number, does that mean we just raise the minimum pay to that amount? We know that 95% of people already actually make more than minimum wage, so if we jack the minimum wage, all the other wages would have to go up accordingly, which would of course change the cost of living, meaning the $20 would again be to low to be a "living wage".



Does McDonalds operate in a vacuum? If they could raise the price of things without lowering demand, you don't think they would have done it already? If you raise that price across the board (not just mcdonalds, but everyone), the level of the living wage would shift, putting you right back to where you started.

People always seem to come at this from a fundamental misunderstanding of what drives pay. The company pays based primarily on two things: 1) supply and demand, and 2) the value of the work it gets in return for the pay. Trying to change the level of pay without changing one of those two sets of factors will ultimately fail, just like price controls on products always fail. There's a reason 95%+ of people already make more than min wage. Companies aren't doing that out of the goodness of their hearts, they're doing it based on items 1 & 2 above.

I realize that bumping living wages increases costs, but it will not bring you right back to where you start. As you said there are tons of industries that don't pay minimum wage and none of those will be effected to the extent of the supplemented industries. McDonald's and other companies do not operate in a vacuum, but they are directly subsidized by government programs. Employees could not survive on the wages provided to them without assistance.

I realize the implementation of a living wage is going to vary greatly, I don't have any delusions that we can press a button and everyone can suddenly earn the perfect amount of money for their local area. However, there is clearly a huge gap for certain industries that are being directly supplemented by my and others tax dollars. The consumers of their products and their shareholders benefit from this supplemented gap.

Bumping the minimum wage will simply put the burden back on the shareholders and consumers of the products made by industries semi-exploiting our poverty support system. A 50% change in salary for 5% of the workforce will not increase cost of living by 50% but it will make a dramatic difference in the lives of those folks and decrease the needs of that industry to be subsidized.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
If huge swarthes of people are working yet still have to rely on government handouts in order to survive then it means wages are too low.

Or the people lacks the skills to acquire a higher paying job. Minimum wage was never intended for a person to live on their own much less to support a family. It was enacted to ensure younger inexperienced workers received a fair wage for their work.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,936
55,293
136
Or the people lacks the skills to acquire a higher paying job. Minimum wage was never intended for a person to live on their own much less to support a family. It was enacted to ensure younger inexperienced workers received a fair wage for their work.

FDR established it, and this was what he had to say on the issue:

No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
Or the people lacks the skills to acquire a higher paying job. Minimum wage was never intended for a person to live on their own much less to support a family. It was enacted to ensure younger inexperienced workers received a fair wage for their work.

The concept of the minimum wage dates back to the 14th century so what it was intended for will depend on which era you're talking about.

One purpose of the minimum wage is to help with the distribution of wealth across society. When the likes of Walmart, McDonalds, etc. are making billions in profits yet their staff are earning a pittance, it doesn't help anyone other than the top earners at those companies.

If you raise the minimum wage it will give the economy a nudge as those lower-paid workers will start spending it on luxuries like mobile phones, clothes, Angry Birds, etc. The money will be circulating around the economy rather than sitting in a Swiss bank account doing nothing.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
EMT isn't low skill...

but I'd fully expect more auto checkouts, and auto order takers(?) at fast food places if the min wage is raised to high.

What i'd expect to see if min wage suddenly becomes a living wage at double the cost to wal-mart (and others). Hours/employees cut, prices up.. and then people that keep their hours/jobs lose that gov't check / removed from housing suddenly realize its now harder actually and want it all back and complain till the poverty line for assistance is raised to the point it gets them back on the gov't's hand out + the higher wage. Only now even more people qualify as anyone making less than 15/hr is considered qualified for gov't help. (yes i'm that jaded towards how people are with money) No one wants to give up their checks from people on gov't assistance to the CEO racking in billions at wal-mart. They all want more money.

That's been said every time minimum wage was raised, and hasn't materialized. What actually happens is people who are most likely to spend money have more money to spend, and the economic growth offsets whatever costs increased min wage adds. Auto check out is already happening with current min wage. If a company wants to outsource or automate a job, they are going to do even if it's a $7.50/hr job it if the customer is OK with it. If not, they are going to keep it.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,784
8,363
136
Sam's Club is direct competition.

