|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Canada10904 Posts
On April 18 2014 09:42 rod409 wrote: I'm curious, is food at Walmart stores that you guys have been to cheaper than other places? I only go to Walmart/Target a few times a year but the food seemed the same price as the big chain supermarkets and neither are cheaper than Costco or local supermarkets. Dunno about in the States. But in Canada, one of my uncles used to own a grocery store and he couldn't buy in bulk from his suppliers what Superstores was selling to customers (I think particularly in produce?) There were cases when it was worth it to buy from Superstore, break apart the packages and sell separately in his own store rather than buy from his suppliers. The big box stores buy in such large quantities, they can leverage the prices down way more than smaller stores.
He thought there ought to be a scaled minimum wage where stores with X number of employees had to pay a higher minimum wage than small businesses. Particularly because it's the big stores that drive down the wages for the most part, but are the ones that are most able to pay higher wages while still out-competing small businesses. Interesting idea, I'd be interested to see if it could work.
|
On April 18 2014 10:11 SnipedSoul wrote: “Our business operations are subject to numerous risks, factors and uncertainties, domestically and internationally, which are outside our control . . . These factors include . . . changes in the amount of payments made under the Supplement[al] Nutrition Assistance Plan and other public assistance plans, changes in the eligibility requirements of public assistance plans, . . .”
Walmart fiscal year report, 2013
It isn't just their employees, but their entire business since a large portion of their customer base is on government assistance. They need SNAP and other public assistance to support their operations (profit). Remember that Walmart profits fell close to 20% in the quarter after SNAP was cut last year. Lol they list everything under the sun in that section
+ Show Spoiler +Our business operations are subject to numerous risks, factors and uncertainties, domestically and internationally, which are outside our control. Any one, or a combination, of these risks, factors and uncertainties could materially affect our financial performance, our results of operations, including our sales, earnings per share or comparable store sales or comparable club sales and effective tax rate for any period, our business operations, business strategy, plans, goals or objectives. These factors include, but are not limited to: general economic conditions, including changes in the economy of the United States or other specific markets in which we operate, economic instability, changes in the monetary policies of the United States, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, other governments or central banks, economic crises and disruptions in the financial markets, including as a result of sovereign debt crises, governmental budget deficits, unemployment and partial employment levels, employment conditions within our markets, credit availability to consumers and businesses, levels of consumer disposable income, consumer confidence, consumer credit availability, consumer spending patterns, consumer debt levels, consumer preferences, including consumer demand for the merchandise we offer for sale, the timing of consumers' receipt of tax refund checks, changes in the amount of payments made under the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Plan and other public assistance plans, changes in the eligibility requirements of public assistance plans, inflation, deflation, commodity prices, the cost of the goods we sell, competitive pressures, the seasonality of our business, seasonal buying patterns in the United States and our other markets, anticipated store or club closures, labor costs, transportation costs, the cost of diesel fuel, gasoline, natural gas and electricity, the selling prices of fuel, the cost of healthcare and other benefits, accident costs, our casualty and other insurance costs, information security costs, the cost of construction materials, availability and the cost of acceptable building sites for new stores, clubs and other units, availability of qualified labor pools in the specific markets in which we operate, including the availability of persons with the skills and abilities necessary to meet Walmart's needs for managing and staffing its new units and conducting their operations, real estate, zoning, land use and other laws, ordinances, legal restrictions and initiatives that may prevent Walmart from building, or that impose limitations on Walmart's ability to build, new units in certain locations or relocate or expand existing units, availability of necessary utilities for new units, availability of skilled labor and labor, material and other construction costs in areas in which new or relocated units are proposed to be constructed or existing units are proposed to be expanded or remodeled, competitive pressures and the initiatives of our competitors, accident-related costs, weather conditions patterns and events, climate change, catastrophic events and natural disasters, as well as storm and other damage to our stores, clubs, distribution centers and other facilities and store closings and other limitations on our customers' access to our stores and clubs resulting from such events and disasters, disruption in the availability of our online shopping sites on the internet, cyberattacks on our information systems, disruption in our supply chain, including availability and transport of goods from domestic and foreign suppliers, trade restrictions, changes in tariff and freight rates, adoption of or changes in tax, labor and other laws and regulations that affect our business, including changes in corporate and personal tax rates and the imposition of new taxes and surcharges, costs of compliance with laws and regulations, the mix of our earnings from our United States and foreign operations, changes in our assessment of certain tax contingencies, increases or decreases in valuation allowances, outcome of administrative audits, the impact of discrete items on our effective tax rate, the resolution of other tax matters, developments in and the outcome of legal and regulatory proceedings to which we are a party or are subject and the expenses associated therewith, the requirements for expenditures in connection with the FCPA-related matters, including enhancements to Walmart's compliance program and ongoing investigations; changes in the rating of any of our indebtedness; currency exchange rate fluctuations and volatility, fluctuations in market rates of interest, and other conditions and events affecting domestic and global financial and capital markets, public health emergencies, economic and geo-political conditions and events, including civil unrest and disturbances and terrorist attacks, unanticipated changes in generally accepted accounting principles or in the interpretations or applicability thereof, unanticipated changes in accounting estimates and judgments, and unanticipated restructurings and the related expenses. Moreover, we typically earn a disproportionate part of our annual operating income in the fourth quarter as a result of the seasonal buying patterns. Those buying patterns are difficult to forecast with certainty and can be affected by many factors. The accuracy of the forecast of the range of our effective tax rate for any year can be affected by other factors, including changes in assessments of certain tax contingencies, increases or decreases in valuation allowances, outcome of administrative audits, the impact of discrete items and the mix of earnings among the Company's United States and international operations.
