# The incredible nerve of Walmart **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 19, 2013, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220 "2013-11-19T01:01:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![AdmiralQ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8797f3/32.png) [@AdmiralQ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AdmiralQ)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/261 "2013-11-21T21:17:41Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > If you have no money, what will you do to entertain yourself? Outside of wandering aimlessly through a close by park, watching the five to eight channels you can get on rabbit ears (and watching the same 20 episodes of Ricky Lake over and over and over, by the by), or having some nookie, there isn’t anything you can do for free. > > And the cheap contraception has very easy pitfalls to fall into. Condoms break. Pills can be rendered ineffective by both medication and innate biology. > > The more effective forms are expensive when you have no money. $50 for the day after pill. Female tubal procedures are around the $2,000 to $2,500 mark. Male vasectomies are around $900 to $1,200. > > Now that you’re pregnant because you went the cheapie way of contraception, what next? The pill-based abortion is $350-450. The actual medical procedure is roughly $1,000. But giving birth? If you want to accrue almost no cost, you can do it at home with a midwife (or one of those “alternate birth technique” videos you can find online). And caring for a baby, while expensive, can be offset very easily by government programs aimed at Women, Infants, and Children. > > So: They have no money to entertain themselves in any way, so they make their own. They can’t get birth control that’s always effective, so they get pregnant from their entertainment. It’s far cheaper to deliver the baby and get benefits than it is to terminate the child. > > Sounds to me like they are making the best decisions they can from the options available to them. That just sounds like a bunch of excuses for those who make bad decisions in their life. Planned Parenthood themselves indicate a cost of $15-$50 a month for the pill, and less than 1% of those who take the pill regularly will get pregnant. Cite: [http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm](http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm) And you can get birth control for free, especially if you’re poor, so the cost aspect is removed. So it really comes down to either laziness, stupidity, or simply wanting the government check for popping out a bunch of kids. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/262 "2013-11-21T21:20:13Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > If you have no money, what will you do to entertain yourself? Outside of wandering aimlessly through a close by park, watching the five to eight channels you can get on rabbit ears (and watching the same 20 episodes of Ricky Lake over and over and over, by the by), or having some nookie, there isn’t anything you can do for free. > > And the cheap contraception has very easy pitfalls to fall into. Condoms break. Pills can be rendered ineffective by both medication and innate biology. > > The more effective forms are expensive when you have no money. $50 for the day after pill. Female tubal procedures are around the $2,000 to $2,500 mark. Male vasectomies are around $900 to $1,200. > > Now that you’re pregnant because you went the cheapie way of contraception, what next? The pill-based abortion is $350-450. The actual medical procedure is roughly $1,000. But giving birth? If you want to accrue almost no cost, you can do it at home with a midwife (or one of those “alternate birth technique” videos you can find online). And caring for a baby, while expensive, can be offset very easily by government programs aimed at Women, Infants, and Children. > > So: They have no money to entertain themselves in any way, so they make their own. They can’t get birth control that’s always effective, so they get pregnant from their entertainment. It’s far cheaper to deliver the baby and get benefits than it is to terminate the child. > > Sounds to me like they are making the best decisions they can from the options available to them. You honestly think that’s the _best_ decision they can make? Better than trying to put off having kids until you can gain enough skills to get a job that pays enough to support a family? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/263 "2013-11-21T21:45:51Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > If you have no money, what will you do to entertain yourself? Outside of wandering aimlessly through a close by park, watching the five to eight channels you can get on rabbit ears (and watching the same 20 episodes of Ricky Lake over and over and over, by the by), or having some nookie, there isn’t anything you can do for free. > > And the cheap contraception has very easy pitfalls to fall into. Condoms break. Pills can be rendered ineffective by both medication and innate biology. > > The more effective forms are expensive when you have no money. $50 for the day after pill. Female tubal procedures are around the $2,000 to $2,500 mark. Male vasectomies are around $900 to $1,200. > > Now that you’re pregnant because you went the cheapie way of contraception, what next? The pill-based abortion is $350-450. The actual medical procedure is roughly $1,000. But giving birth? If you want to accrue almost no cost, you can do it at home with a midwife (or one of those “alternate birth technique” videos you can find online). And caring for a baby, while expensive, can be offset very easily by government programs aimed at Women, Infants, and Children. > > So: They have no money to entertain themselves in any way, so they make their own. They can’t get birth control that’s always effective, so they get pregnant from their entertainment. It’s far cheaper to deliver the baby and get benefits than it is to terminate the child. > > Sounds to me like they are making the best decisions they can from the options available to them. This is Bizzaro world. Have babies because you’re bored and the government will take care of them? ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/264 "2013-11-21T22:06:17Z")
I only read the first couple page of this trainwreck, but something I keep seeing is posters who claim to never or rarely shop at WalMart and nobody has claimed to work there or even know anybody who works there. 😕 What the heck to you know about it, then? I shop the HELL out of Walfart! I love it. People are friendly, selection is awesome, prices low. One Stop Shopping. From motor oil to laundry soap and everything in between. I personally _know_ an employee. Wife’s good friend. We tried to get them a job at a “good place” and they were immediately rejected for having _zero skills and horrible credit_. They got hired at WalTart, have a decent job, been promoted at least once that I know of, can pay the rent, have health coverage for the first time in their life. Seems to be happy for the first time in years. If WalShart opened a store closer to me, I’d go get a job. (They probably wouldn’t hire me! 😃 ) Ain’t nothin’ wrong with Walfart. If you can’t support yourself on your paycheck, either get another job or change your lifestyle. But why blame the people who gave you a job? ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/265 "2013-11-21T22:08:13Z")
> [@AdmiralQ](#): > > That just sounds like a bunch of excuses for those who make bad decisions in their life. Planned Parenthood themselves indicate a cost of $15-$50 a month for the pill, and less than 1% of those who take the pill regularly will get pregnant. Cite: [http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm](http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm) > > And you can get birth control for free, especially if you’re poor, so the cost aspect is removed. So it really comes down to either laziness, stupidity, or simply wanting the government check for popping out a bunch of kids. Yes, it is cheap, which is why I didn’t go into cost for birth control and condoms. I also didn’t say they shouldn’t take it. However, the less than 1% figures for the pill are from clinical trials and only consider perfect handling and intake of the pills. Ever get an illness, wake up late and then have to rush out the door and forget something? What if that something was your pill? Well that’s at least 48 hours of you are unable to be screwed. But will you really remember when you’re getting romantic at 9PM the following day? Also note that this scenario isn’t included in the 1% factor because that’s not considered the proper way to take it. But that’s reality. You are making excuses for how you think people should live life and ignoring what it’s actually like to be poor. Minimum wage at 30 hours a week (so the company can avoid medical) for two people is about $22,000 before taxes, which will pay for the bare necessities. Rent. Electricity. And the shittiest food at the store. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > You honestly think that’s the _best_ decision they can make? Better than trying to put off having kids until you can gain enough skills to get a job that pays enough to support a family? Best decision within their circumstances? Yes. Absolute best decision to make from a standpoint of personal responsibility? No. But why do you expect them to step back and plan for the long term when they can’t even be sure they’ll make enough money to survive the month? Try working 20-30 hours a week (company doesn’t want to pay medical, after all) at even $9 an hour (much less minimum wage) and then going home and then sitting there watching your local stations. At that rate, you have paid for the basics if you live frugally. So, you get a significant other. Woo, cut your costs in half, but it seems like having an SO implies more than just being a cost a cutting measure. But it’s not like you save that much on rent and utilities, since you’re already living in the cheapest place you can find (with no regard to anything else, like crime or whatnot). You can do a few more things, but not really that much more. Whether they are smart and save the money or use it to finance some bar crawls or whatnot, that extra money is still largely unavailable to them. > [@Bone](#): > > This is Bizzaro world. Have babies because you’re bored and the government will take care of them? You have SEX because you’re bored. Babies happen as a result. And why wouldn’t you take advantage of the cheapest way to have that baby once you are pregnant? Why do you think there are always mini baby booms 9 months after the midwest or northeast gets 28 tons of snow dumped on them? Seems being trapped with nothing to do means people go back to the tried and true fun things in life. Now imagine that’s your entire life. You can’t afford to go to movies, museums, zoos, completely fill your car’s gas tank, ANYTHING. You are POOR. It amazes me how many people are completely out of touch with what poor actually means. It doesn’t mean you are squeaking by with $35000 or $40000 a year. It means you are paying for the shittiest basics (a tiny 1BR or studio in the highest crime area of town, for instance) and maybe are getting some small extra perk like basic cable TV and then you are tapped out. There is no nest egg, there is no “Well, I guess I can cheat on my budget and get some roses for my sweetie!” there is nothing. And, when your poor self gets your tax return, you might be lucky to get some spending money. But you are probably going to use that money to pay off some sort of debt because when you are living on the wire, any disruption makes your balance come unglued. Get sick and miss a 6-hour shift? Well, now you’re behind on electricity/water/whatever and the tax return cures that. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/266 "2013-11-21T22:09:46Z")