Costco and Sam's Club, a few comparisons:

they throw some Wal-Mart figures in as well but there a few important specific Sam's/Costco comparisons

http://hbr.org/2006/12/the-high-cost-of-low-wages/ar/1

And an interesting take on the whats and whys of Costco's practices:

These 2 paragraphs stood out to me.

"A traditional view of business ethics is that is it acceptable, and even encouraged, to operate only for maximum profit. In his article “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profits”, Milton Friedman argues that having any sort of other “social responsibility” will only hurt a company in the long run. As he claims, your ethical responsibility as a business owner or executive is to ensure the highest profits possible, in order to maximize the gains of your stockholders. On the surface, this certainly appears to make sense. A prime example of this business model is Wal-mart Inc., Costco’s main competitor, who is famous for their high profit margins. Yet, Wal-mart is also notorious for their low employee wages and poor insurance coverage; according to one comparison of Wal-mart and Costco, in 2006, Wal-mart employees were spending 8% of their income on health care insurance- that is “nearly twice the national average” (Cascio, 33). Additionally, almost half of the children of Wal-mart employees were uninsured or on public health care. By comparison, “85% of Costco’s employees have health-insurance coverage, compared to less than half at Wal-mart and Target” (Cascio, 32). As of 2010, average hourly wages for Costco employees were $17 per hour, while average hourly wages at Sam’s Club were 42% less at just over $10 per hour (Schmaltz). By spending less on employee health benefits, we now have more money to invest back into the company. Surely, Friedman would approve of this. Won’t that give us the greatest profit?"

"Costco proves that the answer to that question may be no. Wal-mart may be able to save some money through depriving their employees, but the employee loyalty shown by Costco’s employees more than makes up for that difference. Atypical benefits for Costco’s employees include above average hourly wages, comprehensive health insurance coverage after 6 months, above average 401(k) matching, and mandated 86% of top position hires from within, although the real percentage ends up being 98%. Consequently, employees at Costco are much happier than their peers. Employee turnover for Costco is 17% per year, while Sam’s Club is 44% per year, close to the industry average. As Cascio explains, a conservative estimate of the full cost to replace an hourly employee at Costco or Sam’s Club is 60% of an employee’s yearly salary. At Costco, this is a cost of $21,216 per employee; at Wal-mart, this is a cost of $12,617. When you put these figures together, you realize that Costco saves almost $368 million each year in employee turnover costs. That is a staggering amount of lost profit. Yet, it is not just turnover that proves the worth of Costco’s exceptional employee treatment. Costco’s employees appear to be more productive than their competitors. In 2005, while Sam’s Club generated $37.1 billion in US Sales, Costco generated $43.05 billion with 38% fewer employees (Cascio, 35). Imagine if they had the same numbers of employees! Additionally, Costco’s employees sell $886 of sales per square foot of store, compared with $525 of sales per square foot at Sam’s Club and $461 at BJ’s Wholesale Club."

http://bizgovsoc2.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/the-costs-of-being-costco-why-ethics-matter/

Thought I'd bump VG's post as I'd like to see a reasoned retort to the merits of its content, of which there hasn't been so far. (No offense, nehalem256). ;)
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
That's been said every time minimum wage was raised, and hasn't materialized. What actually happens is people who are most likely to spend money have more money to spend, and the economic growth offsets whatever costs increased min wage adds. Auto check out is already happening with current min wage. If a company wants to outsource or automate a job, they are going to do even if it's a $7.50/hr job it if the customer is OK with it. If not, they are going to keep it.

You think this money magically appears out of thin air and boosts the economy, but it doesn't. Anyone who has to pay an employee more due to a min wage hike either pays it out of his own pocket (that's less money he has to spend) or he raises his prices (that means consumers living paycheck to paycheck have less to spend elsewhere)
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,936
55,293
136
You think this money magically appears out of thin air and boosts the economy, but it doesn't. Anyone who has to pay an employee more due to a min wage hike either pays it out of his own pocket (that's less money he has to spend) or he raises his prices (that means consumers living paycheck to paycheck have less to spend elsewhere)

But each person he pays more has more money to spend, which increases his (and other business') revenues. Your spending is my income and my income is your spending. They don't live in a vacuum.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
But each person he pays more has more money to spend, which increases his (and other business') revenues. Your spending is my income and my income is your spending. They don't live in a vacuum.

No, there is no added money in the economy if as a business owner I have to take $100 I would have spent myself and divide it amongst my employees to spend.