Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

No.



Public. And it should be strictly limited. What's this got to do with democratic control of everything else?

Things like food, housing, heath care, and education in the US would all benefit from more democratic, as opposed to oligarchic, control in my opinion. Economic democracy, which postulates a shift in decision making power from corporate shareholders to a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders, including workers, customers, and suppliers, for example, would seem a better public choice to me than our current private model.

Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The surest path to mass starvation is democratic control over the economy. "a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders" means more numskulls having a say in how a company is run. We're talking about giving the kind of people who think Obama is going to pay their mortgage a say in running billion dollar companies.

Actually, numskull, we're talking about a co-op:

"So then, what is the co-op?

"How does it work? He smiles and says 'It would take me days to get it through to you but I'm going to give you a few examples. See those two women over there?'

"He points to these two women working on an assembly line.

"He says 'They're about done, in about 15 minutes they will be done with two hours of work. In every factory, at the end of two hours, you do something else. No worker is kept on the same job for more than two hours.'

"I asked why, and he said because it's stultifying, it makes you a zombie. He used all kinds of colorful language to say that the workers don't want to do the same thing every day, it's not healthy, and it's not good for morale.

"So every two hours a little bell goes off, and they'll do similar work but it's a different machine, different action, different body movement, different workers to coordinate with, that's what a co-op does.

"He said, 'I'll give you another example. Once a month we have a meeting where we make a whole lot of decisions. The meeting is on company time; workers get paid their regular wage, because this is considered an essential part of the business.'

"They're also paid to read the reports that they need to read to take part in the meeting. Financial decisions that have to be made, production decisions.

"Because, he said, if you do not provide pay you teach people that the running of the enterprise, your role in that, is not as important as your role making widgets on an assembly line.

"That would be counterproductive to the whole thing.

"They wouldn't then participate.

"A co-op requires that."

Richard D. Wolff: Can We Remake Our Workplaces To Be More Democratic? | Professor Richard D. Wolff

 

[KNB]

If Wal-Mart profited $15.7B in the last 3 months of 2011 because it pays its workers minimum wage, then couldn't Wal-Mart use some of those $15.7 Billion profits in only 3 months to increase workers' wages and benefits?

 

[georgephillip]

No.



Public. And it should be strictly limited. What's this got to do with democratic control of everything else?

Things like food, housing, heath care, and education in the US would all benefit from more democratic, as opposed to oligarchic, control in my opinion. Economic democracy, which postulates a shift in decision making power from corporate shareholders to a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders, including workers, customers, and suppliers, for example, would seem a better public choice to me than our current private model.

Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's fine. You have a right to your opinion. But your opinion is not based on evidence, history, or rational thought.

That does not mean you are not entitled to your opinion. By all means. But the rest of us need something more than some idealized mythical "workers paradise" of economic democracy.

These empty shelves are from Venezuela. Above the shelves it says Made in Socialism.

Three million 'unable to get NHS dentistry appointment' - Telegraph

"Three million people in England have been unable to get an appointment with an NHS dentist in the last two years, according to a new study. "

Economic Democracy.

And I could go down the list of hundreds of examples. Socialized anything, never works. Only the free-market Capitalist system, provides the most benefit to the most people. Not perfectly, because there is no perfect. But it provides the *MOST* benefit to the *MOST* people. Far better than your "economic democracy" system ever has.

Equality, is only equally impoverished.

Capitalism isn't currently providing the MOST benefit to the MOST people in the US since 95% of income gains since the alleged end of our Great Recession have gone to 1% of Americans.

While you may be happy with your economic situation, tens of millions of others aren't, and most of them aren't seeking a workers' paradise either; they simply want a job that provides a decent standard of living for themselves and their families that capitalism is no longer willing (or able) to provide.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If Wal-Mart profited $15.7B in the last 3 months of 2011 because it pays its workers minimum wage, then couldn't Wal-Mart use some of those $15.7 Billion profits in only 3 months to increase workers' wages and benefits?

$15.7 billion was their profit for the entire year.
On sales of nearly $447 billion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Things like food, housing, heath care, and education in the US would all benefit from more democratic, as opposed to oligarchic, control in my opinion. Economic democracy, which postulates a shift in decision making power from corporate shareholders to a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders, including workers, customers, and suppliers, for example, would seem a better public choice to me than our current private model.

Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's fine. You have a right to your opinion. But your opinion is not based on evidence, history, or rational thought.

That does not mean you are not entitled to your opinion. By all means. But the rest of us need something more than some idealized mythical "workers paradise" of economic democracy.

These empty shelves are from Venezuela. Above the shelves it says Made in Socialism.

Three million 'unable to get NHS dentistry appointment' - Telegraph

"Three million people in England have been unable to get an appointment with an NHS dentist in the last two years, according to a new study. "

Economic Democracy.

And I could go down the list of hundreds of examples. Socialized anything, never works. Only the free-market Capitalist system, provides the most benefit to the most people. Not perfectly, because there is no perfect. But it provides the *MOST* benefit to the *MOST* people. Far better than your "economic democracy" system ever has.

Equality, is only equally impoverished.

Capitalism isn't currently providing the MOST benefit to the MOST people in the US since 95% of income gains since the alleged end of our Great Recession have gone to 1% of Americans.

While you may be happy with your economic situation, tens of millions of others aren't, and most of them aren't seeking a workers' paradise either; they simply want a job that provides a decent standard of living for themselves and their families that capitalism is no longer willing (or able) to provide.

95% of income gains since the alleged end of our Great Recession have gone to 1% of Americans.

The worst President in living memory makes things difficult for many Americans.

 

[bripat9643]

Things like food, housing, heath care, and education in the US would all benefit from more democratic, as opposed to oligarchic, control in my opinion. Economic democracy, which postulates a shift in decision making power from corporate shareholders to a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders, including workers, customers, and suppliers, for example, would seem a better public choice to me than our current private model.

Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The surest path to mass starvation is democratic control over the economy. "a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders" means more numskulls having a say in how a company is run. We're talking about giving the kind of people who think Obama is going to pay their mortgage a say in running billion dollar companies.

Actually, numskull, we're talking about a co-op:

"So then, what is the co-op?

"How does it work? He smiles and says 'It would take me days to get it through to you but I'm going to give you a few examples. See those two women over there?'

"He points to these two women working on an assembly line.

"He says 'They're about done, in about 15 minutes they will be done with two hours of work. In every factory, at the end of two hours, you do something else. No worker is kept on the same job for more than two hours.'

"I asked why, and he said because it's stultifying, it makes you a zombie. He used all kinds of colorful language to say that the workers don't want to do the same thing every day, it's not healthy, and it's not good for morale.

"So every two hours a little bell goes off, and they'll do similar work but it's a different machine, different action, different body movement, different workers to coordinate with, that's what a co-op does.

"He said, 'I'll give you another example. Once a month we have a meeting where we make a whole lot of decisions. The meeting is on company time; workers get paid their regular wage, because this is considered an essential part of the business.'

"They're also paid to read the reports that they need to read to take part in the meeting. Financial decisions that have to be made, production decisions.

"Because, he said, if you do not provide pay you teach people that the running of the enterprise, your role in that, is not as important as your role making widgets on an assembly line.

"That would be counterproductive to the whole thing.

"They wouldn't then participate.

"A co-op requires that."

Richard D. Wolff: Can We Remake Our Workplaces To Be More Democratic? | Professor Richard D. Wolff

So, numskull, where's t the proof that this type of organization produces superior results? No one is stopping anyone from establishing coops. They're entirely legal. Why isn't the United States overpopulated with coops beating the pants off those corporate bully boys?

 

[georgephillip]

It is Capitalism that ultimately funds redistribution.

Capitalism begins with a fundamental redistribution:

"Surplus labour is a concept used by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy.

"It means labour performed in excess of the labour necessary to produce the means of livelihood of the worker ('necessary labour').

"According to Marxian economics, surplus labour is usually 'unpaid labour'.

"Marxian economics regards surplus labour as the ultimate source of capitalist profits."

Surplus labour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marxist economics has been proven over and over again to be pure horseshit. You know that, don't you?

Just take the labor theory of value. It's obviously false. One day the price of oranges is $0.50/lb. Then a severe frost hits Florida and the next day the price of oranges is $2.00/lb. The exact same oranges are four times more expensive the following day. The amount of labor required to produce them didn't change.

