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.
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
Wow! He masked his mumbo-jumbo with a lot of numbers....still didn't make his case.
He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.
The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true.
Drop their earnings by 60%, I guarantee you will tank their stock.
Not just that. But then the libtards would come out and increase the corporate and capital gains tax rates to make up for the loss in tax revenue. ROFL
I don't link libtards understand the concept of investing.
By Cloning George W. Bush?When unequal opportunity for a quality education is passed from one generation to the next, across class lines, it denies individuals the right to succeed or fail based on their own efforts and substitutes extraneous circumstances like having wealthy, well-connected parents. My goal is to remove the arbitrariness of birth and base the level of empowerment on some pre-agreed basis of human development which provides all people with the ability to realize their potential within society.There's a lot of confusion about what equality, equality of opportunity, and equal rights are all supposed to mean. The important distinction, from a political perspective, is between equal rights under the law, and equal empowerment in society. You seem to be arguing for the latter, rather than the former. The problem is, you can't have both. A government focused on ensuring equal empowerment will, by necessity protect our rights unequally and protecting our rights equally will allow different levels of empowerment.
How do you plan to equalize genetics?
By Cloning George W. Bush?When unequal opportunity for a quality education is passed from one generation to the next, across class lines, it denies individuals the right to succeed or fail based on their own efforts and substitutes extraneous circumstances like having wealthy, well-connected parents. My goal is to remove the arbitrariness of birth and base the level of empowerment on some pre-agreed basis of human development which provides all people with the ability to realize their potential within society.
How do you plan to equalize genetics?
If your concept of empowerment includes the idea "where society is seen as a fair system of cooperation over time, from one generation to the next," ensuring equality of opportunity for those without the foresight to pick the richest ancestors would logically entail taxing elites to pay for past advantages that had little to do with merit and everything to do with corruption and privilege.
Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Except Wall-Mart's gross income was $127.26 billion in 2013 which would drop to $111.86 billion or about 12% after providing 1.4 million workers with a living wage.By what percentage?
Show the math.
Showed you in post #2611.
He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.
Thank you, Milton Friedman.By what percentage?No matter where you subtract it, you are lowering their net income.
Show the math.
Any low grade moron can understand that when you subtract 'A' from 'B' you end up with less of 'B'
There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."
You're defining "Social Justice" as "the distribution of economic power and social influence"?By Cloning George W. Bush?How do you plan to equalize genetics?
If your concept of empowerment includes the idea "where society is seen as a fair system of cooperation over time, from one generation to the next," ensuring equality of opportunity for those without the foresight to pick the richest ancestors would logically entail taxing elites to pay for past advantages that had little to do with merit and everything to do with corruption and privilege.
Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yeah. The last thing I want is government dispensing 'social justice'. I want them to stick to legal justice, and leave the distribution of economic power and social influence up to voluntary interactions - each of us, distributing our portion of those as we see fit, according to our own values and virtues.
Not necessarily, just recognizing the usual means of effecting it.You're defining "Social Justice" as "the distribution of economic power and social influence"?By Cloning George W. Bush?
If your concept of empowerment includes the idea "where society is seen as a fair system of cooperation over time, from one generation to the next," ensuring equality of opportunity for those without the foresight to pick the richest ancestors would logically entail taxing elites to pay for past advantages that had little to do with merit and everything to do with corruption and privilege.
Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yeah. The last thing I want is government dispensing 'social justice'. I want them to stick to legal justice, and leave the distribution of economic power and social influence up to voluntary interactions - each of us, distributing our portion of those as we see fit, according to our own values and virtues.
"Start with Wal-Mart's sales, and then subtract what it has to pay the suppliers that make all the stuff on its shelves.Except Wall-Mart's gross income was $127.26 billion in 2013 which would drop to $111.86 billion or about 12% after providing 1.4 million workers with a living wage.Showed you in post #2611.
He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.
Great. Use the link in post #2622 to get the 2012 WalMart Income Statement.
You dropped 2012 gross income to $101.3 billion.
Now subtract $88.9 billion in Selling General and Administrative Expenses.
Leaving Operating Income at $12.4 billion.
Subtract Interest Expense of $2.25 billion
Add Total Other Income/Expenses Net of $187 million
Leaving Income Before Tax at about $10.3 billion
$25.7 billion before the change down to $10.3 billion after the change is about a 60% decline.
"Start with Wal-Mart's sales, and then subtract what it has to pay the suppliers that make all the stuff on its shelves.Except Wall-Mart's gross income was $127.26 billion in 2013 which would drop to $111.86 billion or about 12% after providing 1.4 million workers with a living wage.
