by Pops » Fri 22 Jan 2016, 10:28:14
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', 'T')his is why I would like to see a limit on the highest paid executive to 50 times the lowest paid employee. Forget minimum wage, it's a distraction.
I saw where you said that elsewhere, I haven't decided whether I agree or not. LOL
I think the problem is the owners, not employees or officers.
Walmart is the poster child of race to the bottom, high volume/low profit economics. The slogan is Always The Lowest Overhead, Sam was just cheaper than than anyone else and realized before everyone else that payroll was the THE biggest place to save money.
Really, WM is successful for the very reasons in the OP.
First, women entered the labor market and wages stagnated so undercutting the labor market was easy.
Second, from the '70s and a certain critical mass of sales, computers tracked inventory and increased stock turnover beyond what any mom & pop could even dream of. Turnover is the key to ROI and WM was the hands down winner.
That was the combination that made all the old moms and pops toast. The little guy with 1 or 2 employees had no labor advantage and were at the mercy of manufacturers and distributors and took what they were required to take, when they could get it, and at the price set by the distributer.
WM changed the entire manufacturer/retailer paradigm, once upon a time manufacturers made what they thought customers wanted and that's what stores stocked. WM had the power to turn that around, they told manufacturers what to make, when to make it, and what the price would be.
The net effect of all that cost cutting was increased profit, WMs profit surpassed Kmart way before their sales volume did. BUT, where there were once little profitable business all along the way from factory to shelf, all of the profits were wrung out. Now on one end there are factories that compete to the bone for WM business (something like 500 suppliers have offices in Bentonville Arkansas) and there is walmart.
So in the world of race to the bottom, profit at any cost, the WM way is winning.
But what happens when you reach the bottom?
Henry ford knew if he wanted to sell cars, workers needed to earn enough to pay so he started by paying his employees well.
Sam Walton's plan was just the opposite, he led by paying the lowest wages possible, the effect is now people can't shop anywhere
except the cut rate store—with a SNAP card.
(To be fair Sam had a profit sharing plan that made lots of employees pretty well off... but they ditched that idea after Sam died)
--
So.
The thing I think is needed is not a law or a regulation.
The thing needed is neither a business or government action.
The thing needed is a return of some kind of worker/consumer coalition.
A little respect for the worker, a
willingness to pay a little more (or buy one chachka less) so the people picking up your candy wrappers can make a living.
I just can't figure out the popular animosity toward the low wage worker, the unemployed or unemployable, from the person just a step above—or even in the same boat!
...and the idolization of the Trumps and Romney's.
That alone is the thing that makes me the doomiest.
.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)