WWTBAM Bored

To: Doug Mcmillon, President and CEO of Walmart
From: Robert Reich
Re: Why you should support an increase in the minimum wage

As you know, your recent performance is disappointing Wall Street. You announced yesterday that, in the face of another quarter of sluggish profit and sales and flat or declining same-store sales, your full-year profit will be lower than what you had forecast. This is because (1) your customers don’t have enough money to keep up their buying, and (2) your competitors – dollar store chains, for example – are luring some of them away.

If you supported an increase in the federal minimum wage, you’d (1) put more money in the pockets of your customers, which would boost your sales, (2) force your smaller competitors to pay their employees more, which will be a bigger drain on them than on you, relative to sales, and (3) buy you some good PR to boot. This would be good for your bottom line. It would also be good for the country.

Robert Reich, who served as U.S. secretary of labor for four years under Bill Clinton, is currently a public policy professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
The ultra-progressive economist — inasmuch as a mere law school graduate can be an economist — raked in an impressive income of $242,613 from the taxpayer-funded school in 2013, according to EAGnews.org.
For that sweet salary of $20,217 per month, Reich is slated to teach exactly one course this fall.
He will teach a more normal course load of four courses during the spring 2014 semester, notes EAGnews.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/06/rober ... z3ANVYhOYC

McMillon started out at the very bottom of the company he's going to lead. And not as an intern or management trainee. The Arkansas native spent two summers as a teenager unloading trucks at a Wal-Mart distribution center.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/doug-mcm ... z3ANVnNAXt

Walmart will have increased expenses and thus will lower net income. Plus the increase in pay to Walmart workers won't all go back to Walmart. The workers shop in many places. Look at Costco and Portillo's. They pay well above minimum wage and have great customer service. I like having the marketplace decide the pay not the government.

geoffil wrote:Walmart will have increased expenses and thus will lower net income. Plus the increase in pay to Walmart workers won't all go back to Walmart. The workers shop in many places. Look at Costco and Portillo's. They pay well above minimum wage and have great customer service. I like having the marketplace decide the pay not the government.

The difficulty with this theory occurs when people working full time still require government support to live. When that occurs, what's really happening is that taxpayers are subsidizing the employer's obligation to pay its labor force. --Bob

The difficulty with this theory occurs when people working full time can still get government support to live. When that occurs, what's really happening is that taxpayers are subsidizing the employees, just like they are subsidizing Robert Reich.

I don't see any difference between what Bob######### wrote and what SuitDude wrote.

I agree that government is subsidizing employers and employees because many employers don't pay a living wage, and I am all for President Obama's proposal for a national living wage.

I had horrible service at a restaurant yesterday, and I really wanted to leave her a tip commensurate with the service, but after years of hearing from various friends who had worked in restaurants that if you don't tip at least 15%, that poor struggling college student is working for less than minimum wage, and many restaurants pool tips, so you may be punishing the really good workers there, I sighed and forked over about 17%, just because it came out that way if I paid with a $20 bill. (I figured out the 17% a minute ago with Excel; I knew it was at least 15%.) I wish I could tip commensurate with bad service without invoking the condemnation of dozens of friends who put themselves through college or worked through a bad patch by waiting tables.

SportsFan68 wrote:I don't see any difference between what Bob######### wrote and what SuitDude wrote.

I agree that government is subsidizing employers and employees because many employers don't pay a living wage, and I am all for President Obama's proposal for a national living wage.

I had horrible service at a restaurant yesterday, and I really wanted to leave her a tip commensurate with the service, but after years of hearing from various friends who had worked in restaurants that if you don't tip at least 15%, that poor struggling college student is working for less than minimum wage, and many restaurants pool tips, so you may be punishing the really good workers there, I sighed and forked over about 17%, just because it came out that way if I paid with a $20 bill. (I figured out the 17% a minute ago with Excel; I knew it was at least 15%.) I wish I could tip commensurate with bad service without invoking the condemnation of dozens of friends who put themselves through college or worked through a bad patch by waiting tables.

