Walmart February Sales Disaster

[IDBillzFan]

is $9 an hour going to put them out of business?

 

There is absolutely no way anyone can successfully argue for a raise in the minimum wage when this is one of their arguments.

 

In fact, your comment above clearly defines for virtually anyone paying attention that, regardless of anything else you may write, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

Yes, really. There is a huge disconnect with the larger American corporations and small businesses. Corporations are doing great, they've been able to benefit off of globalization from cutting costs to enjoying the benefits of more global customers, whereas small businesses are hurt more from added regulations to a weak domestic economy. So yes, it is something that there needs to be more analysis to see if it would have adverse impacts. The question of "morality" should never be used in creating economic policy. It's not a variable that can be used to help determine effective policy. It discounts economic logic and in many cases what is done with good intention in the name of "fairness" or "morality" has the opposite intended outcome. Look at the health insurance law from the president, that is a perfect test case. It is going to be an unmitigated disaster. You know how many people are being dropped by their employers health insurance group plan because of it? A LOT

 

Many businesses would rather pay the fine and add extra compensation to their employers to replace their health insurance because they know that the added compensation won't increase at the rate of the premiums. So if there are going to be less people in employer group risk pools, what do you think that will do to premiums?

 

What I'm saying is that I'm not opposed to raising the minimum wage, what I'm saying is that there needs to be honest studies on small business and see what impacts t could have. If it shutters or causes less employment in these small businesses then obviously that's not the route to go.

 

 

Id like to point out that certain people here who work in the health insurance industry pointed out these issues before the bill was passed. Just sayin.

[meazza]

places like wal mart close without low wage workers. is $9 an hour going to put them out of business? they had a bad quarter last quarter but if their employees can buy more of their stuff they should do just fine. they operate in countries, at a profit, that have higher wages for low paid workers eg germany. so do multiple fast food franchises. mcdonald's is in virtually every 1st world country, some with very high costs of living and consequently wage structures. there are burger kings in switzerland with higher paid low strata workers...more expensive than here but still in business. so my reasoning is not empirical at all. it's based on examples.

 

I recall a study I saw last year that was similar both here and in parts of the US where businesses are having a hard time filling low skilled jobs (waiters + factory workers, etc) and that was effectively due to the fact that no one wanted to do these jobs so perhaps you could use that argument to proclaim that wages should be higher on the low skilled jobs (but my argument would be to let undocumented workers have them). That being said I don't necessarily have a problem with minimum wage as much as I have an issue with regulations. I think the latter has a much higher cost per worker impact than boosting the minimum wage but I have no actual empirical evidence.

[birdog1960]

Id like to point out that certain people here who work in the health insurance industry pointed out these issues before the bill was passed. Just sayin.

can it really be any worse than this?http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/. if most americans read this and don't find the current system a perverse mess of unbridled, inefficient greed falsely clothed as health care then there's little hope for the country.

[Dean Cain]

http://finance.yahoo...Y3Rpb25z;_ylv=3

 

Good video. Analyst says Amazon stole Walmart sales & Best Buy price match helped neutralize Walmart's electronic sales.

 

"The big theme: they can't get any margin, they have no pricing power and the consumer is not going to the store as much as they used to," says Sozzi.

Edited February 22, 2013 by BigCountryBills

[Nanker]

so we've gone through all the tired, old, lame excuses for not increasing the minimum wage: 1.deny the existence of the working poor 2.put forth that those making minimum wage are not trying to support a family on their wages. it's just kids working for pocket money 3. demonize the working poor. they're all useless workers. don't earn their pay. untrainable. lazy, etc.4. admit that there are some working poor but that a very tiny group of people are affected. 5.ad hominem attacks (but living in a glass house in this thread, i'll keep my stones to myself on this one).6. and finally, taa daaaaa, the good ole strawman of a living wage must equal a middle class wage.

 

it's important to remember that none of these excuses are remotely true. in fact, they're patently false. but that won't stop you the next time this comes up from spouting them off. maybe you could come up with something of real substance and surprise everyone. i won't hold my breath.

 

Wrong on all five counts birdman. No one's denying their existence, nor the issues of their struggles in making a living. If you think $50k a year makes you middle class, well you don't live in the same part of the world that 100 million Americans do. Maybe it is in Kansas, but not in most metro areas.