Great. Use the link in post #2622 to get the 2012 WalMart Income Statement.
You dropped 2012 gross income to $101.3 billion.
Now subtract $88.9 billion in Selling General and Administrative Expenses.
Leaving Operating Income at $12.4 billion.
Subtract Interest Expense of $2.25 billion
Add Total Other Income/Expenses Net of $187 million
Leaving Income Before Tax at about $10.3 billion
$25.7 billion before the change down to $10.3 billion after the change is about a 60% decline.
"Last quarter that number was $28.7 billion.
"What remains is Wal-Mart's gross profit.
"Wal-Mart, like all companies, has to split that between three groups -- bondholders, stockholders, and employees. How much should go to each? Bondholders are easy.
"They've agreed in advance to an interest rate. Last quarter, Wal-Mart's interest payments were $553 million.
"That leaves us with $28.2 billion, based on last quarter, or $112.8 billion a year.
How much to pay stockholders is a little bit trickier. But you can figure it out by looking at the market. Here's where my math comes in. Stock market valuations and return on equity (ROE) tend to go hand in hand.
"ROE is the measure of how much income a company makes compared to a company's net worth, which is also sometimes called shareholder's equity. Charles Lee, a finance professor at Stanford -- my second peer reviewer -- has done a lot of research that shows investors are willing to pay more for companies that can produce higher returns on shareholders' equity.
"But you can also use Lee's research to figure out just what returns Wal-Mart's investors are looking for. The average ROE of retailers in the S&P 500 (SPX) is 16.95%.
"Their shares trade at price-to-book ratio of 2.9. Wal-Mart's price-to-book ratio of 3.5 is 20% higher than the group, which means that investors, based on Wal-Mart's current $79 share price, are expecting it to produce a higher-than-average ROE.
"How much higher? Lee says the relationship is not linear, or one for one. Let's call it 18%.
"That means, based on Wal-Mart's current stock price, investors are signaling that they are looking for a return of 20%.
"Remember, that's not money that Wal-Mart actually pays out to investors.
"Most of that money is reinvested in its business. But it does pay out some in the form of dividends. And Wal-Mart has a higher dividend yield than the average retailer in the S&P 500 -- 2.4% vs. 1.3%.
"Adjust that for Wal-Mart's valuation vs. other retailers, and that means 4.6% of the return shareholders are looking for comes from the giant retailer's outsized dividend.
"That means the ROE it has to satisfy investors after dividends is 15.4%.
"Wal-Mart's actual current ROE is 21%. '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.
Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet
You claimed the last thing you wanted was government dispensing social justice: "I want them to stick to legal justice..." Jim Crow was an example of government following exactly that philosophy.Not necessarily, just recognizing the usual means of effecting it.You're defining "Social Justice" as "the distribution of economic power and social influence"?Yeah. The last thing I want is government dispensing 'social justice'. I want them to stick to legal justice, and leave the distribution of economic power and social influence up to voluntary interactions - each of us, distributing our portion of those as we see fit, according to our own values and virtues.
Jim Crow was a matter of legal justice (equal rights). What are you getting at?
You claimed the last thing you wanted was government dispensing social justice: "I want them to stick to legal justice..." Jim Crow was an example of government following exactly that philosophy.Not necessarily, just recognizing the usual means of effecting it.You're defining "Social Justice" as "the distribution of economic power and social influence"?
Jim Crow was a matter of legal justice (equal rights). What are you getting at?
Which has nothing to do with the reality that Wall-Mart can pay its 1.4 million employees an additional $11,000/ year after satisfying bondholders and stockholders."Start with Wal-Mart's sales, and then subtract what it has to pay the suppliers that make all the stuff on its shelves.Great. Use the link in post #2622 to get the 2012 WalMart Income Statement.
You dropped 2012 gross income to $101.3 billion.
Now subtract $88.9 billion in Selling General and Administrative Expenses.
Leaving Operating Income at $12.4 billion.
Subtract Interest Expense of $2.25 billion
Add Total Other Income/Expenses Net of $187 million
Leaving Income Before Tax at about $10.3 billion
$25.7 billion before the change down to $10.3 billion after the change is about a 60% decline.
"Last quarter that number was $28.7 billion.
"What remains is Wal-Mart's gross profit.
"Wal-Mart, like all companies, has to split that between three groups -- bondholders, stockholders, and employees. How much should go to each? Bondholders are easy.
"They've agreed in advance to an interest rate. Last quarter, Wal-Mart's interest payments were $553 million.
"That leaves us with $28.2 billion, based on last quarter, or $112.8 billion a year.
