Walmart raising minimum wage, citing tax reform

[civvver]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...u-s-hourly-wage-to-11-in-wake-of-tax-overhaul

Walmart plans to increase their nation wide minimum wage to $11 an hour. Not sure what it was before but I think it was $10. Of course some states already have higher minimum wage rules. They are also giving away bonuses up to $1000, among other benefit increases. The say they are using the tax savings from the new tax plan to pay for it.

Apparently they aren't alone in doing this either. Att, wells fargo and some others have made similar announcements.

So remembering when some guy asked a bunch of executives if they would use the tax savings to hire or raise wages and no one raised their hands, and how everyone was convinced all the money would be used solely for stock buybacks and dividends benefiting investors, and ceo pay, is it safe to say we were wrong? Just a few examples so far but walmart is the largest private employer in the country.

Although you could argue they have drastically underpaid employees for so long and with unemployment under 5% they had to raise wages just to attract and retain people and this was inevitable.

Time will tell if this bill is good or not and if it actually sparks the economy as republicans preach about it or if it'll just saddle us with more debt, but it seems that when they said let's lowers taxes so companies can pay workers more they weren't 100% wrong.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yeah because Wal Mart is trying to avoid losing more workers to Amazon and comply with the huge states that are increasing minimum wage really doesn't prove that the tax bill is lifting wages across the board.

The onus is on you to prove that this is a more general trend rather than a specific reaction to specific problems. That they can credit the tax bill is just good PR.

 

[civvver]

I don't have to prove anything, I'm just posting articles for discussion. I said the same thing as you in my post.

Here's another article asking that very question, with a list of all the businesses citing the tax cut as reasons for raises or bonuses.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/business/corporate-tax-cut-bonuses-employees.html

It does seem to be a trend but I'm not totally convinced yet.

 

[rah]

Yes, I was heartened to hear that some companies are doing it but 7 isn't enough for me yet.
Comments like

Many of the large companies that have announced fatter future paychecks are also subject to close regulatory scrutiny.

make some of these slightly suspect and more like an attempt to curry favor.

And for every article I see that say some will pay, I see others that are denying that they will. It's still too early to tell.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Marketing. D'ump has performed as pitchman for the wealthiest, and now some of them are going to give him the tools to keep making their pitch. WalMart is feeling a lot of heat on a lot of fronts, so it isn't surprising they were chosen to 'take a bullet' to provide D'ump with an anecdote for his pitch. Same thing happened with Reagan, and forty years later people still believe that "trickle down worked under Reagan so we should give the rich even more." However, if you look at this well hidden thing called reality the only thing Reagan really accomplished was launching the gigantic expansion in the wealth accumulated by the elite few.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

They also increased wages in 2015 and 2016. Good sales and mounting pressure from labor campaigns and minimum wage campaigns meant the raises were a good PR move for them and that's why they did it. This is no different. But now they can suck up to the president by citing the tax cut. It likely had 0 effect. This is simply corporate schlobbering and trying to appease the president, his base, and workers all at the same time by doing the bare minimum and getting in front of the news to look good. The NYT, which has been increasingly positive in regards to Trump, will of course report it as such, as will a lot of mainstream media that derives clicks and eyeballs from tying stuff to Trump. But this is basically an annual thing for Walmart.

 

[rah]

You can't thrash THE Reagan like that. Oh the horror. All those rich people eventually had to buy bigger houses and bigger boats and you know who got paid to build them?

 

[Commodore]

This is simply corporate schlobbering and trying to appease the president, his base, and workers all at the same time by doing the bare minimum and getting in front of the news to look good

If it results in higher wages for the workers, does their motivation for doing it really matter? Who cares if they are only doing it to suck up to Trump? At the end of the day, Walmart's workers are still going to have more money in their pockets and that's a good thing.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

If it results in higher wages for the workers, does their motivation for doing it really matter? Who cares if they are only doing it to suck up to Trump? At the end of the day, Walmart's workers are still going to have more money in their pockets and that's a good thing.

It is good insomuch as it is a raise. But I would hesitate to give credit to a corporation that has been so antagonistic to unionization, full time workers and the requisite benefits, or even just, like, a decent wage in general. This only came about because of outside actors. Walmart would probably like to pay people $2 an hour. I am glad for the workers. That the angle of this is one of a benevolent corporation is what's getting reported is frustrating.

 

[Commodore]

That the angle of this is one of a benevolent corporation is what's getting reported is frustrating.

Hey, that's just how it is. Modern journalism is nothing more than glorified corporate marketing anyway, so you really can't expect too much in the way of accurate reporting from the media.

I choose to focus on the positive. This is a victory for the workers, and not just because they are getting a raise. It is a victory because it goes to show the workers have put enough pressure on Walmart to make them feel like they have to try to portray themselves as a benevolent corporation which forced them to give a little more to the workers. This whole thing shows exactly how to manipulate corporations into giving you what you want. Hopefully the labor movement in the US has taken notes and will exploit these lessons in the future.

 

[Synobun]

This is the same company that tells its workers to sign on for welfare because they're unwilling to provide enough hours or pay for self-sufficiency. That they are using the tax plan as a cover to blunt their unethical behaviour is problematic for several reasons.

One, it's portrayed as though they "didn't have to" and that this is them doing their employees a solid. It isn't. They do the bare minimum to maintain the inertia of their retail position while enjoying ever-expanding profits.

Two, it's portrayed as though Trump et al's collaboration to cripple the tax system a little more is an actual benefit to the economy. It isn't. This will convince people that the propaganda is true and that's not really something to shrug one's shoulders at.

