(01-11-2018 01:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:02 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:54 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:52 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:46 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  Closing down Sam's Clubs that are losing money is a business decision. Paying employees more because they see the labor supply/market becoming a bit more competitive because of the corporate tax law changes is different.

Or, it's just a PR game. Another article I read said that the raises came along with a rollout of their new "mobile checkout." You can bet some store employees were laid off from that.

Then, there's also this in relation to corporate level Wal-Mart jobs: http://fortune.com/2017/01/10/walmart-jobs-layoffs/

So basically, Wal-Mart didn't make a big announcement re: their layoffs and closures, but tried to make a big splash with the raise/bonus announcement to offset.

PR or not, they are not related.

It's all about a bottom line - of course they're related.

Announce the spun "good news" while the bad is happening:

-higher pay & a small bonus!
(knowing full well most wal-mart hourly employees haven't been there for long periods of time, so the $200 bonuses are more frequent than the $1000 ones)

meanwhile:
-closed stores
-layoffs at corporate
-reduction of hours to absorb a small percentage of employees from closed stores.

It's ALL related.

Of course it’s about the bottom line. WTF should it be about?

There’s nothing wrong with being about the bottom line. It forces businesses to provide what people want at a reasonable price. And knowing that it will be about the bottom line is a useful tool in making policy. You want more investment, growth, and jobs in the USA? Make the USA a more profitable place to do business.

I don't disagree. Unlike some people, I actually like the way Walmart does business.

If they are giving everyone a raise, I think that's great.

My only issue is with the notion that this decision was 100% because of tax reform.

Tigergreen is your typical midtown Memphis liberal. They are kinda like Californians where the laws of physics, economics, and mathematics do not apply.

(01-11-2018 01:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:02 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:54 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:52 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:46 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  Closing down Sam's Clubs that are losing money is a business decision. Paying employees more because they see the labor supply/market becoming a bit more competitive because of the corporate tax law changes is different.

Or, it's just a PR game. Another article I read said that the raises came along with a rollout of their new "mobile checkout." You can bet some store employees were laid off from that.

Then, there's also this in relation to corporate level Wal-Mart jobs: http://fortune.com/2017/01/10/walmart-jobs-layoffs/

So basically, Wal-Mart didn't make a big announcement re: their layoffs and closures, but tried to make a big splash with the raise/bonus announcement to offset.

PR or not, they are not related.

It's all about a bottom line - of course they're related.

Announce the spun "good news" while the bad is happening:

-higher pay & a small bonus!
(knowing full well most wal-mart hourly employees haven't been there for long periods of time, so the $200 bonuses are more frequent than the $1000 ones)

meanwhile:
-closed stores
-layoffs at corporate
-reduction of hours to absorb a small percentage of employees from closed stores.

It's ALL related.

Of course it’s about the bottom line. WTF should it be about?

There’s nothing wrong with being about the bottom line. It forces businesses to provide what people want at a reasonable price. And knowing that it will be about the bottom line is a useful tool in making policy. You want more investment, growth, and jobs in the USA? Make the USA a more profitable place to do business.

There's nothing wrong with it being about the bottom line, until you look at how these practices affect the people who are actually shopping at Wal-Mart.

Someone mentioned earlier that Sam's was more of a suburban, higher-income place to shop. Wal-Mart is the direct opposite of that. You cut hours and/or jobs for hourly employees, they'll spend less at places like Wal-Mart, and around and around we go.

If Wal-Mart wants to do this, by all means, have at it, but let's not kid ourselves that it's about tax reform. It's about saving a buck (a likely short-sighted one for end of FY reporting, since their FY ends 1/31), and saving face with a splashy PR move that doesn't amount to much while doing it.

(01-11-2018 01:17 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  Tigergreen is your typical midtown Memphis liberal. They are kinda like Californians where the laws of physics, economics, and mathematics do not apply.

...and that's a typical you have no counter-argument, so-I'll-resort-to-thinly-veiled-insults response.

(01-11-2018 01:19 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:02 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:54 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:52 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  Or, it's just a PR game. Another article I read said that the raises came along with a rollout of their new "mobile checkout." You can bet some store employees were laid off from that.

