It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
This is a quote from Ron Unz:
The data by that Berkeley research center you mentioned shows that Wal-Mart, the largest low-wage employer in America, could accommodate the costs of a $12-an-hour minimum wage nationally by simply raising their prices 1 percent one time.
ONE PERCENT. One Time.
That's it.
So Walmart margin is less than 6%, so yes they would need to raise prices, but 1% is not really the right amount.
Though the businesses are direct competitors and quite similar overall, a remarkable disparity shows up in their wage and benefits structures. The average wage at Costco is $17 an hour. Wal-Mart does not break out the pay of its Sam’s Club workers, but a full-time worker at Wal-Mart makes $10.11 an hour on average, and a variety of sources suggest that Sam’s Club’s pay scale is similar to Wal-Mart’s.
A 2005 New York Times article by Steven Greenhouse reported that at $17 an hour, Costco’s average pay is 72% higher than Sam’s Club’s ($9.86 an hour). Interviews that a colleague and I conducted with a dozen Sam’s Club employees in San Francisco and Denver put the average hourly wage at about $10. And a 2004 BusinessWeek article by Stanley Holmes and Wendy Zellner estimated Sam’s Club’s average hourly wage at $11.52.
On the benefits side, 82% of Costco employees have health-insurance coverage, compared with less than half at Wal-Mart. And Costco workers pay just 8% of their health premiums, whereas Wal-Mart workers pay 33% of theirs. Ninety-one percent of Costco’s employees are covered by retirement plans, with the company contributing an annual average of $1,330 per employee, while 64 percent of employees at Sam’s Club are covered, with the company contributing an annual average of $747 per employee.
Costco’s practices are clearly more expensive, but they have an offsetting cost-containment effect: Turnover is unusually low, at 17% overall and just 6% after one year’s employment. In contrast, turnover at Wal-Mart is 44% a year, close to the industry average.
...
In return for its generous wages and benefits, Costco gets one of the most loyal and productive workforces in all of retailing, and, probably not coincidentally, the lowest shrinkage (employee theft) figures in the industry.
While Sam’s Club and Costco generated $37 billion and $43 billion, respectively, in U.S. sales last year, Costco did it with 38% fewer employees...Costco’s stable, productive workforce more than offsets its higher costs.
These figures challenge the common assumption that labor rates equal labor costs. Costco’s approach shows that when it comes to wages and benefits, a cost-leadership strategy need not be a race to the bottom.
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Sorry, but I will take a Silicon Valley Billionaire's word over yours.
A 2005 New York Times article by Steven Greenhouse reported that at $17 an hour, Costco’s average pay is 72% higher than Sam’s Club’s ($9.86 an hour). Interviews that a colleague and I conducted with a dozen Sam’s Club employees in San Francisco and Denver put the average hourly wage at about $10. And a 2004 BusinessWeek article by Stanley Holmes and Wendy Zellner estimated Sam’s Club’s average hourly wage at $11.52.
Costco’s practices are clearly more expensive, but they have an offsetting cost-containment effect: Turnover is unusually low, at 17% overall and just 6% after one year’s employment. In contrast, turnover at Wal-Mart is 44% a year, close to the industry average.
While Sam’s Club and Costco generated $37 billion and $43 billion, respectively, in U.S. sales last year, Costco did it with 38% fewer employees...Costco’s stable, productive workforce more than offsets its higher costs.
Spare me. He is an independently wealthy businessman from California, who made millions .....a Harvard graduate, and way up there in the top fraction of a percent....
please look him up so you'll know he's not just "some guy."
originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I don't get the whole "upscale" image of Costco. I see a lot of down and out people in the two Costcos in my town. They can make their money go farther from buying in bulk. Costco also does "bush" orders and will put items on pallets and have them air freighted to the Native Alaskan villages for cheap. The natives come into town for various reasons from their tiny remote villages and STOCK UP at Costco. These natives aren't rich by any means...
originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
Great numbers!
If you treat people like humans, you get better workers, less turnover, stealing, ect...
Walmart doesn't care though. They've no doubt run the numbers and they're making more paying less, regardless of turnover, shrinkage and all the other things mentioned.
originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
Great numbers!
If you treat people like humans, you get better workers, less turnover, stealing, ect...
Walmart doesn't care though. They've no doubt run the numbers and they're making more paying less, regardless of turnover, shrinkage and all the other things mentioned.
originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Xtrozero
A quick google search said that walmart's 2012 revenue was 446 billion and its profit margin was 3.5%.
That's still $15,610,000,000 in pure profit. It looks to me they can offer up some more pay without hiking prices.
originally posted by: onequestion
Then they shouldn't be in business if they can't afford to pay their employees more then government subsidies.
originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Xtrozero
If a three dollar raise would cost them 5 billion a year, that's still 10.6 billion in profit a year. That's a very small price to pay to invest in your employees.