How much to pay stockholders is a little bit trickier. But you can figure it out by looking at the market. Here's where my math comes in. Stock market valuations and return on equity (ROE) tend to go hand in hand.
"ROE is the measure of how much income a company makes compared to a company's net worth, which is also sometimes called shareholder's equity. Charles Lee, a finance professor at Stanford -- my second peer reviewer -- has done a lot of research that shows investors are willing to pay more for companies that can produce higher returns on shareholders' equity.
"But you can also use Lee's research to figure out just what returns Wal-Mart's investors are looking for. The average ROE of retailers in the S&P 500 (SPX) is 16.95%.
"Their shares trade at price-to-book ratio of 2.9. Wal-Mart's price-to-book ratio of 3.5 is 20% higher than the group, which means that investors, based on Wal-Mart's current $79 share price, are expecting it to produce a higher-than-average ROE.
"How much higher? Lee says the relationship is not linear, or one for one. Let's call it 18%.
"That means, based on Wal-Mart's current stock price, investors are signaling that they are looking for a return of 20%.
"Remember, that's not money that Wal-Mart actually pays out to investors.
"Most of that money is reinvested in its business. But it does pay out some in the form of dividends. And Wal-Mart has a higher dividend yield than the average retailer in the S&P 500 -- 2.4% vs. 1.3%.
"Adjust that for Wal-Mart's valuation vs. other retailers, and that means 4.6% of the return shareholders are looking for comes from the giant retailer's outsized dividend.
"That means the ROE it has to satisfy investors after dividends is 15.4%.
"Wal-Mart's actual current ROE is 21%. '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.
Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet
$25.7 billion before the change down to $10.3 billion after the change is about a 60% decline.
Which has nothing to do with the reality that Wall-Mart can pay its 1.4 million employees an additional $11,000/ year after satisfying bondholders and stockholders."Start with Wal-Mart's sales, and then subtract what it has to pay the suppliers that make all the stuff on its shelves.
"Last quarter that number was $28.7 billion.
"What remains is Wal-Mart's gross profit.
"Wal-Mart, like all companies, has to split that between three groups -- bondholders, stockholders, and employees. How much should go to each? Bondholders are easy.
"They've agreed in advance to an interest rate. Last quarter, Wal-Mart's interest payments were $553 million.
"That leaves us with $28.2 billion, based on last quarter, or $112.8 billion a year.
How much to pay stockholders is a little bit trickier. But you can figure it out by looking at the market. Here's where my math comes in. Stock market valuations and return on equity (ROE) tend to go hand in hand.
"ROE is the measure of how much income a company makes compared to a company's net worth, which is also sometimes called shareholder's equity. Charles Lee, a finance professor at Stanford -- my second peer reviewer -- has done a lot of research that shows investors are willing to pay more for companies that can produce higher returns on shareholders' equity.
"But you can also use Lee's research to figure out just what returns Wal-Mart's investors are looking for. The average ROE of retailers in the S&P 500 (SPX) is 16.95%.
"Their shares trade at price-to-book ratio of 2.9. Wal-Mart's price-to-book ratio of 3.5 is 20% higher than the group, which means that investors, based on Wal-Mart's current $79 share price, are expecting it to produce a higher-than-average ROE.
"How much higher? Lee says the relationship is not linear, or one for one. Let's call it 18%.
"That means, based on Wal-Mart's current stock price, investors are signaling that they are looking for a return of 20%.
"Remember, that's not money that Wal-Mart actually pays out to investors.
"Most of that money is reinvested in its business. But it does pay out some in the form of dividends. And Wal-Mart has a higher dividend yield than the average retailer in the S&P 500 -- 2.4% vs. 1.3%.
"Adjust that for Wal-Mart's valuation vs. other retailers, and that means 4.6% of the return shareholders are looking for comes from the giant retailer's outsized dividend.
"That means the ROE it has to satisfy investors after dividends is 15.4%.
"Wal-Mart's actual current ROE is 21%. '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.
Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet
$25.7 billion before the change down to $10.3 billion after the change is about a 60% decline.
"The Jim Crow laws were racial segregation laws enacted between 1876 and 1965 in the United States at the state and local level. They mandated de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern states of the former Confederacy, with, starting in 1890, a 'separate but equal' status for African Americans."You claimed the last thing you wanted was government dispensing social justice: "I want them to stick to legal justice..." Jim Crow was an example of government following exactly that philosophy.Not necessarily, just recognizing the usual means of effecting it.
Jim Crow was a matter of legal justice (equal rights). What are you getting at?