Then, there's also this in relation to corporate level Wal-Mart jobs: http://fortune.com/2017/01/10/walmart-jobs-layoffs/

So basically, Wal-Mart didn't make a big announcement re: their layoffs and closures, but tried to make a big splash with the raise/bonus announcement to offset.

PR or not, they are not related.

It's all about a bottom line - of course they're related.

Announce the spun "good news" while the bad is happening:

-higher pay & a small bonus!
(knowing full well most wal-mart hourly employees haven't been there for long periods of time, so the $200 bonuses are more frequent than the $1000 ones)

meanwhile:
-closed stores
-layoffs at corporate
-reduction of hours to absorb a small percentage of employees from closed stores.

It's ALL related.

Of course it’s about the bottom line. WTF should it be about?

There’s nothing wrong with being about the bottom line. It forces businesses to provide what people want at a reasonable price. And knowing that it will be about the bottom line is a useful tool in making policy. You want more investment, growth, and jobs in the USA? Make the USA a more profitable place to do business.

There's nothing wrong with it being about the bottom line, until you look at how these practices affect the people who are actually shopping at Wal-Mart.

Someone mentioned earlier that Sam's was more of a suburban, higher-income place to shop. Wal-Mart is the direct opposite of that. You cut hours and/or jobs for hourly employees, they'll spend less at places like Wal-Mart, and around and around we go.

Which is why I have said all along if you want to stimulate the economy, give the biggest tax cuts to the lowest income people. They will spend the money quickly and stimulate the economy faster. Unfortunately, the Republicans once again have it bass ackwards and insist that trickle down works.

(01-11-2018 01:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:19 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:02 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:54 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  PR or not, they are not related.

It's all about a bottom line - of course they're related.

Announce the spun "good news" while the bad is happening:

-higher pay & a small bonus!
(knowing full well most wal-mart hourly employees haven't been there for long periods of time, so the $200 bonuses are more frequent than the $1000 ones)

meanwhile:
-closed stores
-layoffs at corporate
-reduction of hours to absorb a small percentage of employees from closed stores.

It's ALL related.

Of course it’s about the bottom line. WTF should it be about?

There’s nothing wrong with being about the bottom line. It forces businesses to provide what people want at a reasonable price. And knowing that it will be about the bottom line is a useful tool in making policy. You want more investment, growth, and jobs in the USA? Make the USA a more profitable place to do business.

There's nothing wrong with it being about the bottom line, until you look at how these practices affect the people who are actually shopping at Wal-Mart.

Someone mentioned earlier that Sam's was more of a suburban, higher-income place to shop. Wal-Mart is the direct opposite of that. You cut hours and/or jobs for hourly employees, they'll spend less at places like Wal-Mart, and around and around we go.

Which is why I have said all along if you want to stimulate the economy, give the biggest tax cuts to the lowest income people. They will spend the money quickly and stimulate the economy faster. Unfortunately, the Republicans once again have it bass ackwards and insist that trickle down works.

Tell me once again how you give a tax cut to someone who has a net-zero tax reliability?

(01-11-2018 01:26 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:19 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:02 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  It's all about a bottom line - of course they're related.

Announce the spun "good news" while the bad is happening:

-higher pay & a small bonus!
(knowing full well most wal-mart hourly employees haven't been there for long periods of time, so the $200 bonuses are more frequent than the $1000 ones)

meanwhile:
-closed stores
-layoffs at corporate
-reduction of hours to absorb a small percentage of employees from closed stores.

It's ALL related.

Of course it’s about the bottom line. WTF should it be about?

There’s nothing wrong with being about the bottom line. It forces businesses to provide what people want at a reasonable price. And knowing that it will be about the bottom line is a useful tool in making policy. You want more investment, growth, and jobs in the USA? Make the USA a more profitable place to do business.

There's nothing wrong with it being about the bottom line, until you look at how these practices affect the people who are actually shopping at Wal-Mart.

Someone mentioned earlier that Sam's was more of a suburban, higher-income place to shop. Wal-Mart is the direct opposite of that. You cut hours and/or jobs for hourly employees, they'll spend less at places like Wal-Mart, and around and around we go.

Which is why I have said all along if you want to stimulate the economy, give the biggest tax cuts to the lowest income people. They will spend the money quickly and stimulate the economy faster. Unfortunately, the Republicans once again have it bass ackwards and insist that trickle down works.