So, if the amount of labor didn't change, which of the other two factors of production accounted for the price increase?

 

[Andylusion]

Marxist economics has been proven over and over again to be pure horseshit. You know that, don't you?

Just take the labor theory of value. It's obviously false. One day the price of oranges is $0.50/lb. Then a severe frost hits Florida and the next day the price of oranges is $2.00/lb. The exact same oranges are four times more expensive the following day. The amount of labor required to produce them didn't change.

Using logic and rational thinking on a leftist? Careful you might break him.

I said the same thing back in 2009 when the GM Hummer drastically declined in value, to the point the company was giving them away at below cost, just to sell off what they had.

By the Marxist stupidity argument, since the value of the product declined while the cost of materials did not, by that theory Marxist should have been demanding all those Union guys take a huge pay cut. You should have seen them twisting bending and contorting themselves to explain away why it didn't apply in that particular case... but of course all others it was true.... der der der.....

 

[georgephillip]

That's fine. You have a right to your opinion. But your opinion is not based on evidence, history, or rational thought.

That does not mean you are not entitled to your opinion. By all means. But the rest of us need something more than some idealized mythical "workers paradise" of economic democracy.

These empty shelves are from Venezuela. Above the shelves it says Made in Socialism.

Three million 'unable to get NHS dentistry appointment' - Telegraph

"Three million people in England have been unable to get an appointment with an NHS dentist in the last two years, according to a new study. "

Economic Democracy.

And I could go down the list of hundreds of examples. Socialized anything, never works. Only the free-market Capitalist system, provides the most benefit to the most people. Not perfectly, because there is no perfect. But it provides the *MOST* benefit to the *MOST* people. Far better than your "economic democracy" system ever has.

Equality, is only equally impoverished.

Capitalism isn't currently providing the MOST benefit to the MOST people in the US since 95% of income gains since the alleged end of our Great Recession have gone to 1% of Americans.

While you may be happy with your economic situation, tens of millions of others aren't, and most of them aren't seeking a workers' paradise either; they simply want a job that provides a decent standard of living for themselves and their families that capitalism is no longer willing (or able) to provide.

95% of income gains since the alleged end of our Great Recession have gone to 1% of Americans.

The worst President in living memory makes things difficult for many Americans.

Not for the richest 1% of Americans, just like his predecessor and successor.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Capitalism isn't currently providing the MOST benefit to the MOST people in the US since 95% of income gains since the alleged end of our Great Recession have gone to 1% of Americans.

While you may be happy with your economic situation, tens of millions of others aren't, and most of them aren't seeking a workers' paradise either; they simply want a job that provides a decent standard of living for themselves and their families that capitalism is no longer willing (or able) to provide.

95% of income gains since the alleged end of our Great Recession have gone to 1% of Americans.

The worst President in living memory makes things difficult for many Americans.

Not for the richest 1% of Americans, just like his predecessor and successor.

The top 1% wouldn't do even better without Obama and his trampling of the law?

 

[Andylusion]

Things like food, housing, heath care, and education in the US would all benefit from more democratic, as opposed to oligarchic, control in my opinion. Economic democracy, which postulates a shift in decision making power from corporate shareholders to a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders, including workers, customers, and suppliers, for example, would seem a better public choice to me than our current private model.

Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The surest path to mass starvation is democratic control over the economy. "a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders" means more numskulls having a say in how a company is run. We're talking about giving the kind of people who think Obama is going to pay their mortgage a say in running billion dollar companies.

Actually, numskull, we're talking about a co-op:

"So then, what is the co-op?

"How does it work? He smiles and says 'It would take me days to get it through to you but I'm going to give you a few examples. See those two women over there?'

"He points to these two women working on an assembly line.

"He says 'They're about done, in about 15 minutes they will be done with two hours of work. In every factory, at the end of two hours, you do something else. No worker is kept on the same job for more than two hours.'

"I asked why, and he said because it's stultifying, it makes you a zombie. He used all kinds of colorful language to say that the workers don't want to do the same thing every day, it's not healthy, and it's not good for morale.

"So every two hours a little bell goes off, and they'll do similar work but it's a different machine, different action, different body movement, different workers to coordinate with, that's what a co-op does.

