The 12 Companies Paying Americans the Least

[Guest Peeves]

Read: The 12 Companies Paying Americans the Least

Two-thirds of low-wage workers — those that are paid less than $10 an hour — are employed by large corporations with at least 100 employees reports NELP. All of the largest companies in low-wage industries, including McDonald’s, Walmart, and Starbucks own hundreds, even thousands, of stores across the country. Based on NELP’s July 2012 report, “Big Business, Corporate Profits, and the Minimum Wage,” 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the 12 American companies that pay the least.

These employers fall into one of two categories. They are are either large national restaurant chains such as McDonald’s, Burger King, and Starbucks, employing tens of thousands of cashiers and cooks. Seven of the 12 companies fall into this category. The others are large national retailers, employing tens of thousands of cashiers and salespeople, like Walmart, Target, and Sears.

Read more: The 12 Companies Paying Americans the Least - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com.../#ixzz2DB0z2Bgp

If more are still applying for the jobs, if there's no shortage of applicants, if those working in the 12 are unable to find alternative work, then is employing people for what they are doing a bad thing?

After all, there isn't that much education required, and not much real responsibility, so where's the beef.

C'est la vie

Do what we did, work yourself up.

I started selling newspapers..magazines--- shoes. held two jobs, got experience. Then I hoped I'd get what I deserved.....

Today a bottom rung job holder expects to live high on the hog.. why?

Flippin burgers is a bottom rung job, that's what it pays. That's the amount of skill or education required zilch. Then it's for kids, a fill in job, for retirees .

http://www.foxbusine...mericans-least/

Edited November 24, 2012 by Peeves

[Argus]

If more are still applying for the jobs, if there's no shortage of applicants, if those working in the 12 are unable to find alternative work, then is employing people for what they are doing a bad thing?

Is it a bad thing or a good thing for our society to have more people earning rock bottom wages?

Walmart stock's ten year average return is 2.7%. Costco's is 12%.

Tell me again how it's better for Walmart to pay low wages, that it couldn't survive paying more...

Edited November 24, 2012 by Argus

[Moonlight Graham]

Is it a bad thing or a good thing for our society to have more people earning rock bottom wages?

Walmart stock's ten year average return is 2.7%. Costco's is 12%.

Tell me again how it's better for Walmart to pay low wages, that it couldn't survive paying more...

Well, prices at Walmart would go up. So it would affect your bottom line (assuming you shop at these places).

[Michael Hardner]

LA Times - Wal-Mart heirs worth as much as bottom 41.5% of American families

[Argus]

Well, prices at Walmart would go up. So it would affect your bottom line (assuming you shop at these places).

Are you saying prices at Costco are more expensive than at Walmart?

[Shady]

Is it a bad thing or a good thing for our society to have more people earning rock bottom wages?

Walmart stock's ten year average return is 2.7%. Costco's is 12%.

Tell me again how it's better for Walmart to pay low wages, that it couldn't survive paying more...

I'm sure that they could survive paying higher wages. But wages are also based on supply and demand. How many people are available to do that particular job. Since they are generally low skilled jobs, the labour pool to fill them is massive.

[Moonlight Graham]

Are you saying prices at Costco are more expensive than at Walmart?

Uhh where did I say give any indication of that? Costco has a different business model than a Walmart or Target.

Do you think Costco pays their employees very much? If Costco increased the wages/benefits of its employees its prices would go up as well. What I'm saying is that consumers benefit from the low wages of the Walmart/Costco etc. grunts. I'm not making any moral judgment as to whether this is just/unjust, just pointing out an economic fact.

It's very similar to how Western consumers benefit from the extremely low wages & benefits of workers who work in economically developing countries that cultivate the primary resources or manufacture the products Westerners buy. If these people got a raise to even $5 an hour the price of our goods would go up significantly.

Consumers and businesses exploit the low market power and bargaining positions and therefore cheap labour of all these low-wage (relative to country) workers in our to keep consumer prices low. That's also not a moral judgment, just a fact.

[WWWTT]

Well, prices at Walmart would go up. So it would affect your bottom line (assuming you shop at these places).

How do you know this?

Maybe the profit that Walmart is making will have to be lowered in order to be competitive?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

IBut wages are also based on supply and demand.

Wages are also based on corporations taking advantage of desperate people looking for work.

WWWTT

[The_Squid]

Superstore pays union wages and can make a profit. Walmart prices wouldn't necessarily go up.... They just may not make as many billions.

Walmart is renowned for poor labour practices.

[Canuckistani]

Wages are also based on corporations taking advantage of desperate people looking for work.

WWWTT

Yep. In the US they do it by bringing in illegal immigrants, we do it by bringing in legal ones and even more temp workers to lower wages. Why do so many service companies bring in temp workers? Because they can't find resident Canadians to fill those low paying jobs. How does it benefit our country to depress wages like that? Just means we have to pay more in social services for people making such poor wages, instead of those people actually paying income taxes and contributing. But it keeps the profits high for the rich.

[Moonlight Graham]

How do you know this?

Maybe the profit that Walmart is making will have to be lowered in order to be competitive?

WWWTT

True enough I suppose.

[cybercoma]

Well, prices at Walmart would go up.

Prices don't automatically go up. It depends on the elasticity of demand.

[cybercoma]

I'm sure that they could survive paying higher wages. But wages are also based on supply and demand. How many people are available to do that particular job. Since they are generally low skilled jobs, the labour pool to fill them is massive.

Wages are most certainly not a simple supply and demand model, since people are not as flexible about their wages as they are about the prices they pay for things. More to the point, the Fordist model showed that keeping wages as low as possible is a pretty stupid way of doing business.

