News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A $45 Android tablet by ars on Sunday July 21, 2013 @07:49PM (#6080952)
You shouldn't get your news from unions. Unions don't like walmart because it's not a union shop, and it's large so make a nice target.

Walmart itself is no different from any other large retailer.

Re:A $45 Android tablet by gee_totes on Sunday July 21, 2013 @08:02PM (#6080992)
Except for Costco, which manages to pay it's employees a decent wage and still keep prices low.
Re:A $45 Android tablet by ars on Sunday July 21, 2013 @08:25PM (#6081082)
Costco is not in the same business as WalMart. They have an order of magnitude fewer SKU's. They deal with a completely different clientèle, and the profit for each item is much higher, so their labor costs are lower.

You can not compare WalMart and Costco.

Re:A $45 Android tablet by derefr on Sunday July 21, 2013 @08:46PM (#6081149)
Except that, if you have both a WalMart and a CostCo in your town, you'll still make a cost-comparison, between:

    cost of set of things found at WalMart A
    + cost of a few extra things not found at WalMart B
    + travel time T
and

    cost of set of things found at CostCo A'
    + cost of a few extra things not found at CostCo B'
    + travel time T'
In other words, you might not be able to find all the same things at WalMart and CostCo, or for the same prices, but if you're in the price-range of both stores and trying to optimize your purchasing, you'll still be deciding which one to shop at.
Re:A $45 Android tablet by ars on Sunday July 21, 2013 @09:35PM (#6081295)
First that's a comparison for the shopper, not the retailer (and we are discussing the retailer here).

And second, you can only buy at Costco if you need the quantities they sell. Everything you can get at Costco you can also get at WalMart, but the reverse is not the case - it's not "a few extra thing" - Costco doesn't carry a huge amount of stuff you can get at WalMart.

So for the consumer buying at Costco is exclusively about what quantity they need. (Or if they have a lot of storage space + budget to store extra.) And then they also have to go to WalMart to fill in the rest.

Or in other words they complement each other - they are only partially competitors.

Re:A $45 Android tablet by qwerty888 on Sunday July 21, 2013 @08:25PM (#6081083)
Costco's median customer lives in a $75K household. Poor people certainly don't have the same purchasing power to buy high-end products in bulk.
Re:A $45 Android tablet by dizzystar on Sunday July 21, 2013 @09:12PM (#6081229)
UFCW still enforces minimum wage, no benefits, and still feels like it is okay to take your money and tell you to go on strike and take a financial hit.

I worked in a UFCW store. Absolute worst mistake you can ever make. The hours are chopped so they can sidestep giving benefits, etc. There is no protection. These unions are an utter scam, selling an ideal and a myth.

I wouldn't be surprised if Walmart effectively pays better than their union competitors.

Re:A $45 Android tablet by krek on Sunday July 21, 2013 @08:32PM (#6081107)
You shouldn't get your news from corporate media. Corporate media don't like unions because they fight for living wages which cut profits from the few who benefit from them.
Re:A $45 Android tablet by qwerty888 on Sunday July 21, 2013 @08:37PM (#6081126)
Economists don't like protectionist unions. Who determines a "living wage"? Should someone working as a cashier in Walmart be able to afford an apartment in Manhattan?
Re:A $45 Android tablet by krapp on Sunday July 21, 2013 @08:55PM (#6081180)
Someone working as a cashier in Walmart should be able to afford shelter, food, and necessary non-emergency medical expenses. A 'living wage' is just that -- I work for you, you pay me at least enough to survive employment. What that amounts to, obviously, depends on the standard of living in any particular area.
Re:A $45 Android tablet by qwerty888 on Sunday July 21, 2013 @08:59PM (#6081188)
So minimum wage in Manhattan should be set at $50/hour?
Re:A $45 Android tablet by krapp on Sunday July 21, 2013 @09:06PM (#6081213)
If it's impossible to survive in (or on, whatever) Manhattan for less than that, then yes. But I suspect there's a more flexible reality to the market than your question implies, given that people there already work for less than that and aren't dying in the streets as a result.

A minimum wage just means you can't decide one day that sales are down and now everyone makes 2 cents an hour to cover costs [1]. It means there should be an implicit minimum cost to maintaining a human workforce, because people need to eat.

