Sam's Club

[Garin]

If the Feds let the loopholes exist for Walmart , why aren't you just as mad about target jumping on the band wagon? You can work you way up from 8 bucks an hour to a management position if you have a good work ethic and are willing to put in the time. Not just at Walmart but anywhere it's the American dream.

[zookeeper]

You're wanting to change the subject. Sam's Club is laying off workers while six of their owners profit to the tune of $25,000.00 per minute in dividends alone.
Some people it's just not worth arguing with. You somehow have that kind of grotesque concentration of wealth mixed up with the American Dream.

What's this doing in OKCpedia anyway?

I'm sorry. I just get really frustrated at people not being able to tell the difference between capitalism and corporatism.

[MWCGuy]

If you were one of the 1% would you run things any different? Probably not because there is more to running a company than meets the eye. Retail stopped being a career industry years ago when commissioned sales people were phased out. In the retail world you're here today gone tomorrow and that is a fact of life. The average retail worker is coming to terms with that fact. Many of these laid off employees will go work for other retail firms or they will go to school and go work in another field all together. Not to mention, automation will eventually phase out about 50% of retail jobs. A typical retail store employees about 35 people. When I worked retail our stores employed about 75-100 people depending on the season. Web sales, automation and smarter store planning and inventory management eliminated many of those jobs. As time goes on I would not be surprised if your average retail store only employees only a handful of people.

I just don't buy into the 1% argument. It's nothing more than envy and jealousy. The $15 an hour thing is going to sting more than it helps if it ever becomes reality. You can expect most cashier positions to be phased out by self serve kiosks. Not to mention stores will do more with less people. That's going to mean the younger generations will not have jobs. Minimum wage is never meant to be a career or family income. It's meant for those with no experience and no marketable skills. With in about 6-12 months you either move up or move out. That's what I did when I was working making $4.00 an hour (minimum wage was $3.35 an hour).

What it all comes down to is if you don't like how much you are paid, do something about it. Go to school, learn a trade or better yet come up with a business idea and go to work for yourself. After all the financial experts say if you want to make the most money, work for yourself. Don't go to work for someone else.

[BBatesokc]

Had a good friend from high school just get laid off from his management position at Sam's (Memorial location) after working there 23-years. Fortunately he had been there so long he got a decent/good severance package and still has profit sharing. He was let go around Jan. 21 and apparently was one of the first in the area. Others were let go that hadn't been there nearly as long, so their severance packages were not nearly as good.

That said, do I wish corporate management would conduct business differently? Sure. Do I hold them 100% responsible? Not at all. They are wealthy beyond imagination with our money - money we gladly hand over to them by the billions. I have always shopped at WalMart and Sam's and most likely will continue to do so.

Guess what folks - life ain't fair. The best part is, when you stop making excuses, you can make your situation better.

[trousers]

If you don't like Wal-Mart dont give them your money. Encourage others to do the same. I go out of my way not to.
Otherwise...

[SoonerDave]

You're wanting to change the subject. Sam's Club is laying off workers while six of their owners profit to the tune of $25,000.00 per minute in dividends alone.
Some people it's just not worth arguing with. You somehow have that kind of grotesque concentration of wealth mixed up with the American Dream.

What's this doing in OKCpedia anyway?

I'm sorry. I just get really frustrated at people not being able to tell the difference between capitalism and corporatism.

Sorry, zoo, no offense, but this is simply more redistributionist rhetoric that boils down to the fallacious notion that tries to create a singular cause-and-effect relationship between the wealthy and the poor (or, perhaps more accurately in this discussion, "working class.")

I know of no system in world history that did not create some form of disparity between groups. And there always will be. Because there will always be trash that must be collected, streets that must be swept, buildings that must be maintained, store shelves to be stocked, broken things to repair, and it is a matter of historical fact that not all those occupations draw the same compensation no matter how that compensation was calculated - either by government fiat or market forces.

The notion of "grotesque concentration of wealth" is ad-hominem rhetoric to create the illusion that it is those wealthy people who, merely by virtue of their wealth, somehow "wronged" the folks without the wealth, and thus "something oughta be done!!" But what's the wrong? Sam Walton created an empire worth billions. He has/had every right to ensure his family enjoyed the benefits of that empire.