I am sorry if hurts someone else, but I do not leave that big a tip for poor service. I paid my way through college waiting tables so I fit into the group you are talking about. But NO WAY do I reward someone that well for bad service. And a note on the bill would not be out of character for me either.

geoffil wrote:Plus the increase in pay to Walmart workers won't all go back to Walmart. The workers shop in many places.

That's certainly true. When minimum wage workers have more money to spend they spend it in different places, and that helps the entire economy, which is a good thing. However, as a result of employee discounts and convenience, they'll spend more of that money at Walmart than will other minimum wage workers who get raises.

Every time someone proposes raising the minimum wage, conservatives claim it will cost jobs. We've raised the minimum wage about 40 times since the 1930s. If they were correct, no one would be working at all today.

christie1111 wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:I don't see any difference between what Bob######### wrote and what SuitDude wrote.

I agree that government is subsidizing employers and employees because many employers don't pay a living wage, and I am all for President Obama's proposal for a national living wage.

I had horrible service at a restaurant yesterday, and I really wanted to leave her a tip commensurate with the service, but after years of hearing from various friends who had worked in restaurants that if you don't tip at least 15%, that poor struggling college student is working for less than minimum wage, and many restaurants pool tips, so you may be punishing the really good workers there, I sighed and forked over about 17%, just because it came out that way if I paid with a $20 bill. (I figured out the 17% a minute ago with Excel; I knew it was at least 15%.) I wish I could tip commensurate with bad service without invoking the condemnation of dozens of friends who put themselves through college or worked through a bad patch by waiting tables.

I am sorry if hurts someone else, but I do not leave that big a tip for poor service. I paid my way through college waiting tables so I fit into the group you are talking about. But NO WAY do I reward someone that well for bad service. And a note on the bill would not be out of character for me either.

We've both come up with something that works, so we're similar in philosophy -- bad service should not be rewarded. Where we differ is in execution, and that's where our viewpoints diverge. My friends put themselves in a different group, where it's no longer just a matter of rewarding good service or punishing bad. The service can be perfect, and still no one around here is going to tip more than 20%. It's no longer a simple matter of reward, it's a complicated matter of economics, and they've walked that bitter line between making tuition and applying for food stamps. Get stiffed one too many times because of the jerk the restaurant hired last week or because the cook came in with a hangover every day, and you drop out for a semester. I would love to drop back in to that simple model, but it won't happen unless and until we have a real living wage.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

Robert Reich, who served as U.S. secretary of labor for four years under Bill Clinton, is currently a public policy professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
The ultra-progressive economist — inasmuch as a mere law school graduate can be an economist — raked in an impressive income of $242,613 from the taxpayer-funded school in 2013, according to EAGnews.org.
For that sweet salary of $20,217 per month, Reich is slated to teach exactly one course this fall.
He will teach a more normal course load of four courses during the spring 2014 semester, notes EAGnews.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/06/rober ... z3ANVYhOYC

McMillon started out at the very bottom of the company he's going to lead. And not as an intern or management trainee. The Arkansas native spent two summers as a teenager unloading trucks at a Wal-Mart distribution center.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/doug-mcm ... z3ANVnNAXt

Isn't it ironic that a rather rich guy cares about the little guy while someone who raised himself up by his bootstraps doesn't?

Bob Juch wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

Robert Reich, who served as U.S. secretary of labor for four years under Bill Clinton, is currently a public policy professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
The ultra-progressive economist — inasmuch as a mere law school graduate can be an economist — raked in an impressive income of $242,613 from the taxpayer-funded school in 2013, according to EAGnews.org.
For that sweet salary of $20,217 per month, Reich is slated to teach exactly one course this fall.
He will teach a more normal course load of four courses during the spring 2014 semester, notes EAGnews.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/06/rober ... z3ANVYhOYC

McMillon started out at the very bottom of the company he's going to lead. And not as an intern or management trainee. The Arkansas native spent two summers as a teenager unloading trucks at a Wal-Mart distribution center.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/doug-mcm ... z3ANVnNAXt

Isn't it ironic that a rather rich guy cares about the little guy while someone who raised himself up by his bootstraps doesn't?