[cybercoma]

Uhh where did I say give any indication of that? Costco has a different business model than a Walmart or Target.

Do you think Costco pays their employees very much? If Costco increased the wages/benefits of its employees its prices would go up as well. What I'm saying is that consumers benefit from the low wages of the Walmart/Costco etc. grunts. I'm not making any moral judgment as to whether this is just/unjust, just pointing out an economic fact.

It's very similar to how Western consumers benefit from the extremely low wages & benefits of workers who work in economically developing countries that cultivate the primary resources or manufacture the products Westerners buy. If these people got a raise to even $5 an hour the price of our goods would go up significantly.

Consumers and businesses exploit the low market power and bargaining positions and therefore cheap labour of all these low-wage (relative to country) workers in our to keep consumer prices low. That's also not a moral judgment, just a fact.

I take it you're not very familiar with Costco's wage structure. Their "grunts" don't make minimum wage like Walmart employees. Fulltimers at Costco aren't collecting food stamps. Their CEO also has one of the best CEO to worker wage ratios, partly due to the higher wages they pay their employees and the lower salary he earns. Costco and Walmart are apples and basketballs.

[cybercoma]

Walmart is renowned for poor labour practices.

They squeeze their employees and their vendors both. Walmart is bad for the economy all around. Money needs to get into as many people's hands as possible and circulate as much as possible for the economy to be strong and healthy. The Walmart system is not at all designed to foster this. It's designed to concentrate wealth into the hands of a few people.

[dre]

If more are still applying for the jobs, if there's no shortage of applicants, if those working in the 12 are unable to find alternative work, then is employing people for what they are doing a bad thing?

After all, there isn't that much education required, and not much real responsibility, so where's the beef.

C'est la vie

Do what we did, work yourself up.

I started selling newspapers..magazines--- shoes. held two jobs, got experience. Then I hoped I'd get what I deserved.....

Today a bottom rung job holder expects to live high on the hog.. why?

Flippin burgers is a bottom rung job, that's what it pays. That's the amount of skill or education required zilch. Then it's for kids, a fill in job, for retirees .

http://www.foxbusine...mericans-least/

The problem isnt that you have low paying comanies, and sectors. The problem is when those sectors become too large a part of your economy, especially when the bulk of your economic activity is domestic consumption.

The fault doesnt lie with these specific companies. It lies with the whole myth people were sold and bought into, that we could maintain our standard of life doing nothing but selling each other imported goods. Its the whole "service based economy" myth/lie/scam/fraud that is the problem.

[cybercoma]

There's also an argument recently published in the NY Times that there is no skills shortage, but a pay shortage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/magazine/skills-dont-pay-the-bills.html?smid=re-share&_r=1&

[Argus]

They squeeze their employees and their vendors both. Walmart is bad for the economy all around. Money needs to get into as many people's hands as possible and circulate as much as possible for the economy to be strong and healthy. The Walmart system is not at all designed to foster this. It's designed to concentrate wealth into the hands of a few people.

And their name is Walton.

[Argus]

Do you think Costco pays their employees very much?

About 40%-50% more than their competitors. They also have much better benefits, and, overall, treat their employees much better.

As a result they have happy, productive, loyal employees, with very low turnover and very low internal theft.

[dre]

And their name is Walton.

Their name is "consumers". Walmart is just doing what we want, and people tacitly endorce their business model every time they spend a dollar there.

[blueblood]

They squeeze their employees and their vendors both. Walmart is bad for the economy all around. Money needs to get into as many people's hands as possible and circulate as much as possible for the economy to be strong and healthy. The Walmart system is not at all designed to foster this. It's designed to concentrate wealth into the hands of a few people.

Walmarts system is to be the grand poobah of cheap goods retail. Their business model is based on razor thin margins, so thin that if they raised their wages, their shareholders would take a drubbing. Its a model that has worked for them. As long as people are willing to buy low priced crap that they don't care where it comes from, then walmart will succeed.

Not only that walmarts customer service is second to none. You can return a product there no problem at all

I don't even hardly shop at walmart because it's all crap there.

Edited November 27, 2012 by blueblood

[cybercoma]

Walmart's margins are "razor thin," eh?

That's why the Walton kids have a net worth greater than 41.5% of all Americans combined, I suppose. Those thin margins leaving nothing left for them.

[blueblood]

Walmart's margins are "razor thin," eh?

That's why the Walton kids have a net worth greater than 41.5% of all Americans combined, I suppose. Those thin margins leaving nothing left for them.

It's all because of the size of walmart. It is such a large company that any small change to wages would end up costing a lot of money, to the point of putting it in the red ink. It's a bit to wrap the head around but that's what the numbers say.

Why the beef with somebody getting rich?

Edited November 28, 2012 by blueblood

[cybercoma]

The problem isn't people getting rich. The problem is a small percentage of people sitting on the wealth. That weakens the economy. A strong economy requires many different people moving money around as much as possible. When it's being concentrated at the top, the money isn't moving around. This stifles growth, productivity, and demand.

As for your Walmart example, the size of Walmart means that it has the revenues to match. The billions of dollars in the Waltons' pockets tells you that. I'm fine with them getting rich, but that seriously needs to be balanced with the economic welfare of the economy and society. If their fulltimers are getting paid so little that they're no food stamps and medicaid? That's a problem. It means the government is paying for Walmart's benefits. In Canada it's a bit different with the single-payer healthcare system it doesn't matter what job you have, you'll have basic healthcare coverage. But if you lived in the states, would you not think there's something seriously wrong with someone working full-time, but still having to collect money from you, the taxpayer, in order to get the basic necessities of survival? It's obscene.