Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday January 11 2018, @10:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the what's-the-catch dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @01:00AM (26 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @01:00AM (#621212)

    It used to be the case that a single man could support a wife and 5 children, and then retire for a few years before dying.

    Now, a couple struggles with 2 incomes and without kids.

    Where did all the productivity go?

    • The Left wants you to believe it's been stolen by the 1%.
    • The non-Left wants you to believe it's been stolen by the Government.

    It turns out that you cannot account for much of the loss by looking at the 1%. Also, though governments have grown enormous, their official activities are not enough to account for the present situation either (to say nothing of the future trillions of dollars in liabilities).

    Perhaps the loss of productivity is not so direct: In the latter half of last century, with primitive technology, the United States put men on the Moon; yet, today, even planning for a return would cost more resources than the old, actually successful program. That is to say, there are now much higher standards for doing anything, including building homes, receiving medical care, keeping cities clean, etc. New York City used to be an absolute pigsty—go watch any old movie to see "tumbleweeds" of trash blowing through its streets.

    Maybe, westerners are living beyond their means; perhaps, they are living lifestyles far better than they are able to afford—they are suffering in the same way that someone from, say, Thailand would suffer if he tried to live in just the Midwest based on a normal income in Thailand.

    So, why isn't there a correction?

    Well, sometimes there is; see Detroit, Michigan. That place just imploded. Everywhere else, though, governments won't allow there to be a correction. Not only do governments subsidize the fuck out of everything, and thus force society to live beyond its means, but there are regulatory laws that don't get counted in the budget; the cost of regulatory compliance gets passed on to the consumer, and as everyone must submit to such a burden, it is treated as "normal" rather than corrected.

    The problem is government, but it's indirect.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=4, Informative=1, Overrated=1, Total=7
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @02:17AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @02:17AM (#621232)

    This is a very sensible post. Congrats.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by lentilla on Friday January 12 2018, @02:58AM (17 children)

    by lentilla (1770) on Friday January 12 2018, @02:58AM (#621236)

    Where did all the productivity go? The Left wants you to believe it's been stolen by the 1%.

    I would say that is a pretty fair summary. I wouldn't have said stolen - but wealth does have a bad habit of migrating to the wealthy. I invite you to read a summary [wikipedia.org] here. It's pretty sobering reading. So I do earnestly disagree with your conclusion that "it turns out that you cannot account for much of the loss by looking at the 1%". Whether it is the top 1%, or; say; the top 10%, it should be fairly obvious there is a problem. It wouldn't be so much of a problem if everybody had enough to put food on their table and a roof over their head but it patiently obvious that this isn't the case.

    The non-Left wants you to believe it's been stolen by the Government.

    An wasteful and inefficient government is not necessarily the worst thing. Providing they employ lots of their citizenry, their wages are re-injected into the community. See the Velocity of Money [wikipedia.org] theory. Where governments really fail their constituents is where they award fat contracts that end up lining the pockets of the very rich - meaning that money exits circulation amongst the general population.

    Maybe, westerners are living beyond their means

    I disagree. The USA has enough collective wealth for every US citizen to live in comfort. The problem is simply that the wealth is not shared.

    So, why isn't there a correction?

    I think there is something rotten in the physiologic DNA of North America. Like an insatiable child, they can't simply be satisfied with "enough", they have to have the shirt off the man's back too. "Winning" has come to trump good sense, and "sharing" is for losers.

    • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @03:32AM (14 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @03:32AM (#621241)

      North Americans are, by the numbers, the most generous and sharing group of humans that has ever existed in the history of Planet Earth. That's not my opinion; that is objective fact.

      Secondly, it's never good to have an efficient or wasteful government; you are suffering from the Broken Window Fallacy [wikipedia.org]. If all that mattered were getting money into the hands of the population, then the government could simply pay people to dig ditches and then fill them back up—clearly, that's a waste of resources, as those diggers could be put to work on something more useful instead; hell, it would be more efficient just to give those people money without requiring any ditch digging.

      If Government were inherently the best investor, then you'd want Government to make all the decisions for how society's resources should be allocated. However, history has shown us that this is not the case; the Government is not necessarily a very good allocator of society's resources. So, fine, it might be good to have Government doll out decision-making power for society's resources, and it could do this by "injecting" money into the economy, as you say; that way, more people on the ground are choosing how society's resources should be allocated, and they will hopefully, in aggregate, make decisions that better meet society's needs and wants. Yet, where is that injected money coming from? Well, that money represents resources that someone has freed for consumption by someone else; that money is coming from people in society who are objectively productive. So, why in the world would you take money away from objectively productive people just to hand it to someone who might not be as productive, or who might be anti-productive?