Three, it's portrayed as though this is a victory for workers. It isn't. This will play right into the hands of the "economic anxiety" bellyaching that was used to justify voting for Trump even though the 'winners' in this equation are not winners at all. They'll enjoy a slight increase in wages to distract them from the problems. An extra dollar an hour will be helpful but they shouldn't be in this scenario to begin with. If Walmart were a strapped and restricted organization that is doing its best by its people, it would be another story. They, however, do not fit that mould.

Four, it's portrayed as though they couldn't do this without the economic pandering by the Republicans. This isn't true. Walmart maintains exceptional profits (even with their latest drop in physical retail profits) and is more than capable of paying their employees a better wage and without circumventing benefit regulations. They can do this without bankrupting their shareholders and investors, they just choose not to. Personal wealth for the top echelon is more important than the welfare of those beneath.

You can choose to focus on the positive, but you would be choosing a lie. Anyone who reads this story and emphatically declares the tax bill a success is not only fooling themselves, but gleefully lapping up the lies delivered to you by the Republicans.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Hey, that's just how it is. Modern journalism is nothing more than glorified corporate marketing anyway, so you really can't expect too much in the way of accurate reporting from the media.

Where is the inaccuracy? They report that WalMart is doing what they are in fact doing. They report that WalMart says they are doing it because X, and in fact WalMart does in fact say they are doing it because X. I think the vast majority of media is making sure that nothing in their reporting indicates they are giving WalMart's claim any credence, but without a probably impossible investigation they can't outright call it a lie.

So the "modern journalism" that justifies being called out on this would be such paragons as Faux News or Breitbart. In those venues the reporting of what WalMart says is delivered as if it has been somehow verified as gospel truth, followed by some "hail to our glorious leader for bringing this to the ungrateful liberals who work at WalMart" analysis. If you are going to attack "modern journalism" in broad strokes, you are making the problem worse, not better.

 

[warpus]

They're trying to improve their image. This investment costs them money, yes, but brand image is important and worth investing into. They are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, this is a well calculated move that is meant to benefit the company in the long run.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They're trying to improve their image. This investment costs them money, yes, but brand image is important and worth investing into. They are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, this is a well calculated move that is meant to benefit the company in the long run.

Precisely. It also is an "off the books" campaign contribution to Republican candidates that they want to thank for giving them the big money.

My beleaguered congressman is already buzzing this as evidence of the 'great work' he and his fellow Republicans did. Unfortunately for him his opposition is already pointing out that nowhere in his district is the minimum wage not already higher than the new WalMart minimum, so no difference was actually made for the people he is supposed to be representing.

 

[Commodore]

Where is the inaccuracy?

The inaccuracy, as pointed out by GoodEnoughForMe, is in the focus of the reporting. The reporting is focusing on Walmart's claim, which, whether intended or not, gives credence to the claim. You know, it's the whole "keep repeating a lie until people believe it" thing. By repeating Walmart's reasoning, even if it is a relevant fact to the report, Walmart gets free publicity and helps them perpetuate their propaganda until it is eventually accepted as truth.

So the "modern journalism" that justifies being called out on this would be such paragons as Faux News or Breitbart.

Yeah, you're not going to get any argument from me on that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The inaccuracy, as pointed out by GoodEnoughForMe, is in the focus of the reporting. The reporting is focusing on Walmart's claim, which, whether intended or not, gives credence to the claim. You know, it's the whole "keep repeating a lie until people believe it" thing. By repeating Walmart's reasoning, even if it is a relevant fact to the report, Walmart gets free publicity and helps them perpetuate their propaganda until it is eventually accepted as truth.

I just don't see any way out of the trap. To say "WalMart announced they are giving this raise" and actively omit the rest of the statement made by WalMart regarding their reasons would be bad journalism, because it would be incomplete. It would also effectively leave the field completely open to the Faux News or Breitbart types, who really are wildly endorsing WalMart's claims.

I would expect that after a sufficient time to do actual journalism we will see detailed analysis of how much the tax cut dropped into the pockets of Waltons, as compared to what is being dropped into WalMart employee pockets, and some other factual reporting that will cast doubts on WalMart's claims. But to just open the story with "WalMart gives raises, lies about reasons in order to make Republicans look good" requires investigation to back it up, and investigation takes time.

 

[Commodore]

To say "WalMart announced they are giving this raise" and actively omit the rest of the statement made by WalMart regarding their reasons would be bad journalism,

I didn't say the report was bad journalism, I said it just serves as free marketing for Walmart.

 

[rah]

I expect Fox to come out and hair-brain calculate 2.3 million emp * 1 dollar an hour (10-11 even though it won't impact all) * 40 (even though a lot aren't full time) * 52 weeks (even though they have seasonal employees and end up saying that Walmart will be passing on over 4 billions to it's employees this year along. Thanks Donald.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I expect Fox to come out and hair-brain calculate 2.3 million emp * 1 dollar an hour (10-11 even though it won't impact all) * 40 (even though a lot aren't full time) * 52 weeks (even though they have seasonal employees and end up saying that Walmart will be passing on over 4 billions to it's employees this year along. Thanks Donald.

LOL...have they not already? They must be slipping. As I said, my beleaguered congressman has already been trying to "make hay while the sun shines" with this one. Of course he is saying "thanks Republicans in congress, like meeeeeee!"

 

[rah]

Of Course that report would probably be almost true but most of that 4 billion will to the officers of the company.