If, in your eyes, this is wrong, what's the remedy? Shall the government create an arbitrary, bright white line at which it says "You are no longer allowed to earn $x, and we shall confiscate any amount over that threshhold and redistribute it 'fairly.'" Do we say "you make so much money, you won't miss this penny, this dollar, this ten-spot, this hundred, this thousand, or this million?" You can't go down that path, because doing so makes everyone at risk because everyone's perception of what's "too much" or "wrong" will vary, making that means test entirely subjective.

Is this to say every aspect of what the Walton empire does is pure or altruistic? Of course not. But if we are going to engage in some form of righteous indignation, it has to be for reasons more concrete then "I don't like how much money they have." Are they violating labor laws? Get 'em. Are they forcing children into slave labor camps? Shut 'em down. But so long as the argument is just the former, implying the solution is government confiscation and redistribution, and creating a punitive response to successful business practices, then I just can't get on board with it. This "evil" Walton empire has created thousands of jobs of varying quality, enhanced the local sales tax base of thousands of cities, and provided retail opportunities smaller cities never even conceived of even 50 years ago. To dismantle or punish that merely because "I don't like how much money they have" just doesn't pass the test for me. They have that money because of the empire Walton Sr. built, based on paying the wages the market and the business environment taught him should be paid.

I appreciate what you're saying, zoo, I do, but creation of wealth isn't in and of itself a bad thing. It demonstrates what is possible. I can't fathom a situation in which we decide its a good thing to start punishing it merely for its own existence.

[Just the facts]

This is why we need to eliminate the income tax and just go with a wealth tax. Every person and company completes an annual 'net worth' statement and then pay taxes on that amount. If you live solely on cash flow and rent a place to live your taxes would be very low. If you live because your money makes you money you would pay a much higher amount.

How come if a person catches Barry Bonds homerun ball he instantly owes $200K in taxes, but if Walmart stock instantly goes up a few points the owners of Walmart stock don't get a tax bill. Weird how that works. I wonder who came up with these rules.

TaxProf Blog: More on Tax Consequences to Fan Catching Barry Bonds' 756th Home Run

As soon as 21-year-old Matt Murphy snagged the valuable piece of sports history Tuesday night, his souvenir became taxable income in the eyes of the IRS, according to experts. "It's an expensive catch," said John Barrie, a tax lawyer with Bryan Cave LLP in New York who grew up watching the Giants play at Candlestick Park. "Once he took possession of the ball and it was his ball, it was income to him based on its value as of yesterday,"

That would instantly put Murphy, a college student from Queens, in the highest tax bracket for individual income, where he would face a tax rate of about 35%, or about $210,000 on a $600,000 ball. Even if he does not sell the ball, Murphy would still owe the taxes based on a reasonable estimate of its value, according to Barrie

[bluedogok]

I just don't buy into the 1% argument. It's nothing more than envy and jealousy. The $15 an hour thing is going to sting more than it helps if it ever becomes reality. You can expect most cashier positions to be phased out by self serve kiosks. Not to mention stores will do more with less people. That's going to mean the younger generations will not have jobs. Minimum wage is never meant to be a career or family income. It's meant for those with no experience and no marketable skills. With in about 6-12 months you either move up or move out. That's what I did when I was working making $4.00 an hour (minimum wage was $3.35 an hour).

A friend of mine is the Walmart Security Manager in the Phoenix area, he said they battle with management all the time on the self-service kiosks in Walmart and Sam's but he know if wages are forced to increase a large amount they will do exactly that and their shrinkage will increase. He said it all comes down to a cost/benefit ratio and at some point it will be "too expensive" to have more than a couple of people managing the kiosks.

[Just the facts]

I just don't buy into the 1% argument. It's nothing more than envy and jealousy. The $15 an hour thing is going to sting more than it helps if it ever becomes reality. You can expect most cashier positions to be phased out by self serve kiosks. Not to mention stores will do more with less people. That's going to mean the younger generations will not have jobs. Minimum wage is never meant to be a career or family income. It's meant for those with no experience and no marketable skills. With in about 6-12 months you either move up or move out. That's what I did when I was working making $4.00 an hour (minimum wage was $3.35 an hour).