They made the reference to customers rather than employees too.
Edit: Poor people shop at Walmart. Complaining that they spend more there because of the subsidies doesn't make the subsidies useless - it means that the poor have increased their purchasing power. That's a good thing, if you want to help the poor.
On April 18 2014 10:15 Mindcrime wrote: That just means that Walmart relies on their customers getting government assistance.
And that's totally okay, right Jonny?
Yes, of course it's okay.
Edit: The unemployed buy stuff at Walmart. Better get rid of UI too... lol...
|
This was the first time they mentioned SNAP cuts in that huge list.
By the way, nearly a fifth of all foodstamp dollars are spent at Walmart. That's $13.5 billion of your tax dollars that go directly into Walmart's pocket.
|
On April 18 2014 10:30 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 09:42 rod409 wrote: I'm curious, is food at Walmart stores that you guys have been to cheaper than other places? I only go to Walmart/Target a few times a year but the food seemed the same price as the big chain supermarkets and neither are cheaper than Costco or local supermarkets. Dunno about in the States. But in Canada, one of my uncles used to own a grocery store and he couldn't buy in bulk from his suppliers what Superstores was selling to customers (I think particularly in produce?) There were cases when it was worth it to buy from Superstore, break apart the packages and sell separately in his own store rather than buy from his suppliers. The big box stores buy in such large quantities, they can leverage the prices down way more than smaller stores. He thought there ought to be a scaled minimum wage where stores with X number of employees had to pay a higher minimum wage than small businesses. Particularly because it's the big stores that drive down the wages for the most part, but are the ones that are most able to pay higher wages while still out-competing small businesses. Interesting idea, I'd be interested to see if it could work. Your uncle's store sounds small? I am comparing food at big chains to Costco and local supermarkets (they are very big but only have a few stores if more than one). I can buy things at the local supermarkets like 20 lb (9 kg) of rice for 10$ and at times 7 lbs (3.2 kg) of onion for 1$ if there is a sale. I never see stuff like this at the big chains but I guess they only need to be competitive for packaged things like chips, cereals etc. And these are a few stores I have personally been to so they might be a total anomaly.
|
On April 18 2014 10:35 SnipedSoul wrote: This was the first time they mentioned SNAP cuts in that huge list.
By the way, nearly a fifth of all foodstamp dollars are spent at Walmart. That's $13.5 billion of your tax dollars that go directly into Walmart's pocket. Wow, it's so important to their business model they never mentioned it before...
You'd rather people go hungry? That's quite cruel.
|
They mention it because they needed to justify why their profits fell 21% in one quarter. I would imagine that shareholders start asking questions after a drop like that.
I would rather Walmart pay a decent wage so that their employees can afford to feed themselves without government help.
|
Canada10904 Posts
On April 18 2014 10:45 rod409 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 10:30 Falling wrote:On April 18 2014 09:42 rod409 wrote: I'm curious, is food at Walmart stores that you guys have been to cheaper than other places? I only go to Walmart/Target a few times a year but the food seemed the same price as the big chain supermarkets and neither are cheaper than Costco or local supermarkets. Dunno about in the States. But in Canada, one of my uncles used to own a grocery store and he couldn't buy in bulk from his suppliers what Superstores was selling to customers (I think particularly in produce?) There were cases when it was worth it to buy from Superstore, break apart the packages and sell separately in his own store rather than buy from his suppliers. The big box stores buy in such large quantities, they can leverage the prices down way more than smaller stores. He thought there ought to be a scaled minimum wage where stores with X number of employees had to pay a higher minimum wage than small businesses. Particularly because it's the big stores that drive down the wages for the most part, but are the ones that are most able to pay higher wages while still out-competing small businesses. Interesting idea, I'd be interested to see if it could work. Your uncle's store sounds small? I am comparing food at big chains to Costco and local supermarkets (they are very big but only have a few stores if more than one). I can buy things at the local supermarkets like 20 lb (9 kg) of rice for 10$ and at times 7 lbs (3.2 kg) of onion for 1$ if there is a sale. I never see stuff like this at the big chains but I guess they only need to be competitive for packaged things like chips, cereals etc. And these are a few stores I have personally been to so they might be a total anomaly. It was one grocery store locally owned and operated and employed several people. There are a few chains that compete with Superstore and he wound up selling the business and working for Quality Foods as a manager (which is a regional chain). But even QF prices are more expensive than Superstore or Walmart.
|
On April 18 2014 10:50 SnipedSoul wrote: They mention it because they needed to justify why their profits fell 21% in one quarter. I would imagine that shareholders start asking questions after a drop like that.
I would rather Walmart pay a decent wage so that their employees can afford to feed themselves without government help. They added it to that huge list that no one reads to justify why their profits fell? Seems a bit odd, but OK.
So what would you propose as a better public policy alternative? Raising the min wage isn't flawless and some of those workers will spend money at Walmart, which you don't like, apparently.
|
On April 18 2014 10:50 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 10:45 rod409 wrote:On April 18 2014 10:30 Falling wrote:On April 18 2014 09:42 rod409 wrote: I'm curious, is food at Walmart stores that you guys have been to cheaper than other places? I only go to Walmart/Target a few times a year but the food seemed the same price as the big chain supermarkets and neither are cheaper than Costco or local supermarkets. Dunno about in the States. But in Canada, one of my uncles used to own a grocery store and he couldn't buy in bulk from his suppliers what Superstores was selling to customers (I think particularly in produce?) There were cases when it was worth it to buy from Superstore, break apart the packages and sell separately in his own store rather than buy from his suppliers. The big box stores buy in such large quantities, they can leverage the prices down way more than smaller stores. He thought there ought to be a scaled minimum wage where stores with X number of employees had to pay a higher minimum wage than small businesses. Particularly because it's the big stores that drive down the wages for the most part, but are the ones that are most able to pay higher wages while still out-competing small businesses. Interesting idea, I'd be interested to see if it could work. Your uncle's store sounds small? I am comparing food at big chains to Costco and local supermarkets (they are very big but only have a few stores if more than one). I can buy things at the local supermarkets like 20 lb (9 kg) of rice for 10$ and at times 7 lbs (3.2 kg) of onion for 1$ if there is a sale. I never see stuff like this at the big chains but I guess they only need to be competitive for packaged things like chips, cereals etc. And these are a few stores I have personally been to so they might be a total anomaly. It was one grocery store locally owned and operated and employed several people. There are a few chains that compete with Superstore and he wound up selling the business and working for Quality Foods as a manager (which is a regional chain). But even QF prices are more expensive than Superstore or Walmart.
Walmart prices on the whole are generally cheaper by weight if you purchase in bulk than smaller supermarkets. The difference between Walmart and Costco is less noticeable.
Smaller stores can usually list a few particular items at a sale price comparable or below Walmart but they have to raise the prices on the other items they expect you to get while you are shopping for the sale item/s to make up for the probable loss.At least that's my friends and my combined anecdotal experience.
|
On April 18 2014 10:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 10:50 SnipedSoul wrote: They mention it because they needed to justify why their profits fell 21% in one quarter. I would imagine that shareholders start asking questions after a drop like that.
I would rather Walmart pay a decent wage so that their employees can afford to feed themselves without government help. They added it to that huge list that no one reads to justify why their profits fell? Seems a bit odd, but OK. So what would you propose as a better public policy alternative? Raising the min wage isn't flawless and some of those workers will spend money at Walmart, which you don't like, apparently.
I would tie the minimum wage to inflation. The minimum wage in 1970 was $1.45 which is $9.47 in 2013 dollars. The current minimum wage is almost 25% lower than it was in 1970.
I don't give a crap if people shop at Walmart. What I don't like is taxpayers supporting a business that would fail without subsidies. Walmart isn't some startup that could benefit from subsidies like solar power or electric cars. It's one of the biggest companies in the world.
|
re: snipedsoul
I don't think one job is supposed to support a family of four; more like 2 jobs. One job should be enough to support one person, (with one optional child).
As to cost of living, i'd need to run some numbers to figure it all out; but costs aren't always so bad if you're frugal. Let me see what I can come up with. Also note that costs of living vary substantially in different places.
|
On April 18 2014 11:05 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 10:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 10:50 SnipedSoul wrote: They mention it because they needed to justify why their profits fell 21% in one quarter. I would imagine that shareholders start asking questions after a drop like that.
I would rather Walmart pay a decent wage so that their employees can afford to feed themselves without government help. They added it to that huge list that no one reads to justify why their profits fell? Seems a bit odd, but OK. So what would you propose as a better public policy alternative? Raising the min wage isn't flawless and some of those workers will spend money at Walmart, which you don't like, apparently. I would tie the minimum wage to inflation. The minimum wage in 1970 was $1.45 which is $9.47 in 2013 dollars. The current minimum wage is almost 25% lower than it was in 1970. I don't give a crap if people shop at Walmart. What I don't like is taxpayers supporting a business that would fail without subsidies. Walmart isn't some startup that could benefit from subsidies like solar power or electric cars. It's one of the biggest companies in the world. Yeah and we've used things like the EITC to boost the min wage for the poor to a higher level than it was in 1970.
Taxpayers don't support Walmart anymore than your higher min wage scenario.
|
United States40776 Posts
On April 18 2014 11:05 zlefin wrote: re: snipedsoul
I don't think one job is supposed to support a family of four; more like 2 jobs. One job should be enough to support one person, (with one optional child).
As to cost of living, i'd need to run some numbers to figure it all out; but costs aren't always so bad if you're frugal. Let me see what I can come up with. Also note that costs of living vary substantially in different places. In a country where a single income used to be sufficient to feed a family of four, in a world where the mechanisation of labour and increased efficiency mean that a single individual's labour is far more effective than at any point in the past and the labour required to provide for yourself has never been lower you're saying Americans need to work harder. The rest of the western world is trying to work fewer hours and to spread the jobs that still need doing between more people through 3 day weekends and part time work but in America a third child is now a luxury beyond your means.
|
Both parents working minimum wage jobs is actually worse than one parent staying at home because daycare costs far more than $7.25 an hour. Remember that I was talking about no government help, so daycare is going to be whatever the true cost is without subsidy.
Fun fact, Australia has a minimum wage of $16.88 and they haven't had a recession in 20 years.
|
United States40776 Posts
On April 18 2014 11:12 SnipedSoul wrote: Both parents working minimum wage jobs is actually worse than one parent staying at home because daycare costs far more than $7.25 an hour. Remember that I was talking about no government help, so daycare is going to be whatever the true cost is without subsidy.
Fun fact, Australia has a minimum wage of $16.88 and they haven't had a recession in 20 years. Australia has a low population sitting on a layer of coal beneath which is found a layer of valuable ores.
|
On April 18 2014 11:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 11:05 SnipedSoul wrote:On April 18 2014 10:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 10:50 SnipedSoul wrote: They mention it because they needed to justify why their profits fell 21% in one quarter. I would imagine that shareholders start asking questions after a drop like that.
I would rather Walmart pay a decent wage so that their employees can afford to feed themselves without government help. They added it to that huge list that no one reads to justify why their profits fell? Seems a bit odd, but OK. So what would you propose as a better public policy alternative? Raising the min wage isn't flawless and some of those workers will spend money at Walmart, which you don't like, apparently. I would tie the minimum wage to inflation. The minimum wage in 1970 was $1.45 which is $9.47 in 2013 dollars. The current minimum wage is almost 25% lower than it was in 1970. I don't give a crap if people shop at Walmart. What I don't like is taxpayers supporting a business that would fail without subsidies. Walmart isn't some startup that could benefit from subsidies like solar power or electric cars. It's one of the biggest companies in the world. Yeah and we've used things like the EITC to boost the min wage for the poor to a higher level than it was in 1970. Taxpayers don't support Walmart anymore than your higher min wage scenario.
You implied in a previous post that cutting foodstamps would cause poor people to starve to death. Many of Walmart's employees are on foodstamps. If taxpayers did not provide foodstamps to Walmart employees, then those employees would starve.
Therefore, taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart through foodstamps because without foodstamps Walmart would be forced to pay higher wages or their employees would starve.
On April 18 2014 11:14 KwarK wrote:
Australia has a low population sitting on a layer of coal beneath which is found a layer of valuable ores.
Australia also has next to no infrastructure once you move away from the coast. Brand new railways, roads, and shipping terminals are really expensive if you have to build them today.
|
On April 18 2014 11:15 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 11:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 11:05 SnipedSoul wrote:On April 18 2014 10:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 18 2014 10:50 SnipedSoul wrote: They mention it because they needed to justify why their profits fell 21% in one quarter. I would imagine that shareholders start asking questions after a drop like that.
I would rather Walmart pay a decent wage so that their employees can afford to feed themselves without government help. They added it to that huge list that no one reads to justify why their profits fell? Seems a bit odd, but OK. So what would you propose as a better public policy alternative? Raising the min wage isn't flawless and some of those workers will spend money at Walmart, which you don't like, apparently. I would tie the minimum wage to inflation. The minimum wage in 1970 was $1.45 which is $9.47 in 2013 dollars. The current minimum wage is almost 25% lower than it was in 1970. I don't give a crap if people shop at Walmart. What I don't like is taxpayers supporting a business that would fail without subsidies. Walmart isn't some startup that could benefit from subsidies like solar power or electric cars. It's one of the biggest companies in the world. Yeah and we've used things like the EITC to boost the min wage for the poor to a higher level than it was in 1970. Taxpayers don't support Walmart anymore than your higher min wage scenario. You implied in a previous post that cutting foodstamps would cause poor people to starve to death. Many of Walmart's employees are on foodstamps. If taxpayers did not provide foodstamps to Walmart employees, then those employees would starve. Therefore, taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart through foodstamps because without foodstamps Walmart would be forced to pay higher wages or their employees would starve. EITC and other programs are among the most successful anti-poverty programs in the US.
You want to get rid of them because you have a belief, unsupported by evidence, that the subsides go to Walmart (among others) rather than the workers.
That's absurd.
|
On April 18 2014 10:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 10:50 SnipedSoul wrote: They mention it because they needed to justify why their profits fell 21% in one quarter. I would imagine that shareholders start asking questions after a drop like that.
I would rather Walmart pay a decent wage so that their employees can afford to feed themselves without government help. They added it to that huge list that no one reads to justify why their profits fell? Seems a bit odd, but OK. So what would you propose as a better public policy alternative? Raising the min wage isn't flawless and some of those workers will spend money at Walmart, which you don't like, apparently.
How about instead of saying Walmart isn't doing anything counterproductive we work together on solutions to what for many is an obvious problem?
So a raise to the minimum wage might not be the silver bullet.
Walmart's nefarious business practices don't stop in America either... What Walmart does in China is significantly worse and probably more important to their model than their stateside wages and government subsidies.
Are there benefits to businesses like Walmart... Of course there are. The question that opponents of Walmart practices pose is are they worth it? And what I presume puzzles many is why do people like you so staunchly defend Walmart profits being so heavily driven by the expenses they save and the income they derive from the government?
A public policy solution isn't even necessary. Walmart could go a long way to solve this problem itself. Here's one idea on how it could happen
"What that suggests is that even Wal-Mart's investors think the company should pay its employees more, or at least expects it will," says Lee. How much more? Wal-Mart has a book value of $76.7 billion. Take 15.4% of that, and that means investors are looking to get paid $11.8 billion a year. That leaves $101 billion to pay employees.
Source
|
Walmart gets $13.5 billion in foodstamp money every year. That amount would be far less if they paid their employees more.
I never said get rid of foodstamps. I am saying that without foodstamps, Walmart would be forced to pay higher wages and the burden of feeding Walmart employees would be taken away from the government and placed on Walmart which is where it belongs.
Force Walmart to pay higher wages and you will reduce the need for foodstamps.
|
On April 18 2014 11:22 SnipedSoul wrote: Walmart gets $13.5 billion in foodstamp money every year. That amount would be far less if they paid their employees more. It would be the same because their employees arn't the only ones buying food at their stores. Walmart doesn't employ THAT many people.
They sell things for cheaper so people looking for cheap (footstamp spenders) go to them. It has nothing to do with how much they pay their people.
|
|
|
|