The 12 Companies Paying Americans the Least

[Bonam]

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.

The problem with statements like this is it fails to take into account the actual numbers. The Walton family, these greedy billionaires that are so damaging the economy, have a net worth of about $102 billion. That wealth is amassed over 5 decades. Divide that by every American, and you get just $300 per person. $300 in 5 decades is $0.50 (50 cents) per month. How much difference would that have made to "economic welfare of the economy and society", exactly? None, none whatsoever. Those $100 billion may well contribute more to the economy by hanging there as a carrot for people to strive for, knowing that if they come up with a profitable business model and execute it competently, they may also achieve such wealth.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

....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.

No more obscene than universal health care that does exactly the same thing.

[bleeding heart]

Not only that walmarts customer service is second to none.

Walmart's own public polling determined profound customer dissatisfaction with their customer service, which was deemed worse than most other major retailers. So much so that they've made customer service one of their main "goals for change" for the foreseeable future.

So I don't know from where you got your opinion information.

You can return a product there no problem at all

You're right, they're not at all combative about this practice, and I think it's a good one. Still, when your "good customer service" is premised on the fact of shoddy goods that need to be returned....it raises some questions, maybe..

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

Far be it from me to defend Walmart (I used to work there, so I know what a crappy company it is)...but I think this reputation is slightly unfair, comparatively speaking (my own jab about returns notwithstanding). They sell all the major brand stuff, of varying quality, that other comparable retailers do; and the cheapie Walmart Home brand stuff is probably no worse on the whole than are the other retailers own brands, also.

After all, the "Home Brands" of all retailers are essentailly knockoffs made by the major companes at lower prices. Walmart chips, for example, are made not by some Walmart factory, but are made by Humpty-Dumpty I believe (or whatever company bought them out). The same is (usually) true of Housewares, Electronics, etc etc.

Edited November 28, 2012 by bleeding heart

[BC_chick]

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.

Supply may not change, but demand does. Especially when the only objective is the stakeholder and the bottom-line.

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.

This is true, the CEO also refuses to make more than $500,000/yr.

Edited December 17, 2012 by BC_chick