Tell me once again how you give a tax cut to someone who has a net-zero tax reliability?

You don't. I was referring to those who actually pay taxes.

(01-11-2018 01:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Which is why I have said all along if you want to stimulate the economy, give the biggest tax cuts to the lowest income people.

The lowest income people don't pay federal income taxes fit! How do you cut nothing? Nearly a half of Americans don't pay federal income tax.

Quote:They will spend the money quickly and stimulate the economy faster.

Do you think the rich stuff money in their mattress, or do they invest it which is just as, if not more, productive then spending money in the store.

(01-11-2018 01:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:26 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:19 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Of course it’s about the bottom line. WTF should it be about?

There’s nothing wrong with being about the bottom line. It forces businesses to provide what people want at a reasonable price. And knowing that it will be about the bottom line is a useful tool in making policy. You want more investment, growth, and jobs in the USA? Make the USA a more profitable place to do business.

There's nothing wrong with it being about the bottom line, until you look at how these practices affect the people who are actually shopping at Wal-Mart.

Someone mentioned earlier that Sam's was more of a suburban, higher-income place to shop. Wal-Mart is the direct opposite of that. You cut hours and/or jobs for hourly employees, they'll spend less at places like Wal-Mart, and around and around we go.

Which is why I have said all along if you want to stimulate the economy, give the biggest tax cuts to the lowest income people. They will spend the money quickly and stimulate the economy faster. Unfortunately, the Republicans once again have it bass ackwards and insist that trickle down works.

Tell me once again how you give a tax cut to someone who has a net-zero tax reliability?

You don't. I was referring to those who actually pay taxes.

The low income earners who pay federal income tax are the ones to see the greatest percentage reduction of their taxes under Trumps plan. Sounds like you should be a staunch supporter of it.

Quote:The lowest income people don't pay federal income taxes fit! How do you cut nothing? Nearly a half of Americans don't pay federal income tax.

I know that. Obviously, I was talking about the one's who pay taxes.

Quote:Do you think the rich stuff money in their mattress, or do they invest it which is just as, if not more, productive then spending money in the store.

Of course they don't Some of them buy gold or invest in the stock market. The point is that a rich person isn't likely to go right out and buy a TV like a poor person might.

There is a reason why it's called "Trickle Down" because it takes a long time.

(01-11-2018 02:13 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

Quote:The lowest income people don't pay federal income taxes fit! How do you cut nothing? Nearly a half of Americans don't pay federal income tax.

I know that. Obviously, I was talking about the one's who pay taxes.

Which means, right off the bat, you're already talking about the top half of wage earning Americans.... And I still put it to you that someone in the 50th percentile pays next to nothing compared to someone in the 95th percentile.

Quote:[quote]Do you think the rich stuff money in their mattress, or do they invest it which is just as, if not more, productive then spending money in the store.

Of course they don't Some of them buy gold or invest in the stock market. The point is that a rich person isn't likely to go right out and buy a TV like a poor person might. [quote]

No a rich person is more likely to give money to a TV manufacturer via stocks that will be used to give a poor person a job.

(01-11-2018 01:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:19 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:02 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:54 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  PR or not, they are not related.

It's all about a bottom line - of course they're related.

Announce the spun "good news" while the bad is happening:

-higher pay & a small bonus!
(knowing full well most wal-mart hourly employees haven't been there for long periods of time, so the $200 bonuses are more frequent than the $1000 ones)

meanwhile:
-closed stores
-layoffs at corporate
-reduction of hours to absorb a small percentage of employees from closed stores.

It's ALL related.

Of course it’s about the bottom line. WTF should it be about?

There’s nothing wrong with being about the bottom line. It forces businesses to provide what people want at a reasonable price. And knowing that it will be about the bottom line is a useful tool in making policy. You want more investment, growth, and jobs in the USA? Make the USA a more profitable place to do business.

There's nothing wrong with it being about the bottom line, until you look at how these practices affect the people who are actually shopping at Wal-Mart.

Someone mentioned earlier that Sam's was more of a suburban, higher-income place to shop. Wal-Mart is the direct opposite of that. You cut hours and/or jobs for hourly employees, they'll spend less at places like Wal-Mart, and around and around we go.