What if your $4.00 per hour job didn't exist? Where would you have started? Try this, play any board game you want but don't use the square marked 'Start' and see how fun the game is or how long it last.

[rezman]

This is why we need to eliminate the income tax and just go with a wealth tax. Every person and company completes an annual 'net worth' statement and then pay taxes on that amount. If you live solely on cash flow and rent a place to live your taxes would be very low. If you live because your money makes you money you would pay a much higher amount.

How come if a person catches Barry Bonds homerun ball he instantly owes $200K in taxes, but if Walmart stock instantly goes up a few points the owners of Walmart stock don't get a tax bill. Weird how that works. I wonder who came up with these rules.

TaxProf Blog: More on Tax Consequences to Fan Catching Barry Bonds' 756th Home Run

Why not just a flat tax proportionate to what everyone earns? Say 20% ... If you only earn $2000 a year, you pay $400 in taxes. If you earn $2M a year, you pay $400,000. I guess that's just too simple.

As far as the baseball goes, it should only get it's taxable value from the money he gets if he sells it, not what someone thinks it's worth.

[HangryHippo]

Why not just a flat tax proportionate to what everyone earns? Say 20% ... If you only earn $2000 a year, you pay $400 in taxes. If you earn $2M a year, you pay $400,000. I guess that's just too simple.

As far as the baseball goes, it should only get it's taxable value from the money he gets if he sells it, not what someone thinks it's worth.

Unfortunately, probably because our "representatives" wouldn't let it be THAT easy...

Agreed on the baseball value. Just ridiculous.

[MustangGT]

Guess what folks - life ain't fair. The best part is, when you stop making excuses, you can make your situation better.

To the chief anti-Walmart naysayer this is what it is all about. To the OP you have just as much opportunity to do the same thing in another industry. Lack of opportunity is certainly not why the OP is not bettering the world. As far as a net worth tax that is phooey to. What we really need is a consumption tax. if a tax is paid on everything w/o exception everybody pays. Even law violators have to buy things so tax it all at a reasonable level. Carping about the wealthy is nothing less than ENVY!!!

[HangryHippo]

Sorry, zoo, no offense, but this is simply more redistributionist rhetoric that boils down to the fallacious notion that tries to create a singular cause-and-effect relationship between the wealthy and the poor (or, perhaps more accurately in this discussion, "working class.")

I know of no system in world history that did not create some form of disparity between groups. And there always will be. Because there will always be trash that must be collected, streets that must be swept, buildings that must be maintained, store shelves to be stocked, broken things to repair, and it is a matter of historical fact that not all those occupations draw the same compensation no matter how that compensation was calculated - either by government fiat or market forces.

The notion of "grotesque concentration of wealth" is ad-hominem rhetoric to create the illusion that it is those wealthy people who, merely by virtue of their wealth, somehow "wronged" the folks without the wealth, and thus "something oughta be done!!" But what's the wrong? Sam Walton created an empire worth billions. He has/had every right to ensure his family enjoyed the benefits of that empire.

If, in your eyes, this is wrong, what's the remedy? Shall the government create an arbitrary, bright white line at which it says "You are no longer allowed to earn $x, and we shall confiscate any amount over that threshhold and redistribute it 'fairly.'" Do we say "you make so much money, you won't miss this penny, this dollar, this ten-spot, this hundred, this thousand, or this million?" You can't go down that path, because doing so makes everyone at risk because everyone's perception of what's "too much" or "wrong" will vary, making that means test entirely subjective.

Is this to say every aspect of what the Walton empire does is pure or altruistic? Of course not. But if we are going to engage in some form of righteous indignation, it has to be for reasons more concrete then "I don't like how much money they have." Are they violating labor laws? Get 'em. Are they forcing children into slave labor camps? Shut 'em down. But so long as the argument is just the former, implying the solution is government confiscation and redistribution, and creating a punitive response to successful business practices, then I just can't get on board with it. This "evil" Walton empire has created thousands of jobs of varying quality, enhanced the local sales tax base of thousands of cities, and provided retail opportunities smaller cities never even conceived of even 50 years ago. To dismantle or punish that merely because "I don't like how much money they have" just doesn't pass the test for me. They have that money because of the empire Walton Sr. built, based on paying the wages the market and the business environment taught him should be paid.