WRT to Wal-Mart’s moral duty to pay a certain wage… The idea of taxes being replaced with voluntary contributions has been raised a few times in threads in GD. The response is always - and correctly - that such a method would not raise sufficient funds to run the government, because of the free-rider problem, meaning that because people who didn’t pay still got to use government services, there’d be an incentive to pay nothing. Wages are no different. In effect, people who demand that Wal-Mart pay wages higher than what they can negotiate are asking Wal-Mart to engage in charity. Since it’s generally accepted that charity isn’t sufficient to provide a tax base, why should it be sufficient for wages? The same incentive to offer lower wages, thus gaining an advantage over competitors, would exist. Wage minimums (or better yet, a negative income tax), like taxes, are the domain of government, not a moral code. They are part of setting the “rules of the game”, which is a primary duty of government. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/267 "2013-11-21T22:13:44Z")
When a whole lot of people have a tendency to engage in behavior that doesn’t make sense on its face, it seems to me that it doesn’t indicate isolated failures of free-willed individuals. It indicates the presence of pervasive social factors that are immune to middle-class sanctimony. It doesn’t make good financial sense to have children one can’t afford. But it does make good psychosocial sense. Children give people a sense of purpose. If you’ve got a college degree and a good job doing important things and people who appreciate you for talents other than your prowess in bed, you don’t need to find purpose in children. If all you’ve got going for you is tits, ass, and the ability to throw down in the kitchen, then you will likely be someone’s baby mama. If all you’ve got going for you is swagger and charm, then you will likely be someone’s baby daddy. Sex is secondary. Children make people feel like they matter. I consider myself very liberal, but I would be in favor of mandatory birth control for anyone receiving welfare. Because I don’t think having kids is a right. However, in the absence of such a policy, what else can you do but mitigate the inevitable? Children don’t ask to be born. And it is inevitable that poor people will have kids. Austere wages not only won’t stop this, but they just make it worst. Sanctimony does nothing. Blaming individuals for social problems is no different from covering one’s ears and shouting LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU! I’m hearing a lot of that here. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/268 "2013-11-21T22:29:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You honestly think that’s the _best_ decision they can make? Better than trying to put off having kids until you can gain enough skills to get a job that pays enough to support a family? You’re using sex and best decision in the same sentence. Interesting. (Same metaphorical sentence.) I’m pretty sure you don’t support abstinence only sex education. But if what you say here made sense, then so would that. Yes, the best decision is to put off having kids until you can afford them. And staying in school. And going to work every day and working to the best of your ability. But some people don’t, and yelling at them for not making good decisions doesn’t solve the problem. Like I said, around the world improved standards of living lead to lower birth rates. Got a better idea? We’ve had sterilization mentioned. One child per woman unless you have money? Of course no matter what you do, some people are going to screw it up. But I suspect that lots of the unemployed and idle today would love to work. Hell, during the bubble, where there was better than full employment, drug dealers were getting jobs. Let’s be pragmatic here. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/269 "2013-11-21T23:14:39Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > They are linked. Clearly increased unemployment has forced a downward pressure on wages, even with the so-called recovery. Overseas manufacturing has been an issue for decades now. And certainly the move of people into service industries is not that affected by a decline in manufacturing. It is an issue, but not a new one. Is there a trend line in wages that has been interrupted by the 2007 recession? [http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2012/recession/pdf/recession\_bls\_spotlight.pdf](http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2012/recession/pdf/recession_bls_spotlight.pdf) This page initially suggests that there may be, but it appears to use nominal changes, where wage growth has dropped from 3.5 to 1.6%. During the same time period, inflation in the US has also dropped significantly, so the effect on real wages may not be quite so large. Of course there would be some effect of the recession on wages, but I was talking about the long term trend that many people on the board discuss. > [@](#): > > To a certain extent though I was replying to **XT** also. That WalMart employees are a fairly small part of the labor force in no way means that their policies