6 comments in reply to "Walmart announces its own wage bump…who pays for that?"

  1. Jill SH says:

    The Company Store Redux.

    1. Management raised pay so most of employees can pay off all the stuff they have on lay-away, or so they can buy more stuff in the store, since Walmart is probably the only place they can afford to shop.

    2. By Walmart raising this wage now, the political effect is that it blunts the push for a higher national minimum wage — free marketeers can say “See, the market will take care of itself!” When even the wage of $10/hr is not a liveable wage.

    Anyway you look at it, Walmart benefits without really changing anything.

    Let’s see how this plays out.


  2. Richard Solomon says:

    A minimum wage is not a LIVABLE wage. Here in Calif, it is estimated that people need to earn $15/hour in order to be able to afford to live here.

    Neither does Walmart offer its ‘associates’ reasonably affordable health care insurance. So us taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart via the cost of Medicaid, etc.

    When it does both of these things, it’ll deserve some kudos….as well as my wife and l shopping there. Until then, we will view it with cynicism and spend our cash at Costco where they treat their employees more fairly.


  3. Fred Donaldson says:

    The bad publicity by “Fight for 15” and efforts by other groups has impacted the public’s opinion (and hurt buying habits) of McDonald’s, Walmart and other such low-paying firms. Walmart sales in the past year in this country have not lived up to expectations. The management knows the reason, but would never admit it. The Walmart increase is good PR and a slight positive for employees, but not enough of an increase to relieve the taxpayer of EITC, food stamps and other government corporate subsidies to the seriously underpaid. The battle for $15 an hour and 40 hours a week has just begin, and this Walmart breakthrough is a sliver of sunshine.


  4. Tom in MN says:

    I’m happy to pay for it in the prices I pay. I might even consider shopping there if they follow through with this.


  5. Smith says:

    Good that more focus and attention is being given to wages vs. that other source of money which really is mostly of benefit to the rich, namely tax cuts.

    Not one, but two op-ed pieces in today’s Times focus on wages and the inadequacy of centrist solutions of very serious people, often supported by Republicans and Democrats and this blog.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/23/opinion/even-better-than-a-tax-cut.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/23/opinion/paul-krugman-knowledge-isnt-power.html
    The summary of the above is that neither education nor tax cuts are the solution to stagnant wages. Instead the solution is, big surprise here, higher wages.

    Below are my previous comments decrying attempts to substitute progressive policy with Republican light (increased cuts and credits vs. actual programs, labor policy and expenditures)

    Feb 5
    http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/the-policy-goal-whose-name-must-not-be-spoken/#comment-2148554
    Targeted tax credits and deductions are highly wasteful, speculative, and conservative, a form of privatizing public functions, as if it was a good idea ending public education with school vouchers, or medicare with health vouchers.

    Jan 14
    http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/rep-chris-van-hollens-bold-attack-on-inequality/#comment-2148438
    The bad thing is the the truly progressive programs it supplants, where middle and lower classes might find common cause, and the grand illusion of aiding the middle class with Reaganomics, tax cuts.
    When the family’s income stagnates a few years, they’ve already lost more than they gained from the tax cuts.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.