This is just hilarious!
I'm trying to figure out how either of those articles support your claims.
The first articles says:
Investment analysts and store managers say Wal-Mart executives have told them the company wants to transform its work force to 40 percent part-time from 20 percent. Wal-Mart denies it has a goal of 40 percent part-time workers, although company officials say that part-timers now make up 25 percent to 30 percent of workers, up from 20 percent last October.
The 2nd one says: "The majority of Wal-Mart jobs are currently full time
article supports your claim that "the vast majority of their staff is part-time," quite the opposite in fact. Neither
article is claiming that those who work part-time are paid the minimum wage (which was your implication).
You'll also note that these articles point out Wal-Mart's efforts to provide inexpensive medical insurance plans for full and part time employees.
You'll also note that when wages do
rise (whether by market conditions or law) employers have other tactics at their disposal that doesn't mean everyone will automatically get paid more. Sometimes hours will be reduced, etc. Certainly people who, because of their current skill and experience levels, are not employable at the higher wages will not be employed at all. This is something I've been trying to get you to see all along. In fact in this post
, I specifically asked you about this and you never answered.
Finally these articles give some insight, that is often overlooked, into the fact that employers do (and everyone else should) look at the total
compensation paid (wages + benefits) not just wages.
Originally Posted by tonton
I am implying that, but apparently I could be wrong about that...
Originally Posted by tonton
That is without a doubt.
In you mind, yes.
A different, and perhaps more realistic way to look at this Wal-mart initiative is as a bald move to get government to sit on their competition. After all, as its wage rates creep up, as is typical in more established companies, they are vulnerable to competitors gaining advantage over them by paying lower wages. If Wal-mart gets the government to set the minimum wage closer to the wage rates it pays, it eliminates the possibility of this competitor strategy. Besides, a higher minimum wage would surely put more low-skilled people out of work, increasing the pool of people Wal-mart can hire
That is exactly the reasoning I've already given. I've even posted other articles that point out this same reasoning. P.S. I read this blog post 2-3 years ago.
$8.00: Approximate nationwide average hourly wage for Wal-Mart employees
And that was from 7 years ago, well before the minimum wage was raise to its current level of $7.25. So 7 years ago, on average, Wal-Mart was paying more than the minimum wage is today. Note this one also:
$6.25: Starting wage for a cashier at the Wal-Mart Supercenter in Salina, Kansas, 2003
This was 7-8 years ago also when the minimum wage was $5.15.
All of this seems to cast a great deal of doubt on your claims that Wal-Mart would automatically pay everyone less absent a minimum wage law.