Company becomes less profitable and lays off workers sounds worse imho.

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-...17-7?r=US&IR=T

You've licked the boots so long you've forgotten the taste of anything else.

Walmart is an extremely low margin, high volume business.

If they started paying their employees more they’d retain less of them.

Your assumption is predicated on your dumbass rendering of “Walton Family Wealth” into the actual management of individual Walmart stores.

Nice try, Trotsky.

Waiting- What is the highest level of economics class you've completed

I don't know the breakdown but for this discussion it's enough that we agree that some do try to pay their employees as little as possible and some don't. I appreciate you and others see it differently but the point was really to those who believe good employees pay decent wages - we should be wary of wage subsidies as opposed to minimum wage as wage subsidies reward those bad employers and makes it even harder for the good employers to compete.

Also assuming that the low wage employers sell goods at lower prices then why I accept that there's a benefit to that (especially for the poorest) I'd argue that it requires unacceptable practices and hence they cannot actually produce good that cheaply. Goods will and should continue to become cheaper because of efficiency and automation, not exploitation.

Let me get this straight:

Well before any moral and ethical discussion, these people are not grasping the simple mathematical reality that employers making less also solves for the equation?

Both companies that pay market wages and ones that pay above market wages have the option to be less profitable, but I don’t think that’s really the question. This is of course an option as is hiring less people and spending less on reasesech and development.

Employers pay their employees as little as possible to maximize profit. Businesses charge not the minimum or maximum price of a good or service, but the optimal price, so as to maximize profit.

Corporations are amoral, so as to maximize profit. It is a feature in capitalism, not a bug. However, the drawback to that is power concentrates to the few, so without a recycling mechanism in place, over an infinite time spectrum, literally one person gets everything and everyone else dies.

Businesses don't charge low prices out of the goodness of their hearts. Not unless the steward of capital places an emphasis on any extent of morality. The price is a function of incentive, nothing more. That money has the ultimate goal of going to the steward of capital, not the consumer. Both employee and consumer benefit, yes, but the ultimate beneficiary sits at the top of the moutain, fed by everyone else, including the government.

Here is a relevant link. Sure, employment is good. Efficient markets are good. Productivity benefits everyone. But don't get it twisted, the Waltons are crushing this game and we are all suckers. You especially, if you really are leaving your wealth to Walmart. You're effectively donating every ounce of blood, sweat, and tears you've given in your lifetime of accumulation of wealth...to a family of billionaires.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc.../#79b2205e720b

It boils down to a fundamental mentality. People refuse to "take a step back" in any facet of life, almost fallaciously, like a gambler obsesses over getting back to even, like it's some magical plane of existence, mere inches from the pure hell that is losing. Psychologically, being down $0.01 is worlds apart from being up $0.01 in some people's mind. To understand the absurdity in that is to understand the mentality of the "**** you, got mine" stature. There are gradations to selfishness and empathy and the dance between the two in everyone's minds, but it becomes plainly obvious people by and large just don't care.

What's so disheartening is that, while it was latent before, in the era of social media, that sentiment can't hide anymore. So what has happened is people are exposed for what they are and their response is so what?

Another mentality is the mode of sustainability. Rooted in being egocentric and having a natural interest in self preservation, any slippery slope that challenges a status quo one is content with is a threat. It really doesn't matter if you have empathy or not, or understand how ****ed up the world is and what we do to each other or not, a threat is a threat, and in America at the very least, one always votes against the threat, real or perceived.

TLDR...You know damn well employers know exactly what's going on. Always have, always will.

It’s the whole ****ing point. Any time someone suggests that employers shouldn’t necessarily try to squeeze every extra penny out of their employees to find the absolute bare minimum they are capable of working for, we are met with dull, drooling stares of people like you and waitingforMPJ and Adios who insist that is the only possible option or charging customers more. The Walton family could give like 90% of their wealth to wal mart’s employees and still never have to work another day in their lives.

You are making stuff up. Please cite the post(s) where I have advocated for this.

Thanks

How about this, you have never once in your 18 years of posting on this site suggested that minimum wage increases could be offset by employers taking a pay cut, despite probably hundreds of these discussions. In fact, you usually make some grumpy angry comments about how $15 minimum wage will lead to unemployment increases.

How about this try backing up your claim in the post I quoted and stop deflecting.

Walmart isn't going to stop pinching their pennies to pay their workers more unless it becomes advantageous to Walmart and their investors to do so.

So now you want to switch angles at your same argument and suggest companies should pay employees more and be less profitable while ignoring they could also decrease prices on the goods they sell and be less profitable.

To help illustrate this simple point take company A whose owners took on significant risk in creating company A and feels they deserve to keep 5% of profits. Now now let’s say their product goes viral and they now have the option to reduce the price of the product or give all their employees more pay. Now you would argue if they decide to lower the price of the good they are evil while if they decide to pay employees more they are a good company.

Why should employers be responsible for paying more than what the market suggests their employees should be paid?

Arguing $15 min wage would increase unemployment would be a huge straw man argument as I doubt anyone is stupid to believe it wouldn’t.

Have you ever made a post that suggests owners should take a pay cut to pay their employees more? Do you believe owners should do that?

I know. Part of the reason that it hasn’t become advantageous for WalMart to pay their workers more is because our society has developed around the religious belief that the people who own and run businesses should be allowed to be selfish in every instance.

Nope. I’m posting in response to your assertion that implied a false dichotomy between an employer paying employees as little as possible and paying them more and paying some off. Management could get paid less, the company could give up some profits, etc.

Yes, business owners deserve to be selfish as much as everyone else.

90% 99.99%

Alright, good news! You're the CEO of Walmart and you can run Walmart however you wish. Bad news is that the Wartons aren't giving back.

You're working with 500 Billion in Rev, 10 Billion in Net Income with 1.5 million employees in the US. You made a cool 20 million last year.

I disagree. In many circumstances business owners have structural or other advantages over labor in which they should not be completely selfish and squeeze every penny out of their employees they can under that dynamic.