Which is why I have said all along if you want to stimulate the economy, give the biggest tax cuts to the lowest income people. They will spend the money quickly and stimulate the economy faster. Unfortunately, the Republicans once again have it bass ackwards and insist that trickle down works.

Except you keep forgetting that the lowest income people already pay $0 in income taxes. Are you suggesting that those that pay $0 in taxes should have their welfare checks increased??

(01-11-2018 01:19 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:02 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:54 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:52 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  Or, it's just a PR game. Another article I read said that the raises came along with a rollout of their new "mobile checkout." You can bet some store employees were laid off from that.

Then, there's also this in relation to corporate level Wal-Mart jobs: http://fortune.com/2017/01/10/walmart-jobs-layoffs/

So basically, Wal-Mart didn't make a big announcement re: their layoffs and closures, but tried to make a big splash with the raise/bonus announcement to offset.

PR or not, they are not related.

It's all about a bottom line - of course they're related.

Announce the spun "good news" while the bad is happening:

-higher pay & a small bonus!
(knowing full well most wal-mart hourly employees haven't been there for long periods of time, so the $200 bonuses are more frequent than the $1000 ones)

meanwhile:
-closed stores
-layoffs at corporate
-reduction of hours to absorb a small percentage of employees from closed stores.

It's ALL related.

Of course it’s about the bottom line. WTF should it be about?

There’s nothing wrong with being about the bottom line. It forces businesses to provide what people want at a reasonable price. And knowing that it will be about the bottom line is a useful tool in making policy. You want more investment, growth, and jobs in the USA? Make the USA a more profitable place to do business.

There's nothing wrong with it being about the bottom line, until you look at how these practices affect the people who are actually shopping at Wal-Mart.

Someone mentioned earlier that Sam's was more of a suburban, higher-income place to shop. Wal-Mart is the direct opposite of that. You cut hours and/or jobs for hourly employees, they'll spend less at places like Wal-Mart, and around and around we go.

If Wal-Mart wants to do this, by all means, have at it, but let's not kid ourselves that it's about tax reform. It's about saving a buck (a likely short-sighted one for end of FY reporting, since their FY ends 1/31), and saving face with a splashy PR move that doesn't amount to much while doing it.

I'm willing to be that Wal-Mart has high enough turnover that those Sam's Club folks can hook on at a Wal-Mart near them in a relatively short period of time if that is what they want.

(01-11-2018 02:29 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:19 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:02 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  It's all about a bottom line - of course they're related.

Announce the spun "good news" while the bad is happening:

-higher pay & a small bonus!
(knowing full well most wal-mart hourly employees haven't been there for long periods of time, so the $200 bonuses are more frequent than the $1000 ones)

meanwhile:
-closed stores
-layoffs at corporate
-reduction of hours to absorb a small percentage of employees from closed stores.

It's ALL related.

Of course it’s about the bottom line. WTF should it be about?

There’s nothing wrong with being about the bottom line. It forces businesses to provide what people want at a reasonable price. And knowing that it will be about the bottom line is a useful tool in making policy. You want more investment, growth, and jobs in the USA? Make the USA a more profitable place to do business.

There's nothing wrong with it being about the bottom line, until you look at how these practices affect the people who are actually shopping at Wal-Mart.

Someone mentioned earlier that Sam's was more of a suburban, higher-income place to shop. Wal-Mart is the direct opposite of that. You cut hours and/or jobs for hourly employees, they'll spend less at places like Wal-Mart, and around and around we go.

Which is why I have said all along if you want to stimulate the economy, give the biggest tax cuts to the lowest income people. They will spend the money quickly and stimulate the economy faster. Unfortunately, the Republicans once again have it bass ackwards and insist that trickle down works.

Except you keep forgetting that the lowest income people already pay $0 in income taxes. Are you suggesting that those that pay $0 in taxes should have their welfare checks increased??

I was talking only about the lowest income Americans who already pay taxes.

However, it wouldn't be a bad idea since those people would spend the money immediately and stimulate the economy much quicker than trickle down economics.