      Capitalism is the recognition that decision-making power over society's resources should remain in the hands of the people who have proved themselves productive—it should remain in the hands of the people who have proved themselves good at making winning bets. Under capitalism, you "vote" with every decision that you make; when such a "vote" turns out to be productive, you are rewarded with more voting power (e.g., more money); however, when such a "vote" turns out to be loss-making, you are punished with diminished voting power. Is there "inequality" in the end? Well, from the perspective that some people have more decision-making power than others, yes. Yes, there is inequality. However, it is completely fair in the sense that people who prove themselves good at making decisions for society end up being the ones who are able to make decisions for society, while those who are not good at making such decisions are cut out of power.

      If you want to direct society, you must prove your worth to society; you must prove that your control over society's resources will likely result in a benefit to society. It is not enough simply to exist; it is not enough to win a 4-year popularity contest; your proof must be lifelong accomplishment, and the testing never stops.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by lentilla on Friday January 12 2018, @05:17AM (11 children)

        by lentilla (1770) on Friday January 12 2018, @05:17AM (#621268)

        I'll take your Broken Window and raise you a False Equivalence! :-) Digging ditches and filling them in serves no benefit to society. Government at least tries to do something useful. I can not disagree with you that it is often inefficient - what I was attempting to convey was that I don't consider it to be the greatest crime. Better that someone steals my TV to feed themselves than breaks into my house and smashes the TV for fun. That sort of thing.

        However, it is completely fair in the sense that people who prove themselves good at making decisions for society end up being the ones who are able to make decisions for society

        Not quite. What happens is that people that are good at making and holding on to money get to take everybody else's wealth. And the more money you have, the more efficient this transfer of wealth becomes.

        Capitalism is only a meritocracy within its own sphere. The are many measures of an individual's worth and money is only one part of the equation. If; for instance; society chose to uphold athleticism as its guiding principle, then all the strong men would have all the yachts and all the women.

        So, why in the world would you take money away from objectively productive people just to hand it to someone who might not be as productive, or who might be anti-productive?

        Well, that's a tough one. It does rather depend if one subscribes to Objectivist thinking or not. A great many solid arguments have been placed for and against.

        I think I see it this way: the more money one has, the easier it becomes to obtain more money. The first million is hard. The second is far easier, and so on. This is not objectively fair because one unit of productive work for a garbage collector results in less money earned than one unit of productive work by a billionaire investor. So that situation could certainly benefit from some readjustment. Continuing that example: the rich man still needs his garbage collected, and the garbage man could benefit from the fruits of the rich man's labour. We are all in this world together. Maybe when it comes down to it, I instinctively reject the conclusion that the billionaire investor is a million times better than the garbage man. So; yes; I do support taking some amount of money away from people who have more than they need and sharing with others - just like how the garbage man shares his efforts in garbage collection with the rich man.

        Besides, if the wealth disparity becomes too great, the pitchforks come out, and everyone looses.

        you must prove that your control over society's resources will likely result in a benefit to society

        Why would I want to control someone else? Society's resources are common wealth - they aren't mine to snatch and grab. That's why we came up with government (for the people, by the people) and have tried to leave monarchies, dictatorships and oligarchies behind. They are not nice; well; unless you happen to be on the top of the heap. History tells us you end up with a very small amount of lords at the top of the heap, and the rest of the population is held in poverty. Worse, people in poverty do not generally have the space to self-actualise - so society ends up wasting all that potential - people that could be brilliant scientists mopping floors, that kind of thing.

        I'm not suggesting we go all-out Robin Hood here. I am simply making a case for reasonable distribution of our common wealth to all citizens by way of the fundamental assumption that common wealth belongs to everybody, and in recognition of the fact that most people have something positive to offer to society that is best capitalised when they are given the opportunity to do so. It won't hurt the wealthy but a more equitable distribution of wealth certainly would improve the lives of the poor and would make for a collectively richer society.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @06:12AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @06:12AM (#621280)
          • As already explained, government is not inherently good at betting; having decentralized betting is better, and it's best to allow betting by people who prove themselves good at making bets.

          • Yes, money is only one aspect of Capitalism; any resource is capital, including for example your labor. Capitalism is merely the philosophy that every interaction (every allocation of capital) should be voluntary, where "voluntary" is defined by a contract in advance of interaction ("voluntary" does not necessarily mean "desirable").