No, JC laws were reactionary social engineering. They represented real injustice. They were abolished via legal remedies (Constitutionally protected equal rights), not "social justice".
"The Jim Crow laws were racial segregation laws enacted between 1876 and 1965 in the United States at the state and local level. They mandated de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern states of the former Confederacy, with, starting in 1890, a 'separate but equal' status for African Americans."You claimed the last thing you wanted was government dispensing social justice: "I want them to stick to legal justice..." Jim Crow was an example of government following exactly that philosophy.
No, JC laws were reactionary social engineering. They represented real injustice. They were abolished via legal remedies (Constitutionally protected equal rights), not "social justice".
Laws that support segregation are Social justice issues.
In the US during the 60s millions of Americans protested against the unfair treatment of Blacks in the South, and it was their commitment to Social justice that forced the federal government's intervention to roll back the unequal distribution of justice and resources in that part of the country
"The United Nations 2006 document Social Justice in an Open World: The Role of the United Nations, states that 'Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth...'[39]
"The same document reports, 'From the comprehensive global perspective shaped by the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, neglect of the pursuit of social justice in all its dimensions translates into de facto acceptance of a future marred by violence, repression and chaos.[40]
"The report concludes, 'Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies."
Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Love the video... echo's my life. This government stole my ambition. I have no desire whatsoever to row the boat for the moocher class.
Nor should you RKM. Sadly, half of the parasite class is going to be furious that you won't provide for them anymore. The other will celebrate the fact that government tore you down until you were in poverty like them.
Either way, the left is completely despicable and a cancer that is destroying this nation.
I'll let them decide what level of income is "to" much "to" rich and keep under that amount. I've got enough stuff to last me, anything extra is just gravy. Why work twice as hard and they take 50% of the extra in the form of AMT tax, and lost deductions, and other taxes when you buy stuff. Makes no sense whatsoever. I used to pay more in taxes than I currently earn. I used to have to travel 25% and the hours were > 70 a week. Used to own two homes... Now I work at home, set my own hours. Sold one of the houses... less expenses. I mean what's the point screw it.
Slavery should definitely be against the law. If anyone is being forced into wage labor, I'll be happy to join the fight to stop it.
Of course it is. I, for one, have made the choice often. I'd much rather be free and poor, than a well-off slave. Some people won't make that choice, but it is a choice. .
Slavery should definitely be against the law. If anyone is being forced into wage labor, I'll be happy to join the fight to stop it.
This is welcomed news. If there is compelled subservience, then we ought to resist that institution(s).
Of course it is. I, for one, have made the choice often. I'd much rather be free and poor, than a well-off slave. Some people won't make that choice, but it is a choice. .
I have no concern disputing your level of freedom. You choose to be humble yet jobless (I can only assume), you are obviously still accessing the internet with reliability and so it would appear your circumstances are stable insofar as you eat, sleep, and live.
My interest lies with my neighbors and fellow citizens who are born into circumstance X. In this circumstance, a near infinite variety of issues arise and many as a result of inheritance (a system of industrial fuedalism controls the masses). These inherited issues can be categorized, and I will highlight just one, denoting serious form of abjection.
Circumstance X often has forced food scarcity upon the family. For some eve accessing quality food (food desert as they're known in inner city minority communities). We wouldn't do this to normal decent people would we? I can assure you I've been all over Chicago and West of the Rockies while having grown up in America's forgotten land: Appalachia. here poverty and unemployment are and have been much higher than national averages but there has been the smallest proportional federal aide. Why? Issues like this must remain undiscussed for if we begin to require everyone be treated as a human who must be free to choose a life of systemic labor or not without the very real threat of homelessness and food scarcity.
Wage labor means oftentimes the parents go off to work at different hours (midnight shift) unable to visit with each other or play with their kid(s). They must make the choice to offer the last available food or sandwich for their child's lunch and go without as the adult while they work overtime or have not had decent sleep in months. This is a sacrifice not uncommon. It's uncommon with respect to journalism, but not in my community, not in the thousands of communities across America and the 100 or so communities I have personally witnessed. I'm sure you can find some quality journalism on this but you need to pay attention to local papers and alternative media sources. NYtimes and others will not dispense this material often and this shapes our understanding.
So if my neighbors are unable to acquire the food they need, what can they do? Garden? How can they when the don't don't have land to till with debt or rent due without knowing how to come up with it? How can they do anything about food scarcity but steal or buy it in a private grocer? These are the only options.
SNAP program in many states, since Clinton, require one to be working in a matter of a few months or at least seeking work weekly and reporting back. This is not a choice: its compelled subservience.