don’t have immense leverage. The easy thing for other companies to do is to copy them. Costco got a lot of flak for their policies from Wall Street - until they proved to be good for the bottom line, that is. A lot of your argumentation in this thread has been to highlight differences in the pay structure of Costco and Walmart and to suggest that Walmart are being foolish to not pay employees more. If they paid more, their employees would be more productive, leading to better outcomes for the company, as you contend it has for Costco. You may well be right, it is entirely possible. (I would contend that Walmart’s managers have probably looked at this question in MUCH more detail, with much more data, and decided upon their current course of action. Knowing the retail industry a little, I would go further and hazard that they’ve already tested this hypothesis empirically. Good retail ops managers always roll out localised changes that they’re contemplating to see what happens. There’s no shortage of feedback loops in retail. But this is besides the point. For the purposes of this discussion, there is every chance you’re correct.) The thing is…what do you want done about it? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/270 "2013-11-21T23:14:40Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > You’re using sex and best decision in the same sentence. … > > Let’s be pragmatic here. And now you’re using pragmatic and right-winger in the same sentence. (Metaphorically.) Pot … kettle … black. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/271 "2013-11-21T23:31:52Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I disagree; it’s a ridiculous post. > > It assumes that cashiers are the bulk of the Wal-mart workforce, when it’s pretty obvious from spending any time in the store that they are dwarfed by the number of people keeping merchandise on the shelves/racks. AFAIK there is no automation yet that performs those tasks. Or the pharmacists’ jobs, or the auto mechanics, or the managerial duties. I know of no automation that cleans the floors or the coolers or replaces the light bulbs. It’s still people that go out in to the parking lot to collect errant shopping carts, that drive the trucks that bring the merch to stores, that unload the pallets into the store. **XT** asks what value a cashier brings to the business, but there’s always a person there, even at the self-checkouts that most stores have now, to answer questions, help with errant machines, and to act as a _de facto_ security guard. Automation has not in any way replaced the vast majority of human-accomplished tasks, at least not at retail businesses in the U.S. > > As for why people aren’t all weepy-happy at the fact that 1 billion Chinese people can now afford new shoelaces once a year instead of once every two years, well, how would you feel if you came home to find your cupboards bare while 40 strangers patted their now-full bellies? That’s how it seems to many in the U.S. It’s not that people here “may not be particularly better off in terms of income now than he/she was 40 years ago”, it’s that they are noticeably & particularly worse off then they were, and than their parents were, and they don’t see the trend reversing (or leveling out) anytime soon. > > Everyone likes a riding tide that lifts all boats. Not so many like to see other boats lifted because theirs is being pushed under, and that’s the perception that many Americans have, not just of China and other Asian countries, but of the CEOs of companies like Wal-mart (and BofA and AGI, etc.) and of many politicians as well (which is why the Occupy thing got so much traction last year, IMO). **Bo** - the people affected are not only those that do the job that automation or the Chinese took over. Lets say there were 100 jobs earlier - 50 in manufacturing and 50 in services. If you lose 30 jobs in manufacturing to automation and the Chinese, the 50 people in services ALSO are affected. The pool of people competing for those 30 jobs has almost doubled. Of course it isn’t one for one in this fashion, but you get the idea. As to the other issue, I apologise for not being clearer in my meaning. There is no doubt that it is easier to be happy for or feel sad for your own countrymen than for someone across the nation. I should have stated, as **Hellestal** has, that it a morally ambiguous position, which too many people who repeat this point constantly miss. Also it’s not clear to me that people are on average worse off in the US than they were, because the wave of automation and offshoring may have reduced wages, but it has also made consumption of many consumer goods cheaper. I’ve read a couple of papers to that effect. Will try and dig them up. p.s : your post in the subjective opinions thread lead me to listen to Louie Louie the song proper for the first time!(I’d heard the tune in movies and such like) It’s been playing non stop in my head for the last two days. Thanks! pps : Sorry for the multiple posts people. I have difficulty accessing the board these days and the proxy that I end up using breaks almost all button-based functionality. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/272 "2013-11-21T23:38:45Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > To step in myself to answer this question: On an emotional level, of course. Naturally. I care about my in-group more on a visceral level. My emotions are stirred by my own tribe in ways that they aren’t stirred by people I’ve never met. > > But I don’t claim it’s morally right for me to be so. The morally right thing would be to value everyone equally. > > Putting our in-group first is human, but that doesn’t make it right. The great evils of humanity have all been based on the tendency to undervalue others to the point of dehumanization. In contrast, the great-souled people of history, the ones we admire most, were those who decided to value the Other with their actions just as much as they value themselves. Even great people have more natural fellow-feeling with their own family (their own tribe, their own race, their own in-group), but when they choose to act, they try to act for the betterment of all. They’re not going to cry as hard at the death of ten thousand Chinese as they would at the pain of their own hangnail, but if given a chance, a free hand to make their own choice, they’ll still make the decision to value those anonymous foreigners equally with themselves. Because it’s the right thing to do. > > You explicitly value yourself and your tribe over others, and then you attack others so:But we can see that you don’t care for a morality that treats everyone equally. > > Not a big deal. I don’t claim to live up to my own morality either. I’m not a particularly good person. But I’m also not going to lambast a group I don’t like for being immoral, while in the next breath state that it’s natural for me to favor myself and my own in-group because it’s “common sense” to do so. > > I support trade. I support the process, in which Wal-Mart for all its faults has played some part, that has led to the biggest anti-poverty campaign in the history of the world. This isn’t a particularly noble position on my part. I possess skills that can’t be so easily outsourced. It’s a painless position for me to take. But there it is. The logic holds. Even though I lack the empathy of a perfect saint, even though my instinct is to favor my own team, I’d still like to make the sorts of decisions that help the most people, that make the biggest difference in the most people’s lives regardless of where they live, especially when those decisions actually fucking matter. Less than noble. Painless. Extremely convenient. But still the right decision. Another brilliant post. You make my point(and more besides) exceedingly well. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/273 "2013-11-22T02:02:11Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > And now you’re using pragmatic and right-winger in the same sentence. (Metaphorically.) Pot … kettle … black. Let’s be careful with broad brushes, sept. No warning issued. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/274 "2013-11-22T07:23:57Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Is there a trend line in wages that has been interrupted by the 2007 recession? [http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2012/recession/pdf/recession\_bls\_spotlight.pdf](http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2012/recession/pdf/recession_bls_spotlight.pdf) > This page initially suggests that there may be, but it appears to use nominal changes, where wage growth has dropped from 3.5 to 1.6%. During the same time period, inflation in the US has also dropped significantly, so the effect on real wages may not be quite so large. Of course there would be some effect of the recession on wages, but I was talking about the long term trend that many people on the board discuss. The real breakpoint came with the 2001 recession and Republican economic policy. I agree that wages did not increase during the 2000s, and the housing bubble and low interest rates covered up this problem until it collapsed. > [@](#): > > A lot of your argumentation in this thread has been to highlight differences in the pay structure of Costco and Walmart and to suggest that Walmart are being foolish to not pay employees more. If they paid more, their employees would be more productive, leading to better outcomes for the company, as you contend it has for Costco. You may well be right, it is entirely possible. (I would contend that Walmart’s managers have probably looked at this question in MUCH more detail, with much more data, and decided upon their current course of action. Knowing the retail industry a little, I would go further and hazard that they’ve already tested this hypothesis empirically. Good retail ops managers always roll out localised changes that they’re contemplating to see what happens. There’s no shortage of feedback loops in retail. But this is besides the point. For the purposes of this discussion, there is every chance you’re correct.) > > The thing is…what do you want done about it? WalMart was there first, and, as I said, when you are first at cutting wages it is a powerful competitive advantage. That isn’t the only reason they did well - they manage their supply chain very well also. Why don’t they change now? It would be very difficult to do so. Higher wages is not something which can be rolled out piecemeal. They appear to be stepping up hiring. And they may be ideologically committed to lower wages. Plus it is hard to change directions of a company. I used to work for the Bell System - I know that well. We can’t expect WalMart to change. A higher minimum wage would put more money in the hands of people who would spend it and level the playing field. Ditto UHC - but I’m clearly just dreaming now. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/275 "2013-11-22T11:46:33Z")
Why do they need to be “ideologically” committed to paying lower wages than Costco? They have a business model that works. They get many times the applicants as they have jobs, so they can pick and choose at the rate they are paying. Seems to me they are “ideologically” committed to paying the market rate for their business model-- just like virtually all businesses. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/276 "2013-11-22T16:51:33Z")
It’s funny how some people on this thread seem to think there’s a choice involved in deciding how you’re going to get born. Like there’s a box you can check, pre-birth, that says “I’d like to be born to an upper-middle class couple, who take me to Disney World in the summer. Plus, I’ll choose the option for the 130 IQ, please.” Or, “I’ll take the depressive, binge-drinking, single mom with anger-management issues, who gives me pictures of things she wishes she could buy me on my birthday. And a 70 IQ and learning disability would be nice, too. Thanks.” ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/277 "2013-11-22T16:54:40Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > It’s funny how some people on this thread seem to think there’s a choice involved in deciding how you’re going to get born. Like there’s a box you can check, pre-birth, that says “I’d like to be born to an upper-middle class couple, who take me to Disney World in the summer. Plus, I’ll choose the option for the 130 IQ, please.” > > Or, “I’ll take the depressive, binge-drinking, single mom with anger-management issues, who gives me pictures of things she wishes she could buy me on my birthday. And a 70 IQ and learning disability would be nice, too. Thanks.” I hadn’t noticed anyone in this thread saying anything about this, even in the hijacks about birth control. It’s funny to me that you’d bring this fascinating observation us when it has absolutely nothing to do with the OP or the thread in general. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/278 "2013-11-22T16:58:50Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Why do they need to be “ideologically” committed to paying lower wages than Costco? They have a business model that works. They get many times the applicants as they have jobs, so they can pick and choose at the rate they are paying. Seems to me they are “ideologically” committed to paying the market rate for their business model-- just like virtually all businesses. Seems rather obvious to me, though clearly some people think in completely different directions than I do. It’s got nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with the different business models that, in the case of this example, Walmart and Costco have. They are trying to achieve different things and value different things and thus their personnel cost models are completely different and emphasize (or de-emphasize) different things. Both are successful in their niche, so it’s unclear to me why either should change if what they are doing is working for them. Both are also in compliance with the laws and regulations, such as minimum wage laws, that we as a society have set. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/279 "2013-11-22T17:35:19Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Why do they need to be “ideologically” committed to paying lower wages than Costco? They have a business model that works. They get many times the applicants as they have jobs, so they can pick and choose at the rate they are paying. Seems to me they are “ideologically” committed to paying the market rate for their business model-- just like virtually all businesses. Not working as well as it used to. WalMart is not the growth company it used to be. And execs can be as ideologically committed to business models as any politician is to a platform. I’ve seen that. I’m sure Costco is just as swamped by applicants. In that situation you can either cut wages knowing you will still get people or you can increase wages a bit and hire for quality, knowing that you might be able to snag better people than you could during a low employment period. You can see all applicants as equal, so you can wind up with lazy losers, or you can see applicants as distinct. If the former yeah, you pay rock bottom wages. If the latter, you need to work a bit harder to get good ones. No one thinks all applicants for tech jobs are equal, and companies target their pay rates at some point at or above the mean, depending on the people they want. Doing that at the low end is not stupid - unless one thinks that all people applying for minimum wage jobs are the same. ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/280 "2013-11-22T19:26:55Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > When a whole lot of people have a tendency to engage in behavior that doesn’t make sense on its face, it seems to me that it doesn’t indicate isolated failures of free-willed individuals. It indicates the presence of pervasive social factors that are immune to middle-class sanctimony. Amen brother. I see this ‘logic’ everywhere. For example, there are certain things I see business do\*. It seems dumb! I have a simple solution! So what is going on here…is everyone stupid or am I not seeing the whole issue and my solution has major problems/won’t work? Similar to this is condemning large groups of people for acting wrong and wondering why they are so stupid. IF large groups of people are doing it, it might not be as stupid as you think, though you can’t see how that would be. - Like for example…why not pay salespeople on how much a project makes in profit? It seems a major issue for every company I work for is salespeople get paid on the amount of $$$ they bring in and then have to harass and supervise and add layers of management to watch to make sure salespeople are properly pricing the project. Why not pay them a (higher) percentage of the profit? If the project makes no profit, salesperson gets squat. Heck, make it progressive and give higher and higher % to salespeople for higher profit projects? I think this sounds reasonable but there has to be something wrong with it because I have not seen it done. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220.md?page=15)