Tucker Carlson criticizes Amazon and Wall Mart for providing low wages to Workers

[Stonewall_Jack]

I do not always agree with Carlson. All of America owes thanks to Mr Carlson though and Fox News for the following videos and others where Carlson brings up the plight of the working man and the struggle of the middle class.

Carlson pointed out how Wealthy Americans have a duty to give back...and that is precisely what great American men like Henry Ford did. And get this Ford was one of the wealthiest people of human history.

There is work to be done. The leaders of the USA have the ability to bring back industry and to therefore bring America back to the greatness that it once experienced.

[Cambronnne]

I thought it odd that Carlson would say something like: " Wealthy Americans have a duty to give back." so I listened to his clip.
Interestingly, he never said anything like that.
He did say that the 3 businesses in question could afford to pay their employees more, and that the tax payer was actually, in essence, subsidizing those businesses. That is a valid point, but at no point did he say "wealthy Americans have a duty to give back".

[American87]

We don't know much wealthy individuals (worth $50 Million+) give to charitable causes. The Giving Pledge is a group of America's wealthiest individuals who decided to give most of their wealth away to Charity. It was fouded by Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, and the website can be found here: https://givingpledge.org

A strong desire to help others through charitable giving can also be a motive for acquiring wealth. It certainly has more sustainable power than buying another Rolls Royce. Curing cancer, feeding the poor, or even sponsoring archaeological digs at historic sites are all possible motives for acquiring vast wealth.

That being said, the Walton family, that owns Wal-Mart, has historicaly been stingy with their profits. But with their business model-providing affordable food to low income families and individuals-does require a certain cap on wages. I don't know the math, but let's say they use their own profits to pay higher wages-how much, on average, will the bump in workers wages be?

This article explored the question back in 2010: https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-employees-pay

Back then, Wal-Mart employed 1.4 million people in the US. It paid the average "associate," which I take it means in-store employee, $11.75 an hour, which was more than the minumum wage of $7.25. It was only slightly less than average income for all retail employees at the time, $12.04. A single WalMart employee made $20,744 a year, which was below the $22,000 poverty line. But a dual-income household of WalMart employees would have made $41,488 a year, which in many parts of the country is sufficient to live a middle-class economic lifestyle.

The Waltons can probably afford to pay their employees the national retail average. They can probably afford to pay higher than the average. But there's no laws punishing them for not doing it. Perhaps they're just stingy. But also, Wal-Mart employs so many people and has weathered the recession well because it sells necessary and even luxury goods at a cheap price. People will ALWAYS go to Wal-Mart because they get things cheaply, and they get what they want. At some point, increasing employee wages would force WalMart to up its prices, and then the jobs will start to go.

[TactiKill J.]

If the pay is too low it'll be best to work somewhere else. If WalMart struggles to bring in workers, they'll be forced to raise their wages in order to compete.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

In a free country, people are allowed to do what they want with their money. But there will always be bigots who want to deny the freedom of others.

[TacCovert4]

If the pay is too low it'll be best to work somewhere else. If WalMart struggles to bring in workers, they'll be forced to raise their wages in order to compete.

The problem with Wal-Mart is that its model trends towards pushing out competition. That and Wal-Mart doesn't care about the quality of its workforce, which means that it can pretty much always find someone willing to do the job for whatever they'll pay.

If Wal-Mart is paying and benefiting its full-time employees to a point that the Taxpayer has to subsidize said employees simply to have basics, I have some issue with that. I'm presuming a single person that doesn't have a whole host of children here. I would consider that to be bordering on fraud against the society at large. Of course if it's their part-time employees, well the point of a part-time job is that you need 2 or more to equal a full-time job. Can't really complain that Wal-Mart is abusing the system in that case.

And as for Wal-Mart being affordable.....they're very good at marketing. I've noticed over the years that their prices really aren't that low when compared to competitors. And especially once Wal-Mart has a corner on a local market their prices go right back up to what their now defunct competitors have. If you want low-cost food, go to Aldi....not walmart.

[T. A. Gardner]

The problem with Wal-Mart is that its model trends towards pushing out competition. That and Wal-Mart doesn't care about the quality of its workforce, which means that it can pretty much always find someone willing to do the job for whatever they'll pay.

If Wal-Mart is paying and benefiting its full-time employees to a point that the Taxpayer has to subsidize said employees simply to have basics, I have some issue with that. I'm presuming a single person that doesn't have a whole host of children here. I would consider that to be bordering on fraud against the society at large. Of course if it's their part-time employees, well the point of a part-time job is that you need 2 or more to equal a full-time job. Can't really complain that Wal-Mart is abusing the system in that case.

And as for Wal-Mart being affordable.....they're very good at marketing. I've noticed over the years that their prices really aren't that low when compared to competitors. And especially once Wal-Mart has a corner on a local market their prices go right back up to what their now defunct competitors have. If you want low-cost food, go to Aldi....not walmart.

WalMart is gaming the system. They didn't create the social-welfare state, they just took advantage of it. As a business needing low skill employees for the most part, and one that wants to keep prices low, that seems like good business sense to me. I bet this sort of thing is rampant in Europe with employers. Why shouldn't it be? If the state is generous to a fault with OPM and supporting low income persons, shouldn't business take advantage of that, particularly since they also pay considerable amounts of taxes to support it?

Seems fair to me. Government wants to squeeze lots of money out of businesses to support their social welfare state, so businesses deliberately low ball worker wages and encourage them to get on government programs they in part are paying for. It's just one more example of how Socialism is a fail.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

The problem with Wal-Mart is that its model trends towards pushing out competition. That and Wal-Mart doesn't care about the quality of its workforce, which means that it can pretty much always find someone willing to do the job for whatever they'll pay.