I appreciate what you're saying, zoo, I do, but creation of wealth isn't in and of itself a bad thing. It demonstrates what is possible. I can't fathom a situation in which we decide its a good thing to start punishing it merely for its own existence.

Interesting. Do you think Walmart has some responsibility to pay its workers a more livable wage?

[SoonerDave]

Interesting. Do you think Walmart has some responsibility to pay its workers a more livable wage?

Absolutely not. They have a responsibility to pay exactly what the market says they should pay for the value of the services being rendered.

This "living wage" claptrap is nothing more than redistributionist, class warfare rhetoric.

[BBatesokc]

Interesting. Do you think Walmart has some responsibility to pay its workers a more livable wage?

Their only responsibility is to their shareholders.

[onthestrip]

Absolutely not. They have a responsibility to pay exactly what the market says they should pay for the value of the services being rendered.

This "living wage" claptrap is nothing more than redistributionist, class warfare rhetoric.

Not when min wage hasnt kept up with inflation. Not when min wage was more valuable in 1960 than today, based on inflation. Not when worker productivity is much higher than it was in 1960. Not when education levels of min wage earners is much higher than it was 50 years ago. Not when corporate profits are at all time highs. And not when many min wage workers are adults with families and taxpayers end up subsidizing their income anyways in the form of public assistance.

Classic wealth redistribution is doing nothing about wages and allowing the top to collect more for themselves. Im not calling for $15/hr but the current min wage is simply out of whack with history and current living costs right now.

[Richard at Remax]

Their only responsibility is to their shareholders.

And as a shareholder the past five years it has been very rewarding. This is not a charity, it is a business.

[Stew]

I wonder how much more money the Walton family would have if it weren't for the wealth redistribution policies foisted on us by the liberals. It has to be tough for the aspiring billionaire these days.

[SoonerDave]

Not when min wage hasnt kept up with inflation. Not when min wage was more valuable in 1960 than today, based on inflation. Not when worker productivity is much higher than it was in 1960. Not when education levels of min wage earners is much higher than it was 50 years ago. Not when corporate profits are at all time highs. And not when many min wage workers are adults with families and taxpayers end up subsidizing their income anyways in the form of public assistance.

Walmart has absolutely *nothing* to do with those assertions. Nothing. And if you don't like the public assistance, you should be chief on the bandwagon to have it cut back, not enhanced. Your own argument makes a great case to suggest that if sub subsidies were eliminated, wages would go up because the company is factoring in that element in their market computation of wage value.

Classic wealth redistribution is doing nothing about wages and allowing the top to collect more for themselves. Im not calling for $15/hr but the current min wage is simply out of whack with history and current living costs right now.

Wealth redistribution is wealth redistribution; coloring it under a varying degrees of severity is merely a clever way to disguise means testing. Ultimately, it always boils down to "I think that guy has too much money, therefore he must evil. Confiscate his money over some magical threshhold and give it to someone under the magic threshhold."

Employer X, in response to shareholder equity, pays Employee Y what the market for widgets says Employee Y is worth. Period. Not about the relative "value" of min wage because the relative "value" of minimum wage is not the employer's responsibility. Not about "relative worker productivity" if the worker at Employer X hasn't really increased. Not about "employee education levels" if the education possessed is of no value to the employer. It is up to the employee to do what he can to gain the maximum salary and compensation possible and increase his value to the workforce, not vice-versa.

[Just the facts]

Why not just a flat tax proportionate to what everyone earns? Say 20% ... If you only earn $2000 a year, you pay $400 in taxes. If you earn $2M a year, you pay $400,000. I guess that's just too simple.

As far as the baseball goes, it should only get it's taxable value from the money he gets if he sells it, not what someone thinks it's worth.

Define 'income'?

