SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Walmart is boosting minimum pay across all of its stores and handing out bonuses. The CEO says that it's thanks to tax reform:
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is boosting its starting hourly wage to $11 and delivering bonuses to employees, capitalizing on the U.S. tax overhaul to stay competitive in a tightening labor market.
The increase takes effect next month and will cost $300 million on top of wage hikes that were already planned, the world's largest retailer said Thursday. The one-time bonus of up to $1,000 is based on seniority and will amount to an additional $400 million. The company is also expanding its maternity and parental leave policy and adding an adoption benefit.
"Tax reform gives us the opportunity to be more competitive globally and to accelerate plans for the U.S.," Chief Executive Officer Doug McMillon said in the statement.
The move comes three years after Wal-Mart last announced it was raising wages, spending $1 billion in 2015 to lift starting hourly pay to $9 and then to $10 for most workers the following year. The increase cut into profit and was criticized by some longer-tenured employees as unfair to them. Since then, many states have enacted minimum wage laws, meaning that a "sizable group" of its 4,700 U.S. stores already pay $11 an hour, according to spokesman Kory Lundberg.
Walmart is expanding a "Scan & Go" program from 50 to 150 stores. "Scan & Go" would allow customers to use a smartphone app to scan items and then walk out of the store with them. Kroger is experimenting with a similar "Scan, Bag, Go" program. These are seen as a response to Amazon, which has been trialing delivery of fresh foods and same-day deliveries. Amazon revealed an "Amazon Go" concept brick-and-mortar store in 2016, with no cashiers in sight.
Maybe Walmart's big plan is to give better pay to a dwindling amount of employees.
CEO letter to employees. Also at CNBC and USA Today.
Related: Walmart Wants to Deliver Groceries Directly Into Your Fridge
Walmart to Deploy Shelf-Scanning Robots at 50 Stores
Walmart is Raising Prices Online to Increase in-Store Traffic
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @11:28PM (2 children)
If your damn Social Programs didn't provide it with undervalued labor, we might actually be a land of Capitalism, and Walmart would pay a living wage to avoid losing all their employees.
Lots of people don't want more pay. There is a lovely graph I saw that shows effective earnings (adjusted by subsidies and taxes) as a function of salary/wages in Chicago for a small family. Once you reach something like $12/hour or $18,000/year, you don't want any more unless you can get up to something like $40/hour or $80,000/year. There is a huge gulf in the middle where higher pay isn't worth the loss in benefits and the increased taxes. This is nothing like Capitalism.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @01:03AM (1 child)
I think you may be referring to what has been called the Cliff Effect. [pbs.org] While I think your numbers are a bit off---I seem to recall that you clear the valley when you can earn around $20+/hour---it does have a devastating effect on people trying to get off welfare. After learning about this phenomenon I now see welfare as being like a vortex that sucks people in and doesn't ever want them to get out! Of course, it could be largely mitigated if welfare benefits were gradually phased out, rather than cut off all at once when reaching a certain income level. But that would solve problems and it doesn't look to me like this generation of politicians wants anything to do with solving problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @06:15AM
Who's going to reward you more as a politician; the company that is having its workforce subsidized, or the taxpayer, who only pays you what he has to in order to avoid jail time in nearly all cases?
It'd be one thing if taxpayers collectively boycotted bought and paid for politicians by refusing to vote for, but they're far too busy being led around by the shiny marketing and campaigns that they paid for with that money. That, and there's usually a worse one of the two big bought and paid for candidates. Our electoral system is basically "we have your mom and your sister hostage; you get to pick which one of them will live". At the end of the day, you're just choosing which important thing you like is going to be disposed of.