Isn't it ironic that the rich, bootstrap guy employs thousands of people while the other rich, gummint-teat guy doesn't?

A hundred years ago Henry Ford understood that his employees were also consumers. So he paid them good wages, and in turn they were able to buy his cars.

So why don't businesses understand this today? True, there are more places to spend your money now, but it just makes sense that paying decent wages would be better for the country as a whole. But most businesses today would rather keep as much as they can for themselves without any regard for the people working to help them make that money or for the country which gave them that opportunity.

If your response is "Just get a better job" you obviously have not looked for a job lately. I keep hearing the jobs lost during the recession have been replaced. They have been, but by much lower paying jobs. The middle class is practically a thing of the past.

Conservatives seem to think it's okay for employers to pay crap wages and also that there should be fewer people on public assistance. You can't have it both ways.

Henry Ford paid his workers a higher wage so they would show up for work and keep his assembly lines running so he could produce cars more efficiently and he could make greater profits.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... you-think/

elwoodblues wrote: Conservatives seem to think it's okay for employers to pay crap wages and also that there should be fewer people on public assistance. You can't have it both ways.

You can. Just take a look at the streets of Haiti or a lot of African countries. Those are admirable models for the U.S. to aspire to emulate.

elwoodblues wrote: If your response is "Just get a better job" you obviously have not looked for a job lately. I keep hearing the jobs lost during the recession have been replaced. They have been, but by much lower paying jobs. The middle class is practically a thing of the past.

Conservatives seem to think it's okay for employers to pay crap wages and also that there should be fewer people on public assistance. You can't have it both ways.

Why do liberals seem to think more government intervention in the market is the cure for problems caused by government intervention in the market?

Everybody knows Apple and Google are run by conservatives

http://www.macrumors.com/2014/08/08/ant ... -rejected/

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Henry Ford paid his workers a higher wage so they would show up for work and keep his assembly lines running so he could produce cars more efficiently and he could make greater profits.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... you-think/

Regardless of the reason, paying better wages benefitted both him and his workers, and I think that's the point here.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Henry Ford paid his workers a higher wage so they would show up for work and keep his assembly lines running so he could produce cars more efficiently and he could make greater profits.

But Ford didn't become a giant company until autos were no longer toys for rich people but a method of transportation for the masses. That's why Ford and GM are much much bigger companies than yacht manufacturers.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

elwoodblues wrote: If your response is "Just get a better job" you obviously have not looked for a job lately. I keep hearing the jobs lost during the recession have been replaced. They have been, but by much lower paying jobs. The middle class is practically a thing of the past.

Conservatives seem to think it's okay for employers to pay crap wages and also that there should be fewer people on public assistance. You can't have it both ways.

Why do liberals seem to think more government intervention in the market is the cure for problems caused by government intervention in the market?

Most of the major economic problems we've had in this country (1929, 2008, etc.) were caused by a lack of sufficient government intervention on the theory that letting business take care of itself was best for everyone.

Back to the waitress/tip part of the discussion:


A snotty person on some radio program I was recently listening to contended that no matter how awful the service is, you have to leave a tip; the size is up to you. They then kept goading the others on the show to say why this was true. It was their contention, they just should have put forth their reasoning, but as I said they were a snotty person. Snotty, but in this case right, in my opinion, as their contention, when they finally spoke it, is that if you leave no tip, the waitperson will think you forgot to tip, whereas if you leave a quarter or whatever, the bad waitperson will get your message.


In a situation where the staff pools their tips, I guess you could ask some neutral party if this is so, & ask where the pool jar is, & add the balance of your tip to that. My guess is that bad waitperson isn't putting whatever tip they get into the jar anyway.


I generally tip 20% on the food, not including the tax, unless the waitperson spilled food on me on purpose or something.