(01-11-2018 12:39 PM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:32 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  Meanwhile, Wal-Mart is abruptly closing Sam's store locations across the country today, not even notifying employees.
So, for the bump in pay, other Wal-Mart employees are unemployed...it all offsets somehow.

I know basic econ is hard for you libs. These matters are completely unrelated though.

And Wal-Mart increased their minimum wage to $9/hr in 2015 and then $10/hr in 2016. But I'm sure the raise to $11/hr in the beginning of 2018 was TOTALLY because of trump, AMIRITE?

(01-11-2018 12:53 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:44 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:38 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:37 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:32 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  Meanwhile, Wal-Mart is abruptly closing Sam's store locations across the country today, not even notifying employees.
So, for the bump in pay, other Wal-Mart employees are losing jobs.

I found several stories about closings by the end of the month, but none that said they had been closed without notifying employees

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/3724...-its-doors

In other words, noone has been fired, they are just closing the store. Sounds like they will be reassigning workers to other stores.

So at the stores where they are reassigned the current workers will get less hours, and the reassigned workers will get less.

Hate to sound like you but do you have a link for any of that?

Incredible gaffe from Pelosi. She says that higher wages and better benefits ($2,000 bonuses) are "pathetic" and "insignificant" "crumbs".

(01-11-2018 12:55 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:44 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:38 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:37 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:32 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  Meanwhile, Wal-Mart is abruptly closing Sam's store locations across the country today, not even notifying employees.
So, for the bump in pay, other Wal-Mart employees are losing jobs.

I found several stories about closings by the end of the month, but none that said they had been closed without notifying employees

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/3724...-its-doors

In other words, noone has been fired, they are just closing the store. Sounds like they will be reassigning workers to other stores.

You have never been a part of a "re-alignment" if you think that's what is going to happen. While a handful of people will likely get reassigned, the majority won't.

From another article that says that the store here has hopes to turn into an e-commerce facility:
Hatfield said it was too early to know what would happen to the store's staffers, but that the company "will be having conversations will all of the employees to keep them up to date."

Translation: we don't want to come right out & say that most of these people won't have jobs with us in the future.

Wait a second....I thought you claimed they didn't notify employees yet here you are posting that they'll be having conversations with them.

Make up your rabbit-assed mind!

(01-11-2018 03:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:53 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:44 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:38 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:37 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I found several stories about closings by the end of the month, but none that said they had been closed without notifying employees

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/3724...-its-doors

In other words, noone has been fired, they are just closing the store. Sounds like they will be reassigning workers to other stores.

So at the stores where they are reassigned the current workers will get less hours, and the reassigned workers will get less.

Hate to sound like you but do you have a link for any of that?

Nope personal logical opinion, there is also no proof that the workers will even be reassigned in first place.

(01-11-2018 02:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 02:29 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:19 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Of course it’s about the bottom line. WTF should it be about?

There’s nothing wrong with being about the bottom line. It forces businesses to provide what people want at a reasonable price. And knowing that it will be about the bottom line is a useful tool in making policy. You want more investment, growth, and jobs in the USA? Make the USA a more profitable place to do business.

There's nothing wrong with it being about the bottom line, until you look at how these practices affect the people who are actually shopping at Wal-Mart.

Someone mentioned earlier that Sam's was more of a suburban, higher-income place to shop. Wal-Mart is the direct opposite of that. You cut hours and/or jobs for hourly employees, they'll spend less at places like Wal-Mart, and around and around we go.

Which is why I have said all along if you want to stimulate the economy, give the biggest tax cuts to the lowest income people. They will spend the money quickly and stimulate the economy faster. Unfortunately, the Republicans once again have it bass ackwards and insist that trickle down works.

Except you keep forgetting that the lowest income people already pay $0 in income taxes. Are you suggesting that those that pay $0 in taxes should have their welfare checks increased??

I was talking only about the lowest income Americans who already pay taxes.

However, it wouldn't be a bad idea since those people would spend the money immediately and stimulate the economy much quicker than trickle down economics.

Again - you keep forgetting that if you just give non-workers more money......the government is taking it from someone.

You willing to increase your taxes, have the government take their administrative cut, then dole some out to the dependent class???? You'd be stimulating the economy more by just going down to the street corner and passing out that "extra" directly, you know, cut out the middle man...