If Wal-Mart is paying and benefiting its full-time employees to a point that the Taxpayer has to subsidize said employees simply to have basics, I have some issue with that. I'm presuming a single person that doesn't have a whole host of children here. I would consider that to be bordering on fraud against the society at large. Of course if it's their part-time employees, well the point of a part-time job is that you need 2 or more to equal a full-time job. Can't really complain that Wal-Mart is abusing the system in that case.

And as for Wal-Mart being affordable.....they're very good at marketing. I've noticed over the years that their prices really aren't that low when compared to competitors. And especially once Wal-Mart has a corner on a local market their prices go right back up to what their now defunct competitors have. If you want low-cost food, go to Aldi....not walmart.

Aldi? Those are horrible around here. The tanding joke is that thery are never robbed because they never get cash.

Wal Mart hires unskilled labor for the most part, and unskilled labor is dead weight these days.They transitioning to self-check, pre-shop, driverless delivery, and automated stocking systems; in a couple years they will only have management and skilled maintenance people.

In the next 25 years 30% of all jobs are going to cease to exist.

[TacCovert4]

Around here Aldi is a relatively new grocer, and they have the best produce outside of harris teeter or publix. Not to mention cheaper than wal-mart.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Around here Aldi is a relatively new grocer, and they have the best produce outside of harris teeter or publix. Not to mention cheaper than wal-mart.

Here its Lone Star (food stamps) central. Crappy produce, weird brands, old meat, and none of the staff are in the country legally.

It's a good place to sit outside and check for warrants.

[Surrey]

If you do a low skilled job you aren't going to be paid much. That's life. Anyone can do your job.
if you want to be paid more you have to train and study and obtain a skill that is in demand.
Wal Mart, Aldi etc aren't charities. If they didn't pay the going rate they wouldn't be able to hire people.

[Gixxer86g]

Right now, my company is competitive. But a $15 an hour minimum wage will destroy that. We will be forced to fire our drivers and adopt a delivery service. PDQ will no longer mean parts delivered quickly. No charts or liberal excuses will change that.

[Half Pint John]

If the pay is too low it'll be best to work somewhere else. If WalMart struggles to bring in workers, they'll be forced to raise their wages in order to compete.

In some rual areas there isn't a lot of places for employment and take what you can.

As merican 87 said, the government should have to provide Food Stamp to people working. Wal-Mart, Amazon and others are parasites with the gov paying for the low wages.

[Half Pint John]

We don't know much wealthy individuals (worth $50 Million+) give to charitable causes. The Giving Pledge is a group of America's wealthiest individuals who decided to give most of their wealth away to Charity. It was fouded by Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, and the website can be found here: https://givingpledge.org

A strong desire to help others through charitable giving can also be a motive for acquiring wealth. It certainly has more sustainable power than buying another Rolls Royce. Curing cancer, feeding the poor, or even sponsoring archaeological digs at historic sites are all possible motives for acquiring vast wealth.

That being said, the Walton family, that owns Wal-Mart, has historicaly been stingy with their profits. But with their business model-providing affordable food to low income families and individuals-does require a certain cap on wages. I don't know the math, but let's say they use their own profits to pay higher wages-how much, on average, will the bump in workers wages be?

This article explored the question back in 2010: https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-employees-pay

Back then, Wal-Mart employed 1.4 million people in the US. It paid the average "associate," which I take it means in-store employee, $11.75 an hour, which was more than the minumum wage of $7.25. It was only slightly less than average income for all retail employees at the time, $12.04. A single WalMart employee made $20,744 a year, which was below the $22,000 poverty line. But a dual-income household of WalMart employees would have made $41,488 a year, which in many parts of the country is sufficient to live a middle-class economic lifestyle.

The Waltons can probably afford to pay their employees the national retail average. They can probably afford to pay higher than the average. But there's no laws punishing them for not doing it. Perhaps they're just stingy. But also, Wal-Mart employs so many people and has weathered the recession well because it sells necessary and even luxury goods at a cheap price. People will ALWAYS go to Wal-Mart because they get things cheaply, and they get what they want. At some point, increasing employee wages would force WalMart to up its prices, and then the jobs will start to go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvxNgdFeWqM

LUXURY GOODS

[Arnold J Rimmer]

If you do a low skilled job you aren't going to be paid much. That's life. Anyone can do your job.
if you want to be paid more you have to train and study and obtain a skill that is in demand.
Wal Mart, Aldi etc aren't charities. If they didn't pay the going rate they wouldn't be able to hire people.

Gixxer86g[/B] ]Right now, my company is competitive. But a $15 an hour minimum wage will destroy that. We will be forced to fire our drivers and adopt a delivery service. PDQ will no longer mean parts delivered quickly. No charts or liberal excuses will change that.

Two excellent points.

The government cannot change what is happening. It cannot give value to unskilled labor, and it cannot change the fact that we live in a global economy.

The reason why mom & pop establishments have died out is the same reason buggy-makers ceased being a major industry: technology changed.

Wal Mart will be fighting to survive as technology takes the next turn; they are already preparing for the end of walk-in stores and the transition to Net-based shopping. The day is dawning where a self-driven car will arrive in your driveway; you will use you phone to unlock it's trunk, and remove your groceries. That isn't theory: it is a program already being tested.

They won't need cashiers, they won't need cart-wranglers, they won't need shelf-stockers, they won't need cleaning crews.

The world is changing.