Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Exactly, Ford was an industrialist, he manufactured which required a skilled labor force, and the price of constant turnover was killing the business because of the training time.
You can't apply the same principles to no or low skilled workers, it simply does not compute, because there is practically no training investment. And what's really funny, today's minimum wage workers would have a shit fit if an employer demanded a simple drug test, imagine if any employer wanted to inspect their home for wholesomeness.
So let's clear up some misconceptions...
Walmart is not some great evil. It is just a retail chain. There's a wonderful Penn&Teller episode I would recommend. Nor is Walmart governed by some infallible "job-creator" supermen. It is just a retail chain taking advantage of arbitrage.
Walmart does require a drug test as a condition of employment. There is some training involved, as with any employment. The amount of training would depend on the specific job requirements. Walmart does invest employees, and even seeks to integrate low paid immigrants into American society. For example, Walmart participates in Workplace ESL classrooms.
Walmart suffers a 70% turnover rate in the first year of employment, and this is obviously a loss.
It is the transient nature of arbitrage that limits the lifespan of Walmart, not the 70% turnover rate.
When profits are high, it is easy to overlook inefficiencies in the system. As profits decrease, we may then start to see Walmart get serious about reducing the turnover rate.
First thing you shouldn't use terms you really don't understand. If Walmart were truly engaged in arbitrage they would have no need for their massive regional warehouses.
As far as the drug test comment I was thinking more of the fast food folks, not Walmart.
Exactly, Ford was an industrialist, he manufactured which required a skilled labor force, and the price of constant turnover was killing the business because of the training time.
You can't apply the same principles to no or low skilled workers, it simply does not compute, because there is practically no training investment. And what's really funny, today's minimum wage workers would have a shit fit if an employer demanded a simple drug test, imagine if any employer wanted to inspect their home for wholesomeness.
So let's clear up some misconceptions...
Walmart is not some great evil. It is just a retail chain. There's a wonderful Penn&Teller episode I would recommend. Nor is Walmart governed by some infallible "job-creator" supermen. It is just a retail chain taking advantage of arbitrage.
Walmart does require a drug test as a condition of employment. There is some training involved, as with any employment. The amount of training would depend on the specific job requirements. Walmart does invest employees, and even seeks to integrate low paid immigrants into American society. For example, Walmart participates in Workplace ESL classrooms.
Walmart suffers a 70% turnover rate in the first year of employment, and this is obviously a loss.
It is the transient nature of arbitrage that limits the lifespan of Walmart, not the 70% turnover rate.
When profits are high, it is easy to overlook inefficiencies in the system. As profits decrease, we may then start to see Walmart get serious about reducing the turnover rate.
First thing you shouldn't use terms you really don't understand. If Walmart were truly engaged in arbitrage they would have no need for their massive regional warehouses.
As far as the drug test comment I was thinking more of the fast food folks, not Walmart.
Alright, let's discuss arbitrage. Is sourcing finished goods from a low wage labor market and selling those same goods in a high price consumer market not arbitrage[1]?
[1] Redefining Global Strategy: Crossing Borders in a World Where Differences Still Matter
Are you suggesting that without a rigid use of instantaneity one cannot use the word arbitrage? That objection would account for your citing the existence of regional warehouses as a reason that arbitrage cannot exist. I suspect you are reserving the word for use in stock markets, but that reservation would deprive the conversation of a convenient term to describe how many retailers in these United States are buying low overseas and selling high at home and in doing so raising real wages in those developing nations until the system equalizes.
Global labor arbitrage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If I've made any mistakes, please let me know. I am not so proud that I can not learn new things.
We are in an economic boom? That's news to me. I've never seen so many empty store fronts. maybe the state did more hiring? What's your source?Actually I already showed more than once how Washington State has the highest min wage in the country and is in a economic BOOM not a BUST but a BOOM...tell me why since they raised the min wage more people are hiring.
We are in an economic boom? That's news to me. I've never seen so many empty store fronts. maybe the state did more hiring? What's your source?Actually I already showed more than once how Washington State has the highest min wage in the country and is in a economic BOOM not a BUST but a BOOM...tell me why since they raised the min wage more people are hiring.
Like George Pullman?In the interest of fairness we must note that many industrialists at the time exerted significant, "paternalistic," control over their employees before the advent of modern labor laws.
Good historical point. Well noted.
"Paternalistic".
That WallMart employees are responsible for 13% of all Food Stamos in the US is beyond ridiculous, even that 13% of Food Stamps are spent at WallMart stores is beyond belief. Can't trust the figures because they are skewed.Thoughts? Mine are DUH! We have been saying this for a while. Republicans thoughts: Damn leeches! Ought to be happy they have a job! BLACKMAIL!
You should be teaching in business school with your brilliant insights, not wasting everyone's time posting here.
You should be teaching in business school with your brilliant insights, not wasting everyone's time posting here.
I think you only post flame or flamebait.
Alright, let's discuss arbitrage. Is sourcing finished goods from a low wage labor market and selling those same goods in a high price consumer market not arbitrage?