 

You present nothing but strawman arguments, personal attacks and empty platitudes in your attempts to smear those with a different view than yours - which is to simplistically give 'em a couple a bucks more an hour and that'll take care of the poor bastards. You blithering simp. You disgust me.

[TakeYouToTasker]

The moral of the story is "develop marketable skills so that you don't get stuck working a minimum wage job."

 

Working at a cash register at the local Wal-mart should never be considered a viable career desicion. It's a place for young kids to get their first work experience, and for the elderly to take part time jobs to supplement their social security pay-outs, nothing more; and it shouldn't be treated as anything more.

 

It is no one's problem but your own if you've made a series of horrible life decisions that have left you with no other options other than cleaning up that spilled juice in isle 12. It's no one's fault but your own if you've decided to try to raise a family of 5 on $320/week.

 

The market has set the value of those menial jobs, and I see no valid reason to reward anyone's lack of initiative and poor life decisions with a pay raise out of what they determine to be their "need".

 

!@#$ their "need". Need isn't currency, and should never be traded on. Make yourself more valuable and you'll get more money. Failing that, !@#$ off.

[Magox]

The moral of the story is "develop marketable skills so that you don't get stuck working a minimum wage job."

 

Working at a cash register at the local Wal-mart should never be considered a viable career desicion. It's a place for young kids to get their first work experience, and for the elderly to take part time jobs to supplement their social security pay-outs, nothing more; and it shouldn't be treated as anything more.

 

It is no one's problem but your own if you've made a series of horrible life decisions that have left you with no other options other than cleaning up that spilled juice in isle 12. It's no one's fault but your own if you've decided to try to raise a family of 5 on $320/week.

 

The market has set the value of those menial jobs, and I see no valid reason to reward anyone's lack of initiative and poor life decisions with a pay raise out of what they determine to be their "need".

 

!@#$ their "need". Need isn't currency, and should never be traded on. Make yourself more valuable and you'll get more money. Failing that, !@#$ off.

 

I agree with you for the most part, however I do believe that minimum wage should be indexed and raised to some sort of inflation metric.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I agree with you for the most part, however I do believe that minimum wage should be indexed and raised to some sort of inflation metric.

So as the cost of doing business becomes more expensive, employers should be artificially required to spend more on their overhead, making it even more difficult to do business?

 

I disagree.

 

Perhaps that would be a viable solution if profits were indexed to inflation, but they aren't.

[Magox]

So as the cost of doing business becomes more expensive, employers should be artificially required to spend more on their overhead, making it even more difficult to do business?

 

I disagree.

 

Perhaps that would be a viable solution if profits were indexed to inflation, but they aren't.

 

Sorry but the cost of living isn't static, and if we were to to be able to accurately gauge profit growth as a whole, it certainly would be much greater than the increases brought on by inflation.

[birdog1960]

The moral of the story is "develop marketable skills so that you don't get stuck working a minimum wage job."

 

Working at a cash register at the local Wal-mart should never be considered a viable career desicion. It's a place for young kids to get their first work experience, and for the elderly to take part time jobs to supplement their social security pay-outs, nothing more; and it shouldn't be treated as anything more.

 

It is no one's problem but your own if you've made a series of horrible life decisions that have left you with no other options other than cleaning up that spilled juice in isle 12. It's no one's fault but your own if you've decided to try to raise a family of 5 on $320/week.

 

The market has set the value of those menial jobs, and I see no valid reason to reward anyone's lack of initiative and poor life decisions with a pay raise out of what they determine to be their "need".

 

!@#$ their "need". Need isn't currency, and should never be traded on. Make yourself more valuable and you'll get more money. Failing that, !@#$ off.

even from a purely pragmatic view, this makes no sense. those that can't provide for even the basics on their wages are then supported by social programs ie you and i and on borrowed money to boot. efectively, the burden of support has been shifted from employer to taxpayer. that's a real good deal for wal mart and the like. i really don't like subsidizing these businesses with my taxes and that is a direct result of a low minimum wage.

[Jauronimo]

even from a purely pragmatic view, this makes no sense. those that can't provide for even the basics on their wages are then supported by social programs ie you and i and on borrowed money to boot. efectively, the burden of support has been shifted from employer to taxpayer. that's a real good deal for wal mart and the like. i really don't like subsidizing these businesses with my taxes and that is a direct result of a low minimum wage.

Sure it does. Just need to pare down the social programs and find the breakeven point.