"He said, 'I'll give you another example. Once a month we have a meeting where we make a whole lot of decisions. The meeting is on company time; workers get paid their regular wage, because this is considered an essential part of the business.'

"They're also paid to read the reports that they need to read to take part in the meeting. Financial decisions that have to be made, production decisions.

"Because, he said, if you do not provide pay you teach people that the running of the enterprise, your role in that, is not as important as your role making widgets on an assembly line.

"That would be counterproductive to the whole thing.

"They wouldn't then participate.

"A co-op requires that."

Richard D. Wolff: Can We Remake Our Workplaces To Be More Democratic? | Professor Richard D. Wolff

Um.... I did that years ago at a factory. We all rotated around from job to job, so that no one did the same job for more than about 3 to 4 hours tops, depending on the job. There was no bell, we were not in elementary school. You just changed up what you did. In fact, I do that at my manufacturing job now.

We also get paid a decent wage for what we do, and we get paid to read the company fiscal reports at the meetings. Though we don't have decision making power, and none of us would know what decisions to make anyway.

Co-ops are not any better than regular companies. This guy is pretending like his experience is 'special' or different, and the truth is, it's not.

 

[Andylusion]

Capitalism begins with a fundamental redistribution:

"Surplus labour is a concept used by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy.

"It means labour performed in excess of the labour necessary to produce the means of livelihood of the worker ('necessary labour').

"According to Marxian economics, surplus labour is usually 'unpaid labour'.

"Marxian economics regards surplus labour as the ultimate source of capitalist profits."

Surplus labour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marxist economics has been proven over and over again to be pure horseshit. You know that, don't you?

Just take the labor theory of value. It's obviously false. One day the price of oranges is $0.50/lb. Then a severe frost hits Florida and the next day the price of oranges is $2.00/lb. The exact same oranges are four times more expensive the following day. The amount of labor required to produce them didn't change.

So, if the amount of labor didn't change, which of the other two factors of production accounted for the price increase?

You are making the unsupportable assumption that price is determined by production.

The value of the product is determined by the customer, regardless of cost of labor, or cost of materials. Supply and demand of the product.

Equally the value of the labor is determined by supply and demand.

 

[hunarcy]

If Wal-Mart profited $15.7B in the last 3 months of 2011 because it pays its workers minimum wage, then couldn't Wal-Mart use some of those $15.7 Billion profits in only 3 months to increase workers' wages and benefits?

Walmart has a duty to make profit. To do that, they pay the "market rate" to their workers. If the worker is worth more, they get paid more. If someone else can do the same job and will work for less, then the worker can be replaced.

 

[bripat9643]

Capitalism begins with a fundamental redistribution:

"Surplus labour is a concept used by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy.

"It means labour performed in excess of the labour necessary to produce the means of livelihood of the worker ('necessary labour').

"According to Marxian economics, surplus labour is usually 'unpaid labour'.

"Marxian economics regards surplus labour as the ultimate source of capitalist profits."

Surplus labour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marxist economics has been proven over and over again to be pure horseshit. You know that, don't you?

Just take the labor theory of value. It's obviously false. One day the price of oranges is $0.50/lb. Then a severe frost hits Florida and the next day the price of oranges is $2.00/lb. The exact same oranges are four times more expensive the following day. The amount of labor required to produce them didn't change.

So, if the amount of labor didn't change, which of the other two factors of production accounted for the price increase?

Neither. The supply changed because a lot of it was destroyed. It's a perfect example of how the laws of supply and demand determine the price of a good, not the amount of labor required to produce it.

 

[gnarlylove]

If Wal-Mart profited $15.7B in the last 3 months of 2011 because it pays its workers minimum wage, then couldn't Wal-Mart use some of those $15.7 Billion profits in only 3 months to increase workers' wages and benefits?

Walmart has a duty to make profit. To do that, they pay the "market rate" to their workers. If the worker is worth more, they get paid more. If someone else can do the same job and will work for less, then the worker can be replaced.

Well put. It is the duty, the legal obligation of the CEO to generate maximum quarterly profits. If he fails to do so they are generally exchanged for a better CEO at Q profits.