Um, every retailer engages in "arbitrage", buying goods cheaper somewhere and selling them more expensively elsewhere. Actually every company engaged in making or selling goods does the same. Therefore the term is meaningless.
Actual arbitrage means taking advantage of price differentials in different markets.
Alright, let's discuss arbitrage. Is sourcing finished goods from a low wage labor market and selling those same goods in a high price consumer market not arbitrage?
Um, every retailer engages in "arbitrage", buying goods cheaper somewhere and selling them more expensively elsewhere. Actually every company engaged in making or selling goods does the same. Therefore the term is meaningless.
That comment is just gibberish.
Actual arbitrage means taking advantage of price differentials in different markets.
Did you bother to read my post?
I notice you do not behave well even in the clean debate section.
I think you post for the fart-joke style lulz.
Is this [no antecedent given] some insight your brilliance has made you uniquely qualified to share with the world?
Is this [no antecedent given] some insight your brilliance has made you uniquely qualified to share with the world?
I'm glad you think I'm brilliant, and I'm flattered by your attention, but please do make some sense. If my "brilliance" gave me some "insight" then maybe I would be "uniquely qualified" to share it "with the world"? But hopefully such "insight" would be shared "with the world" by way of a more widely accessed medium as opposed to a message board.
Okay, so I see some folks touting Costco as an example of a company who pays a living wage to it's employees. Well its because they can afford to. Wal-mart on the other hand doesn't need to. They employ 2.2 million people worldwide. Costco only 186,000. That's roughly 10 times the workforce of Costco worldwide. The quality of the employee has plenty to do with it as well, higher quality means higher pay, thus higher cost. Meaning, as Costco hires higher quality employees--as compared to Wal-Mart--it can afford to pay a higher wage. Wal-Mart doesn't have to or need to pay higher wages. This makes impeccable business sense. Liberals beware, you have no idea what it takes to run a multi-billion dollar company.
Wal-Mart (2013)
Rev (Revenue): $476.294 billion
OI (Operating Income): $26.872 billion
NI (Net Income): $16.022 billion
TAs (Total Assets): $204.751 billion
TEq (Total Equity): $76.255 billion
Emp (Employees): 2.2 million
Costco (2013)
Rev(Revenue): $105.156 billion
OI (Operating Income): $3.053 billion
NI (Net Income): $2.039 billion
TAs (Total Assets): $30.283 billion
TEq (Total Equity): $11.012 billion
Emp: (Employees) 186,000
Three members of the Walmart Board are members of the Walton familyrelatives of Sam Walton, the companys late, iconic founder, whose business philosophy is often touted by the companys defenders and critics alike. Sams son Rob Walton is the boards chairman.
Members of the family together control just over half of the companys stock, and they take up four of the top ten slots on Forbess list of the wealthiest Americans. Forbes pegged the familys net worth at $120 billion last October. Based on Federal Reserve data, the Economic Policy Institutes Josh Bivens found that the Walton family has as much wealth as the bottom 41.5 percent of US families combined. (That figure factors in the negative net worth of close to 13 million familiesno doubt including some of Walmarts 1.4 million US employees.)
Yeah they do.
Yep. They are useful idiots for the 1% who will be tossed aside once their usefulness has been used up. Sad that they don't even realize that.
Institutions own far more stock than the Walton's.
It is irrelevant what the Walton's net worth is. Any more than what George Soros' net worth is.
Again, who is supposed to pay the increased wages? There was no point in the graphic. Only bumper sticker stupidity, which for libs counts as arguments.
Says right there they own more than half of the stock. Who pays? They do. They are worth more than 40% of Americans they can afford it. Their cheap shit made overseas which they turn around and sell for higher prices here they can easily afford it and they know damn well they can. I can't wait for the day Wal Mart workers finally are able to unionize.
Okay, so I see some folks touting Costco as an example of a company who pays a living wage to it's employees. Well its because they can afford to. Wal-mart on the other hand doesn't need to. They employ 2.2 million people worldwide. Costco only 186,000. That's roughly 10 times the workforce of Costco worldwide. The quality of the employee has plenty to do with it as well, higher quality means higher pay, thus higher cost. Meaning, as Costco hires higher quality employees--as compared to Wal-Mart--it can afford to pay a higher wage. Wal-Mart doesn't have to or need to pay higher wages. This makes impeccable business sense. Liberals beware, you have no idea what it takes to run a multi-billion dollar company.
Institutions own far more stock than the Walton's.
It is irrelevant what the Walton's net worth is. Any more than what George Soros' net worth is.
Again, who is supposed to pay the increased wages? There was no point in the graphic. Only bumper sticker stupidity, which for libs counts as arguments.
Says right there they own more than half of the stock. Who pays? They do. They are worth more than 40% of Americans they can afford it. Their cheap shit made overseas which they turn around and sell for higher prices here they can easily afford it and they know damn well they can. I can't wait for the day Wal Mart workers finally are able to unionize.
Perhaps it is time you and a few like-minded buds pool your resources and establish your own version of Walmart's.
You could call it Dimmart's.
Then you could pay YOUR employees whatever you like as long as it meets or exceeds the legal min wage requirements and sell whatever products you choose. Lotsa luck.