 

What makes no sense is a system where individuals are not required to make responsible decisions.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Sorry but the cost of living isn't static, and if we were to to be able to accurately gauge profit growth as a whole, it certainly would be much greater than the increases brought on by inflation.

The cost of living not being static isn't something we should punish business for, because they didn't cause that problem.

 

even from a purely pragmatic view, this makes no sense. those that can't provide for even the basics on their wages are then supported by social programs ie you and i and on borrowed money to boot. efectively, the burden of support has been shifted from employer to taxpayer. that's a real good deal for wal mart and the like. i really don't like subsidizing these businesses with my taxes and that is a direct result of a low minimum wage.

So your argument is the introduction of a blatant false choice dillema?

[Magox]

The cost of living not being static isn't something we should punish business for, because they didn't cause that problem.

 

 

That is not punishing business. As profit grows and inflation rises, so do wages. That's simply logical.

[birdog1960]

Sure it does. Just need to pare down the social programs and find the breakeven point.

 

What makes no sense is a system where individuals are not required to make responsible decisions.

breakeven point? you mean where tax revenue from the low wage employees and employers equals social program spending(while still supporting people from starvation)? i'm guessing, off hand, that's goona require a minimum wage of at least $9/hour or a big tax increase aimed right at wal mart and similar corps..

 

So your argument is the introduction of a blatant false choice dillema?

i suppose i left out your favored options: letting the "freeloaders" die of exposure or the plague.

Edited February 22, 2013 by birdog1960

[Azalin]

efectively, the burden of support has been shifted from employer to taxpayer.

and where does the employee's 'burden of support' come into play? it's neither walmart's nor the taxpayers' responsibility to make up the economic shortfall when some dumbass is trying to raise a family on a minimum wage job. this concept that we as a society have a responsibility to make up for peoples' bad decisions needs to go. there are too many people out there that really DO need financial assistance, and the more we supplement the incomes of 'underpaid' workers, the less get the help that they really need. consequently, the more underpaid workers we do help, the more underpaid workers we're going to keep getting.

[Magox]

breakeven point? you mean where tax revenue from the low wage employees and employers equals social program spending(while still supporting people from starvation)? i'm guessing, off hand, that's goona require a minimum wage of at least $9/hour or a big tax increase aimed right at wal mart and similar corps..

 

 

Well, let's just hope that policy makers don't make "offhand" decisions. Actually, now that I think about it, that may represent an improvement of how decisions have been made.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Magox

[Fan in San Diego]

and where does the employee's 'burden of support' come into play? it's neither walmart's nor the taxpayers' responsibility to make up the economic shortfall when some dumbass is trying to raise a family on a minimum wage job. this concept that we as a society have a responsibility to make up for peoples' bad decisions needs to go. there are too many people out there that really DO need financial assistance, and the more we supplement the incomes of 'underpaid' workers, the less get the help that they really need. consequently, the more underpaid workers we do help, the more underpaid workers we're going to keep getting.

 

At some point the min. wage needs to be raised. It was $1.00 per hour when I was a teenager. Would that wage make any sense today? Does $9.00 make sense? I don't know, maybe it should only be raised $0.25 to $0.50 per hour to keep up with inflation.

[TakeYouToTasker]

That is not punishing business. As profit grows and inflation rises, so do wages. That's simply logical.

Horseshit, it's absolutely punative because the minimum wage doesn't index to profits. Furthermore, the profits of one business are not uniform to those of all other businesses. While some busineeses are reaping a windfall, others are suffering, and even failing. Whose profit margins do you propose we index the minimum wage to? Walmarts? Toys R' Us? The salvation Army? The mom and pop restaurant down the street?

[Jauronimo]

breakeven point? you mean where tax revenue from the low wage employees and employers equals social program spending(while still supporting people from starvation)? i'm guessing, off hand, that's goona require a minimum wage of at least $9/hour or a big tax increase aimed right at wal mart and similar corps..

 

 

i suppose i left out your favored options: letting the "freeloaders" die of exposure or the plague.

Not even close. I'm talking about optimizing social program spending by comparing the external cost to tax payers in the form of vandalism, crime, squalor and the savings of a base case of no social programs. Minimizing the externalities caused by individuals who refuse to live within their means.

 

You assume that either businesses or tax payers need to pay for these individuals when there is no such obligation. I believe people will shape up when the cost of !@#$ing up gets too high.