This is the system we must change. Despite the fact CEOs know their efforts for profit (and pollution and climate change etc.) are helping destroy the world, they must dismiss this for they live in a system that demands they externalize these factors for the short term.
Economic growth is not worth risking the species, is it?

 

[dblack]

Things like food, housing, heath care, and education in the US would all benefit from more democratic, as opposed to oligarchic, control in my opinion. Economic democracy, which postulates a shift in decision making power from corporate shareholders to a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders, including workers, customers, and suppliers, for example, would seem a better public choice to me than our current private model.

Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, basically replacing competing corporations with a monopoly?

Shifting control of the means of production from a relatively small group of private shareholders to a much larger group of public stakeholders is the exact opposite of monopoly.

I guess it depends on what you're talking about. If you're referring to voluntarily organized co-ops and the like, you're right. That wouldn't necessarily be monopolistic, and might work quite well.

If, on the other hand, you're talking about putting capital and means of production under government control, democratic or not, it seems very monopolistic to me. If you claim it's not, I see no point in quibbling over the definition monopoly. But it would put control under one entity, and it's that centralized, monolithic control I'm concerned with. It puts all our eggs in one basket and dangerously limits diversity. I don't think it's good for individual freedom nor, in the long run, good for society.

 

[Andylusion]

If Wal-Mart profited $15.7B in the last 3 months of 2011 because it pays its workers minimum wage, then couldn't Wal-Mart use some of those $15.7 Billion profits in only 3 months to increase workers' wages and benefits?

Walmart has a duty to make profit. To do that, they pay the "market rate" to their workers. If the worker is worth more, they get paid more. If someone else can do the same job and will work for less, then the worker can be replaced.

Well put. It is the duty, the legal obligation of the CEO to generate maximum quarterly profits. If he fails to do so they are generally exchanged for a better CEO at Q profits.

This is the system we must change. Despite the fact CEOs know their efforts for profit (and pollution and climate change etc.) are helping destroy the world, they must dismiss this for they live in a system that demands they externalize these factors for the short term.
Economic growth is not worth risking the species, is it?

Ask those in Russia prior to 1991. Ask those in North Korea today.

Millions of people died AND there was heavy pollution.

See here's the problem.... All companies, regardless of what system you have, try to maximize profits.

The US Post Office has tried to maximize profits, by using the government to crush competition. At one point they tried to charge a fee on E-mail.

Socialized systems are just as profit maximizing as Capitalist systems. The difference is, in a Capitalist system Wal-Mart increases profits by providing more goods, to more people, at a lower cost.

In a Socialized system, the US Post Office tries to legally prevent other companies from offering the same service, to fewer people, at a higher cost.

Which one of those do you want? Would you suggest that the US Post Office with millions of aircraft flights, and millions of CJ-5 crappy Jeeps delivering mail, produces less pollution?

So your "socialism to save the planet" theory is garbage.

Soviet Era pollution. Wrangel Island.

Untreated sewage and mercury-contaminated sludge flow into a water system at Sumgayit, Azerbaijan, in this undated photo. (See a map of Azerbaijan.)

A major industrial center of the former Soviet Union and erstwhile home to more than 40 chemical factories, Sumagayit was recently named one of the ten most polluted cities in the world by the nonprofit Blacksmith Institute.

Of the top 10 Most Polluted locations around the world, how many got that way under Free-Market Capitalism?

Three of them are from Soviet Era Russia.
Two of them are from India, which was very Socialist up till the 90s.
One is from Maoist China.

The last two, Peru and Zambia. Not exactly icons of Capitalism either.

See here's the deal......

I *WANT* business and the government to be in adversarial relationships.

When you have business and government lumped together, you end up with Fannie and Freddie.

[ame=http://youtu.be/IyqYY72PeRM]Democrats in their own words Covering up Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac scandal - YouTube[/ame]

Democrats defending Fannie and Freddie, no matter what they do. Actually attacking FHEO for bringing up the accounting errors. Saying that Franklin Raines was conducting "outstanding leadership", then later hearing Raines suggest that the securities he had Fannie Mae purchase were "risk-less" at 7:45, that Fannie Mae should only be required to hold 2% capital to loan ratio. Of course there's B. Frank saying there is no safety and soundness issues at Fannie and Freddie.