          • Your mutually profitable interaction between the garbage man and the rich man is already handled by Capitalism; I have no idea what your point is; I have no idea why you think that justifies theft.

          • Nobody said anything about controlling other people; capitalism is a philosophy that implies resource ownership must be well defined, and I am speaking of that ownership. Your reading of my comment is incorrect.

          • People actually flourished under monarchies; it's one of the reasons fascism sprung from Marxism: The marxist prediction that a communist revolution would begin in an "advanced" capitalistic society such as Britain or Germany failed; such revolutions never occurred because the people in those countries were experiencing ever improving qualities of life. Instead, a revolution was unexpectedly (and embarrassingly) forced in one of the poorest, most backward, least capitalist parts of the world (Russia), and mainly because the Germans supported Lenin in a bid to get the Tzar off their backs, not because there was some uprising of the downtrodden proletariat.

            Ancient Egypt, run by demi-god Kings, was the height of Civilization for thousands of years, and was able to maintain an incredible degree of stability; hitherto, it was probably the longest-running form of civilization in Human history.

          • Who decides what is reasonable? Capitalism says the market should decide; voluntary exchange should decide.

            If you're skeptical, then I suggest your skepticism actually stems from governmental interference in the market, either through direct coercion, or through indirect means such as manipulation of money. A government, being founded on the principle of "do-as-I-say" imposition rather than "do-as-we-already-agreed" cooperation, is inherently anti-Capitalism, and thus distorts the market in distasteful ways.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @06:22AM (9 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @06:22AM (#621287)

          You ask...

          Why would I want to control someone else?

          ...and I have to wonder if you are human. Maybe you lost your balls in a tragic accident. You may need a testosterone patch. Heck, even women want control. Little girls want control.

          I would love the ability to control as many people as possible.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @03:59PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @03:59PM (#621412)

            > I would love the ability to control as many people as possible.

            And we have Bingo ... the AC sociopath outs themself!
             

          • (Score: 3, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 12 2018, @04:26PM (7 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday January 12 2018, @04:26PM (#621428) Journal

            You and people like you are the Renfields to the Draculas of the world. You're the slaves whose dream is slave ownership, not freedom. I don't know enough swears to give you what you deserve--that would require an oxyacetylene torch, so just imagine the entire planet with its middle fingers upraised.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 12 2018, @07:58PM (6 children)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday January 12 2018, @07:58PM (#621522) Homepage Journal

              Darlin, you need to spend a week doing backbreaking work for sixteen to twenty hours a day and getting beat bloody for not doing so fast enough or looking at the overseer wrong. That or you need to stop using the word slavery incorrectly.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 0, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 12 2018, @08:46PM (5 children)

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday January 12 2018, @08:46PM (#621553) Journal

                Don't be disingenuous, you ambulatory shitstain. Slavery of all kinds has existed throughout history. Some of it was far less awful than what you're describing, but it was still slavery. Of course, for you to know that would require you to read some history books, and God almighty forbid you actually learn something...

                In short: your bullshit "Dear Muslima" attempt not only fails on factual grounds, it doesn't have anything to do with the point I was making either. Eat shit and die, then continue eating shit in Hell. Love ya ;)

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 1, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 12 2018, @11:50PM (4 children)

                  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday January 12 2018, @11:50PM (#621616) Homepage Journal

                  Use the correct words instead of ones that appeal to people's feels if you don't want to be called out on your bullshit. Slavery is involuntary. The choices you make in life are not. One is someone else being evil, the other is you being fucking retarded and getting what you deserve.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday January 13 2018, @03:53AM (3 children)

                    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday January 13 2018, @03:53AM (#621682) Journal

                    Stop trying to deflect from the original point, asshole. You're putting up a smokescreen--at least I hope to fuck that's smoke and not high-pressure diarrhea, jeez.

                    There are times when someone's choices boil down to "X or die," and most people for some reason have an aversion to death. Hell, you could argue even the slaves you're talking about had a choice to rebel or not. Point still stands, and your petty, misaimed attacks do nothing to dent it. Who the fuck do you think you'e fooling?

                    --
                    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                    • (Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 13 2018, @11:38AM (2 children)

                      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday January 13 2018, @11:38AM (#621761) Homepage Journal

                      Was there supposed to be a counterargument in there somewhere or did you just want to fling metaphorical monkey shit? I'm good either way but it's hard to tell with you sometimes what with you being incapable of presenting a decent argument.

                      --
                      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                      • (Score: 0, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday January 13 2018, @11:36PM

                        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday January 13 2018, @11:36PM (#621991) Journal

                        You don't read so good, do ya boy?