[1]obviously not an economist

Re:A $45 Android tablet by artsrc on Monday July 22, 2013 @12:49AM (#6081821)
If there is 1 adult with 3 children it is close: $41.91

http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/3606151000

Re:A $45 Android tablet by smileysteve on Sunday July 21, 2013 @09:32PM (#6081288)
No,because rent in Harlem (a few train stops away) requires less to live on.
Re:A $45 Android tablet by reader5000 on Sunday July 21, 2013 @08:52PM (#6081170)
"Living wage" is a pretty common economic concept. Feel free to google it.
Re:A $45 Android tablet by qwerty888 on Sunday July 21, 2013 @08:54PM (#6081179)
I'm actually an economist and the term is only used by non-economists.
Re:A $45 Android tablet by reader5000 on Friday August 02, 2013 @12:09PM (#6147821)
I'm actually an economist and I use it all the time.
Re:A $45 Android tablet by CleanedStar on Sunday July 21, 2013 @08:52PM (#6081172)
> Economists don't like protectionist unions.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Re:A $45 Android tablet by qwerty888 on Sunday July 21, 2013 @08:56PM (#6081181)
What peer-reviewed research paper are you citing for your claim?
Re:A $45 Android tablet by ams6110 on Sunday July 21, 2013 @08:39PM (#6081136)
If Wal-Mart had to pay a "living wage" (and who defines what that is? Certainly not the worker.) they would not exist. You may think that's good, or bad, but most of the Wal-Mart jobs would not exist at all if they were forced to pay an artificially high wage to their employees.
Re:A $45 Android tablet by artsrc on Sunday July 21, 2013 @08:58PM (#6081187)
> and who defines what that is?

In Australia in the past there was a national industrial court that did this. In Germany regular courts did something similar. Courts are expensive, so why not use a computer program from MIT:

http://livingwage.mit.edu

> most of the Wal-Mart jobs would not exist at all if they were forced to pay an artificially high wage to their employees

People would still buy things. Something like this happens:

> With minimum wage laws, the increased costs are passed to employers who in turn charge consumers higher prices if possible. Faced with higher prices, consumers purchase fewer goods thus leading to a redistribution ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage#Impact

> forced to pay an artificially high wage

And who says the wage is artificially high? Maybe it would be the market rate if market power was more equal.

Re:A $45 Android tablet by epmatsw on Sunday July 21, 2013 @09:10PM (#6081227)
Isn't it by definition artificially high if you have to enact a law to enforce it? I mean, if it wasn't artificial, that would already be the wage...
Re:A $45 Android tablet by artsrc on Monday July 22, 2013 @12:44AM (#6081812)
By artificial I mean "different from a market outcome".

There is quite clearly an asymmetry in information and market power between Wal-Mart and individual employees.

This will inevitably lead to artificially low wages.

So raising them with a law will return them to a free market level, where free market implies complete information, interchangeable goods and services, and lack of market power

Re:A $45 Android tablet by reader5000 on Sunday July 21, 2013 @08:50PM (#6081166)
There's no such thing as an "artificially high" wage. If a union can demand higher wages then those are the natural wages.
Re:A $45 Android tablet by jonknee on Sunday July 21, 2013 @08:06PM (#6081017)
Have you been inside a Wal Mart? It's different than many other large retailers. I'm not the OP, but I also take my business elsewhere.
Re:A $45 Android tablet by ars on Sunday July 21, 2013 @08:23PM (#6081069)
I've been in a Wal Mart, K-mart, Target, Sears and other stores.

Only superficial differences between them.

Re:A $45 Android tablet by jonknee on Sunday July 21, 2013 @09:33PM (#6081290)
In my area there is a Target and a Wal-Mart directly across the street from each other which makes for a good comparison.

The Wal-Mart has a very large surface lot that currently has a LED sign like used by interstate construction crews to display a rotating message that shop lifters will be prosecuted, has RVs and sketchy vans parked overnight and the 24/7 security roaming around feels necessary. The customers are obviously poor and unusually overweight (which is saying something for the US!). In short, it's depressing.

The Target has a parking deck because there are stores below it (a Whole Foods and some others). There aren't rent a cops rolling around, but it feels safe. Partly because parking lot is much smaller (and covered) because there are multiple floors. The customers don't all seem to be on public assistance and since it's not 24 hours there aren't suspicious characters hanging out overnight.

The difference is very stark. Wal-Mart is more like Dollar General than Target.

Re:A $45 Android tablet by thezach on Sunday July 21, 2013 @08:03PM (#6081002)
I hate unions too...
Re:A $45 Android tablet by qwerty888 on Sunday July 21, 2013 @08:28PM (#6081095)
What "business ethics" are you referring to?