Though being ignored will get my dander up. I was ignored at the reopening of one of my favorite restaurants yesterday (the roof fell in this winter; reconstruction took this long) by a waitperson who appeared to think, when I finally was able to flag them down, that I was waiting for takeout. Why would I be taking up a table if I was waiting for takeout. I was glad to see they were really busy, anyway, & even though they hadn't made the veggie raviolis yet which they substitute into the special spicy ravioli dish for me (I don't eat pork raviolis, except the ravioli part) I ordered something else & was glad they were back in business.

elwoodblues wrote: I keep hearing the jobs lost during the recession have been replaced. They have been, but by much lower paying jobs. The middle class is practically a thing of the past.
[/b]

So given the re-choice, you would vote for Obama or Romney? Just curious. I personally hold Obama accountable for the reduction in real wages over the past 4 years and the increase in part-timeism.

elwoodblues wrote: Conservatives seem to think it's okay for employers to pay crap wages and also that there should be fewer people on public assistance. You can't have it both ways.

I think it OK for employers to pay the market wage. Get rid of the illegals, the market goes up. But it seems those wanting wages to go up and those wanting to keep letting the illegals in are one and the same.

silverscreenselect wrote:Most of the major economic problems we've had in this country (1929, 2008, etc.) were caused by a lack of sufficient government intervention on the theory that letting business take care of itself was best for everyone.

Most of the economic success we've had as a nation, 1930-2007, etc. was a result of a lack of overbearing government intervention.

Take the good and the bad. We've have much more good. Russia, China, N. Korea, Cuba, have had much more bad.

BackInTex wrote:Get rid of the illegals, the market goes up. But it seems those wanting wages to go up and those wanting to keep letting the illegals in are one and the same.

There's plenty of businesses that want a supply of cheap illegal labor available. They want the status quo. As you said, actually find a way to deport the illegals and wages go up. Make them legal and wages go up. Keep them illegal and easily cowed into taking whatever crap the employer dishes out and that's a perfect scenario for employers. If illegals couldn't find work here, they wouldn't be here, but they know they can and that crappy as conditions may be, it's better than where they came from.

The employers who hire the illegals are just as big supporters of the Republicans as those who actually want all the illegals out of here. They know that no matter what we do, the traffic will still get through. Their worst fear is legalization which will cut out a large part of their economic leverage. So make it tough on the illegals, make sure they can't get benefits and have to deal on a cash basis that allows check cashing agencies and others to make big bucks off them, but don't look at the actual source of the problem, the employers. That's why you never see meaningful sanctions or prosecutions against the businesses that actually hire the illegals.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Get rid of the illegals, the market goes up. But it seems those wanting wages to go up and those wanting to keep letting the illegals in are one and the same.

There's plenty of businesses that want a supply of cheap illegal labor available. They want the status quo. As you said, actually find a way to deport the illegals and wages go up. Make them legal and wages go up. Keep them illegal and easily cowed into taking whatever crap the employer dishes out and that's a perfect scenario for employers. If illegals couldn't find work here, they wouldn't be here, but they know they can and that crappy as conditions may be, it's better than where they came from.

The employers who hire the illegals are just as big supporters of the Republicans as those who actually want all the illegals out of here. They know that no matter what we do, the traffic will still get through. Their worst fear is legalization which will cut out a large part of their economic leverage. So make it tough on the illegals, make sure they can't get benefits and have to deal on a cash basis that allows check cashing agencies and others to make big bucks off them, but don't look at the actual source of the problem, the employers. That's why you never see meaningful sanctions or prosecutions against the businesses that actually hire the illegals.

South Carolina has a law requiring employers to ensure they hire only people who are legally in the U.S. except for agricultural workers, food service and hotel employees.

silverscreenselect wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

elwoodblues wrote: If your response is "Just get a better job" you obviously have not looked for a job lately. I keep hearing the jobs lost during the recession have been replaced. They have been, but by much lower paying jobs. The middle class is practically a thing of the past.

Conservatives seem to think it's okay for employers to pay crap wages and also that there should be fewer people on public assistance. You can't have it both ways.

Why do liberals seem to think more government intervention in the market is the cure for problems caused by government intervention in the market?

Most of the major economic problems we've had in this country (1929, 2008, etc.) were caused by a lack of sufficient government intervention on the theory that letting business take care of itself was best for everyone.

Explain the Community Reinvestment act and Fannie Mae for me.