If I have 1,000 shares of CompanyX stock and it goes up in value from $10 a share to $1,000 a share should I get a tax bill for the 'windfall profit' even if I haven't sold any shares? You would probably say no. What if I take out a $10,000,000 loan against the now $1,000,000 worth of shares (that I originally paid $10,000 for) and used the money to buy more stock, and then I used the dividends from the $10 million worth of stock to repay my loan and provide a means of living. Would you count any of that money as income?

Now let's say all this falls apart on me and my $1,000 stock goes back to $10 and the people loaning me the $10,000,000 want their money now. Should Congress bail me out?

[Mel]

Tax them too much and they will become tax exiles like many other countries have done to their 1%.

[Plutonic Panda]

I strive to be part of the 1% as should everyone that has a work ethic.

I agree with you.

[Just the facts]

Tax them too much and they will become tax exiles like many other countries have done to their 1%.

This is the problem we have. If the Walton family went to Bermuda and took their fortune with them it would be like losing the economic power of half the country. Maybe for national security reasons we shouldn't allow them to have such a large percentage of the nation's wealth. Seriously, they could collapse the country all by themselves.

[SoonerDave]

This is why we need to eliminate the income tax and just go with a wealth tax. Every person and company completes an annual 'net worth' statement and then pay taxes on that amount. If you live solely on cash flow and rent a place to live your taxes would be very low. If you live because your money makes you money you would pay a much higher amount.

How come if a person catches Barry Bonds homerun ball he instantly owes $200K in taxes, but if Walmart stock instantly goes up a few points the owners of Walmart stock don't get a tax bill. Weird how that works. I wonder who came up with these rules.

TaxProf Blog: More on Tax Consequences to Fan Catching Barry Bonds' 756th Home Run

If we post a bit more of that commentary, we find out that "not all tax experts agree with Barrie's legal assessment."

There is considerable discussion regarding what the realities of that situation are. And one little nugget that I just loved, and think carries a ton of weight, goes like this:

If the folks want to tax the ball on its value at the time it was caught, great. That ball, at the time it is caught, is about $15. Why? Because the fan catching the ball does so almost certainly before the runner scores (well, technically, before he crosses third base). The event that makes the ball valuable doesn't occur until after the fan takes possession of it. So he now has a perfectly legitimate claim to avoid sudden accession to wealth, and as one guy put it, "claim the $15 value on the tax return to start the statute of limitations clock running." (or words to that effect), and sell the ball with the notion of paying capital gains taxes on the subsequent home run.

As far as the wealth tax goes, that's a non-starter, because neither countries nor municipalities can make any intelligent plans on the "predictions" of wealth, nor does wealth imply liquidity of funds to make payments. So some poor soul gets stuck with a bill for, say, $1000 on the presumed "wealth value" of a non-liquid asset? Start doing that and people won't walk, they'll run away from investing in most any to-that-point healthy economy. Sadly, however, we already do "wealth taxation," here - we just call it "property taxes."

[onthestrip]

Walmart has absolutely *nothing* to do with those assertions. Nothing. And if you don't like the public assistance, you should be chief on the bandwagon to have it cut back, not enhanced. Your own argument makes a great case to suggest that if sub subsidies were eliminated, wages would go up because the company is factoring in that element in their market computation of wage value.



Wealth redistribution is wealth redistribution; coloring it under a varying degrees of severity is merely a clever way to disguise means testing. Ultimately, it always boils down to "I think that guy has too much money, therefore he must evil. Confiscate his money over some magical threshhold and give it to someone under the magic threshhold."

Employer X, in response to shareholder equity, pays Employee Y what the market for widgets says Employee Y is worth. Period. Not about the relative "value" of min wage because the relative "value" of minimum wage is not the employer's responsibility. Not about "relative worker productivity" if the worker at Employer X hasn't really increased. Not about "employee education levels" if the education possessed is of no value to the employer. It is up to the employee to do what he can to gain the maximum salary and compensation possible and increase his value to the workforce, not vice-versa.

No, they dont. Thats why govt should require a higher min wage and tie it to inflation. Im sure we will hear this from the Pres during his state of the union address tomorrow. As for the state level, Sen. McAffrey gas proposed a bill (SB1362) to raise it to $10/hr for state workers.