                        --
                        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 14 2018, @01:28AM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 14 2018, @01:28AM (#622037)

                        Actually, she doesn't much like the metaphorical varieties of shit. They all lack texture and flavor.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Friday January 12 2018, @05:13PM (1 child)

        by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 12 2018, @05:13PM (#621451) Homepage Journal

        However, it is completely fair in the sense that people who prove themselves good at making decisions for society end up being the ones who are able to make decisions for society, while those who are not good at making such decisions are cut out of power.

        That would make sense.

        But what happens is that instead of selecting those who are good at making decisions for society we are selecting those who are good making decisions for themselves. These are very different criteria, with very different results.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @06:11PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @06:11PM (#621469)

          That means each side is profiting.

          Society as a whole profits when each individual pursues his own self-interest.

          The history of governments (especially socialist governments) suggests that recognizing "self-interest" as a core aspect of society is the only way forward; the road to hell is paved with supposedly good intentions.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 12 2018, @05:58AM (1 child)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday January 12 2018, @05:58AM (#621275)

      My alma mater had the best football fight song: "We're #1" repeat, as loudly and obnoxiously as possible until your opponents walk away disgusted. It worked, because 5 of the 7 previous years we had taken the national championship, and over half that time we were ranked top of the polls. It seemed to be everyone's dream to be that #1, and who gives a flip about the 4000+ other colleges and universities in the country?

      The problem, as I see it, is that too many of our leaders come from the #1 crowd and don't give a flip about the losers. And too many losers continue to vote these #1 sociopaths into power, apparently under some delusion that their success will somehow rub off onto the little people.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @06:17AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @06:17AM (#621283)

        As votes are handed out freely, they're not worth much.

        Nobody loses the next vote for using the last one poorly.

        Nobody gains more voting power by using votes well.

        Democracy is a sham. Only Capitalism provides a "vote" that makes sense.

  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 12 2018, @05:08AM (4 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday January 12 2018, @05:08AM (#621266) Homepage Journal

    Now, a couple struggles with 2 incomes and without kids.

    And what, precisely, did you think would happen when you doubled the workforce by telling women that not having to hold down a job was oppression? Double supply, halve demand.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 12 2018, @06:05AM (3 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday January 12 2018, @06:05AM (#621277)

      "We" (including my parents and grandparents) did this to ourselves - the majority of families having dual incomes means that things like real-estate just become twice as expensive, grocery stores crank up their prices (and profits) because people can afford it, the "standard of living" supposedly doubles, but so much of what we pay for isn't cost+, it's whatever the market will bear. Quality and value have only marginally increased while profits have soared.

      I have a decent job, and my wife has worked for the family, in the home, not earning outside money for the last 18 years. It is still possible to do without inheriting a fortune or receiving disability benefits. We live in an "average" home, drive "average" used cars, give the kids an "average" education, but only because my pay is far above the national average.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Saturday January 13 2018, @12:54AM (2 children)

        by SanityCheck (5190) on Saturday January 13 2018, @12:54AM (#621628)

        #1 greatest swindle of our times. Swindle #2 is immigration.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday January 13 2018, @03:22AM (1 child)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday January 13 2018, @03:22AM (#621671)

          Can't be knocking immigration - 98% of my ancestors were immigrants from Northern Europe, the other 2% walked the land bridge to Alaska a bit earlier. None of them had a nickle to their name when they got here, most would have been in prison or worse if they didn't come.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @09:17AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @09:17AM (#621741)

            Right, but in the current "wave" you are not the 98%, you are the 2%. Also, if one of those bozo "genetic" scams tells you you are 2% anything, it's a fucking lie.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @06:25AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @06:25AM (#621288)

    We have been subdued by aliens and all the extra production is going to them?

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by captain_nifty on Friday January 12 2018, @08:59PM

    by captain_nifty (4252) on Friday January 12 2018, @08:59PM (#621559)

    Where did the productivity go? The productivity is in the air, we burned it, it came from fossil fuels. They allowed us to reap huge gains in productivity and production in a few short centuries.

    What changed? We used all the easy to get oil and coil and have reaped all the easy to get benefits of efficiency. The law of diminishing returns in practice for using a finite resource.

    It now costs much more to get the same amount of fuel out of the ground and thus productivity declines. This would be obvious if our finance based economy wasn't completely divorced from reality and statistics weren't continually tweaked by governments.

    Our societies won the lottery when we found fossil fuels, and sadly we are paralleling the fate of many such winners who became accustomed to a standard of living that is unsustainable.