Saturday, December 21, 2013

HIGHER PRICES FOR HIGHER WAGES

Everybody seems to agree that Wal Mart does not pay its employee very well. But to pay them more would require Wal Mart to raise prices on their goods.

What would be a fair wage for a Wal Mart employee? Maybe 15% more than they're getting now? What would it take for Wal Mart to pay that higher wage? What if they just raised their price by 15% and gave that increase to the employee? Would that be fair enough?

That would be a 15% increase in prices for a 15% wage hike. What could be fairer than that?

Let's not concern ourselves with the drop in the numbers of customers who would shop at Wal Mart or the resulting drop in revenue for this giant company. Let's just do it and get it done!

People would be willing to pay 15% more for products if they knew it was going to the employees, right?

Take a look.



Now, count the number of people who would support such a plan. Write the number here: ____________

(Hint: You won't need many fingers.)

FOLLOWUP FROM YESTERDAY'S POST- A HEADLINE: Walmart SELLS OUT of show merchandise as fans flock to support Phil.

15 comments:

Xavier Onassis said...

Or, here's a thought, just thinking outside the box here.

Maybe, just maybe, the BILLIONAIRES who own Walmart could shave their profits by the minuscule fraction of one percent it would take to pay their employee's a living wage so that the American taxpayer wouldn't have to subsidize their corporate profits by paying for the benefits they should be paying out of their own profits,

Xavier Onassis said...

"Higher wages" only = "Higher prices" if the business owners are so greedy and self centered that they would rather screw their customers and their employees to fatten their own wallets at the expense of all else.

Lone Ranger said...

Greedy consumers, not wanting people to earn a higher wage.

Joe said...

XO: Actually, their money, spread over the number of employees wouldn't amount to that much. Nevertheless, company owners should earn what they want, pay what they want and the fed shouldn't be involved.

Nobody has to work for WallyWorld.

Yeah, you are really worried about greed...so long as it isn't your greed.

LR: In the end, aren't we all greedy? I want higher wages, my employer wants higher profits and the company wants a higher bottom line.

But fear not! We have XO to tell us where the lines should be drawn.

Duckys here said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Duckys here said...

Wages go up 15% and prices must go up 15%.

Wages represent 100% of a products cost?

Pitch till you win, Joe.

You also assume there is no price competition for market share.
This is one of your worst ever.

Joe said...

Ducky: I knew you would like it.

Duckys here said...

No, Joe, what I would like is a more equitable distribution of wealth.
Yes prices may rise but the standard of living would also rise and we would all gain from a reduction in the wealth disparity.

But your interpretation of the Sermon sees to be to let the poor suffer because the outcome of the market is God's will.
Well I don't believe that but at any rate we would have a moral obligation to rebel against that God.

Joe said...

Ducky: "...what I would like is a more equitable distribution of wealth."

More equitably distributed by whom?

"But your interpretation of the Sermon sees to be to let the poor suffer because the outcome of the market is God's will."

I'm sure it seems that way to you, but you are wrong.

Duckys here said...

Xo, the current business model for several large American industries involves low wages and having the government bringing income to at least subsistence through various programs.

Yet Joe goes cuckoo bananas at the thought of the "undeserving" poor using these programs.
The idea of indirect cost is absolutely foreign to him.

I hope Glenn drops by to explain that it is God's will that these people be poor rather than tamper with laissez-faire capitalism in favor of the demonic social welfare state. The liberals here have clearly lost their way.

Craig said...

it is God's will that these people be poor rather than tamper with laissez-faire capitalism

The Divine Rights of Kings or plutocrats in this case.

James Madison;

In every political society, parties are unavoidable. A difference of interests, real or supposed, is the most natural and fruitful source of them. The great object should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a political equality among all. 2. By withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches. 3. By the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort. 4. By abstaining from measures which operate differently on different interests, and particularly such as favor one interest at the expence of another. 5. By making one party a check on the other, so far as the existence of parties cannot be prevented, nor their views accommodated. If this is not the language of reason, it is that of republicanism.

Joe said...

Ducky: "...the thought of the "undeserving" poor using these programs."

The key word is "undeserving." Those who cannot help themselves should be helped. Those who can help themselves but do not should not be helped. Then they will begin to help themselves or starve. It should be their choice which one.

Craig: I noticed that you did not italicize the part about political equality. I noticed that you ignored the words "unnecessary," "unmerited," "without violating the rights of property," all of #4 and #5.

It is NOT God's will that these people be poor rather than tamper with laissez-faire capitalism. It is God's will that we help each other in His name. Us...not the feds.

Craig said...

Joe, I wasn't ignoring anything. I italicized the parts pertinent to the discussion.

Madison, and the founders you revere, knew the danger of too much wealth in the hands of a few. They were revolting against the Monarchy and Aristocracy in favor of self rule. Political equality is impossible when money is speech and corporations are people as codified by the Supremes.

You ignore the context of "unnecessary and unmerited". Maybe you can explain the "merits" of collateralized debt obligations. "Unnecesary" is an argument FOR limits on property. You're a history scholar. I'm sure you've read Locke's Second Treatise of Government. It heavily influenced Madison. Locke puts limits on property rights. Look up "spoilage proviso".

No one is against property rights but limiting them to what is necessary is an American value. No one thinks remuneration should be equal across the board but the massive accumulation of wealth we have today is unhealthy for democracy. It's borne out by history.

It is God's will that we help each other in His name. Us...not the feds.

We are the feds. They represent us. A representative republic didn't exist 2000 years ago, when those books were written.

Duckys here said...

It is God's will that we help each other in His name. Us...not the feds.

------
If you study any history of the great depression you'll find that Hoover believed the same thing.

Wasn't effective.

Joe said...

MAY YOU ALL HAVE A CHRIST FILLED CHRISTMAS!