[ame=http://youtu.be/vIhxzNX738s]Barney Frank Does Not Believe a Housing Bubble Exists Although He Created it - YouTube[/ame]

Then you have him on the floor of the Senate in 2005, saying there is no bubble, there is no price inflation, there won't be a crash, and he is going to push for higher levels of home ownership.

See, I want them dragging in the accountants at Aurthor Anderson, and the CEO of Enron, and carting them off to jail. I want them giving fines for millions. I want them fighting with companies.

Instead, all these people, all of them involved with Freddie and Fannie, nothing happened. Nothing happened to "there is no bubble" Barney Frank. Nothing happened to "Risk-less" Franklin Raine. Nothing happened to all the accountants with their magic profit margin, that happen to go right down to the very penny required, to trigger massive bonuses for Fannie Mae.

Why? Because the people in government, and the people at Freddie and Fannie, are the same. They are intertwined together.

Franklin Raine was part of the Carter Administration, then put as a board member of Fannie Mae, then a member of the Clinton Administration, and then placed as CEO of Fannie Mae.

So when the Democrats were defending him, they were defending "one of their own".

Compare that to Jeffrey Skilling. Toss his butt in Jail.

You want more of the prior. I want more of that.

There is going to be corruption, and failures, and problems, no matter what system you have. The question isn't "what system will have no problems?" because no such system exists.

The question is, which system handles problems better? Free-Market Capitalism, by far. Not socialist-capitalism, or Marxist-capitalism, or flat out Socialism. Just Free-Market Capitalism, where the government is an adversary to business. That's the best system.

 

[georgephillip]

So, basically replacing competing corporations with a monopoly?

Shifting control of the means of production from a relatively small group of private shareholders to a much larger group of public stakeholders is the exact opposite of monopoly.

I guess it depends on what you're talking about. If you're referring to voluntarily organized co-ops and the like, you're right. That wouldn't necessarily be monopolistic, and might work quite well.

If, on the other hand, you're talking about putting capital and means of production under government control, democratic or not, it seems very monopolistic to me. If you claim it's not, I see no point in quibbling over the definition monopoly. But it would put control under one entity, and it's that centralized, monolithic control I'm concerned with. It puts all our eggs in one basket and dangerously limits diversity. I don't think it's good for individual freedom nor, in the long run, good for society.

Putting the means of production under any centralized control, be it government, banking, or industry seems anti-democratic (at least) to me.

CH Douglas had similar thoughts during the period between the two World Wars:

"According to Douglas, the true purpose of production is consumption, and production must serve the genuine, freely expressed interests of consumers.

"In order to accomplish this objective, he believed that each citizen should have a beneficial, not direct, inheritance in the communal capital conferred by complete access to consumer goods assured by the National Dividend and Compensated Price.[6]

"Douglas thought that consumers, fully provided with adequate purchasing power, will establish the policy of production through exercise of their monetary vote.[6]

"In this view, the term economic democracy does not mean worker control of industry, but democratic control of credit.[6]

"Removing the policy of production from banking institutions, government, and industry, Social Credit envisages an 'aristocracy of producers, serving and accredited by a democracy of consumers.'"[6]

Social credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[kucing]

Good I like this

 

[georgephillip]

If Wal-Mart profited $15.7B in the last 3 months of 2011 because it pays its workers minimum wage, then couldn't Wal-Mart use some of those $15.7 Billion profits in only 3 months to increase workers' wages and benefits?

$15.7 billion was their profit for the entire year.
On sales of nearly $447 billion.

Which means Wall-Mart could afford to pay a living wage to its employees:

"Wal-Mart paid its top executives and board members $66.7 million last year.

"The rest of the money has to be split among Wal-Mart's remaining roughly 2.2 million employees. Of those, about 1.4 million work in the U.S.

"Assume that Wal-Mart spends about 2/3 of that on the salaries of its U.S. employees, because salaries are generally higher here.

"That leaves $66.6 billion for the U.S. workers, or $47,593.

"The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 30% of the average U.S. workers' total compensation is spent on benefits.

"That means the average Wal-Mart employee's take home pay should be $33,315.

"Wal-Mart doesn't say what its actual average salary is.

"But Payscale estimated it to be just over $22,000 at the end of last year.

"The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year.

"And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet