Wal Mart increases starting wage

[Tiberius]

What does one have to do with the other?

Are you serious? They both have to do with employment at the company. I don't think anyone is saying the salary increases are a bad thing, but you have to look at the bigger picture.

Why would it make a difference if the layoff came at a different time?

You asked me why it was a meaningless action. That's why, because they announced wage increases and at the same time fire a load of people. I get that layoffs can happen, but having layoffs at the same time as increasing pay for other workers sends a message that they can afford a wage increase, but apparently can't afford to keep people on. Not only that, but they can afford to give people a wage increase, but can't afford to invest more into stores to try and increase profitability.

What does one have to do with the other?

Again, because they both have to do with employment at that company.

[John V]

Putting everyone to work at Walmart at $11/hour isn't exactly making America great again.

I agree. But no one's proposing we do that...

[Pat Mustard]

You asked me why it was a meaningless action. That's why, because they announced wage increases and at the same time fire a load of people. I get that layoffs can happen, but having layoffs at the same time as increasing pay for other workers sends a message that they can afford a wage increase, but apparently can't afford to keep people on. Not only that, but they can afford to give people a wage increase, but can't afford to invest more into stores to try and increase profitability.

I actually think it sends another, much more sinister message. Essentially Wall mart are saying to their employees "You see Chuck over there, leaving and going on food stamps. If you don't want to be just like him, barely subsisting on shit, you'd better give us loads of extra hours, and don't you go looking for any money for those hours neither you hear. The $10 a week we might give you is more than enough".

Mass layoffs like that are rarely (except in liquidation cases) a necessity. They are done pour encourager les autres.

[John V]

Are you serious?

Yes. Companies close locations because those particular locations aren't profitable. It's generally done independently of overall wage policy. You're making a connection based on timing of announcements alone.

You asked me why it was a meaningless action. That's why, because they announced wage increases and at the same time fire a load of people.

Timing of announcements doesn't indicate a logical connection.

I get that layoffs can happen, but having layoffs at the same time as increasing pay for other workers sends a message that they can afford a wage increase, but apparently can't afford to keep people on.

Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that message. If they built stores in areas that can't sustain them, it doesn't make any business sense to keep them open just because they employ people.

[The Grand Nudger]

Walmart has no choice but increase wages.  They directly compete with all other poverty wage providers for labor..and some of -those- providers directly compete for market share with walmart.  Target is fucking with them on the big box front, and amazon is scaring the pants out of their fulfillment centers. The wage increases had absolutely nothing to do with the tax break, and the employees won't be seeing a dime of it. They're pushing back against amazon with layoffs and closures in support of walmart direct shipping (of the 63 stores being closed up to ten will become walmart fulfillment centers), and back against target with higher box wages. They've been doing this for years.

-and then there's dollar general, crushing them like they were common obamas in rural america.

The tax break is a windfall for investors and ceo bonuses, and that's exactly what it was designed to be by the lobbyists who wrote it. Full stop.

[vorlon13]

The thing of Democrat's nightmares might actually be good for workers.

Whodda thot ?

[The Grand Nudger]

What thing is that?

[Brian37]

Walmart has no choice but increase wages.  They directly compete with all other poverty wage providers for labor..and some of -those- providers directly compete for market share with walmart.  Target is fucking with them on the big box front, and amazon is scaring the pants out of their fulfillment centers. The wage increases had absolutely nothing to do with the tax break, and the employees won't be seeing a dime of it.  They're pushing back against amazon with layoffs and closures in support of walmart direct shipping (of the 63 stores being closed up to ten will become walmart fulfillment centers), and back against target with higher box wages.  They've been doing this for years.  

-and then there's dollar general, crushing them like they were common obamas in rural america.  

The tax break is a windfall for investors and ceo bonuses, and that's exactly what it was designed to be by the lobbyists who wrote it.  Full stop.

Yep, the corporate lobbyists have excelled at this for decades. When they see that the workers are getting restless they throw them just enough crumbs to give them a false sense of security but it always ends up in debt down the road and the top still ends up getting richer.

---

Agreed this is a short term fad .Hyper focusing one up (possible up) when a overarching problem remain is pissing in the wind . Till there is a universal system that ensure ALL workers have a living wage this is a drop in a puddle. And even that drop has fuck all to do with the tax plan even if walmarts sell it as if it was so they can get more tax breaks later.

The worst part is, even if you speak in cost terms like a business owner, even then they wont listen.

Any business owner will tell you they have to have a certain ratio where materials and labor don't exceed their profit margin, otherwise there is no point in being in business. Well, why the hell would a home/rent/family be any different. If you are spending more than you take in, you will always be operating at a loss. That is why cost of living has to be viewed as a ratio, but if all you do is say "fuck the workers" long term, that erodes a society. 

Workers need livable wages to stay caught up and to get ahead for the long term. Just like a business has to keep costs at a certain level. But, to their side, they think CEOs are more important than the workers that make their companies profitable, but without them, there would be no business at all.

[Amarok]

And the even worst thing is people thinking this is in anyway sufficient.It is worthless .Those workers may cheer but all that's happened is there long term downfall.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yep, the corporate lobbyists have excelled at this for decades. When they see that the workers are getting restless they throw them just enough crumbs to give them a false sense of security but it always ends up in debt down the road and the top still ends up getting richer.

That may be so, but most of what I wrote concerned the business reality of walmart, who isn't throwing peanuts at their employees to keep them from being restless, but to entice the employees of target to jump ship.  It's an attempt to poach labor on the cheap from the competition, not placate the rabble.  Walmart is steadfast in it's position on them.   Fuck em, they'll work for poverty wages. 

What I'm trying to stress is that nothing about this tax deal or the lobbyists in question has anything to do with wage increases or bonuses at walmart.  The workers aren't getting -any- of those peanuts.  Those peanuts were meant for someone else. If I wanted to present an example of workers benefiting from the tax break I would pick something else, because this example is entirely the opposite of that. Walmart, after having availed itself of a tax windfall, is laying off employees. A 275 million dollar cut on labor alone which offsets the proposed wage increase.