Regional First Officer Pay
02-23-2014, 12:17 PM
#61
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Posts: 248
That is from 10,500 stores world wide! Wow, that's a lot of stores!
That's 10.77 Million dollars profit per store. Wow, That is a lot of profit!
Walmart has 1,530,000 employees 600,000 of those are new each year so more than 1/3 of the employees have less than 12 months on the job. That's still a bunch of employees!
Walmart profited $738.56 off of each employee last year. That is just $61.55 per month, per employee. Not so much huh?
To increase benefits to employees by $1,000.00 per year, that is just $83.33 per month each, and keep these profit margins Walmart would have to lay off 25% of it's employees - that is 382,500 people losing their jobs.
The people that would be hurt the hardest would be new hires. Or Walmart could just close their doors. and put 1.53 million people out of work, for lack of profit.
Now that would be social justice!
02-23-2014, 12:21 PM
#62
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Posts: 248
"Sum Ting Wong -- I assume Walmart is not among the holdings in your retirement fund. Do you have it all stuffed in your mattress?"
I said they were souless and I didn't like their business practices, not that I was poor. I try to shop there only when I need to (like when I need groceries at 2am when I'm working nights and no one else is open), but their stock is strong and dividend growth from one year to the next is one of the best out there. They certainly know how to make money and I'm not going to pass up taking some of their profits, 'cause let's face it, they're a juggernaut that is here to stay. Not a moral decision, just a financial one.
I said they were souless and I didn't like their business practices, not that I was poor. I try to shop there only when I need to (like when I need groceries at 2am when I'm working nights and no one else is open), but their stock is strong and dividend growth from one year to the next is one of the best out there. They certainly know how to make money and I'm not going to pass up taking some of their profits, 'cause let's face it, they're a juggernaut that is here to stay. Not a moral decision, just a financial one.
That's why there is always a long line of applicants every time Wal Mart opens a new store. The applicants are people who are employed at Wal Mart competitors like Walgreens and Target. They want to get jobs at Wal Mart because Wal Mart is a better employer.
The sad truth is that wage scales in the discount retail industry are relatively low compared to other industries, but Wal Mart is a relatively higher wage scale employer in that sector.
02-23-2014, 01:03 PM
#63
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,210
Last year Walmart profited 11.3 billion! Wow, that's a lot of money!
That is from 10,500 stores world wide! Wow, that's a lot of stores!
That's 10.77 Million dollars profit per store. Wow, That is a lot of profit!
Walmart has 1,530,000 employees 600,000 of those are new each year so more than 1/3 of the employees have less than 12 months on the job. That's still a bunch of employees!
Walmart profited $738.56 off of each employee last year. That is just $61.55 per month, per employee. Not so much huh?
To increase benefits to employees by $1,000.00 per year, that is just $83.33 per month each, and keep these profit margins Walmart would have to lay off 25% of it's employees - that is 382,500 people losing their jobs.
The people that would be hurt the hardest would be new hires. Or Walmart could just close their doors. and put 1.53 million people out of work, for lack of profit.
Now that would be social justice!
That is from 10,500 stores world wide! Wow, that's a lot of stores!
That's 10.77 Million dollars profit per store. Wow, That is a lot of profit!
Walmart has 1,530,000 employees 600,000 of those are new each year so more than 1/3 of the employees have less than 12 months on the job. That's still a bunch of employees!
Walmart profited $738.56 off of each employee last year. That is just $61.55 per month, per employee. Not so much huh?
To increase benefits to employees by $1,000.00 per year, that is just $83.33 per month each, and keep these profit margins Walmart would have to lay off 25% of it's employees - that is 382,500 people losing their jobs.
The people that would be hurt the hardest would be new hires. Or Walmart could just close their doors. and put 1.53 million people out of work, for lack of profit.
Now that would be social justice!
02-23-2014, 01:09 PM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 4,026
Lots of truth to this STW, I expect you to take a 50% paycut so the company can add more jobs. After all, having jobs is the most important thing...If I was the CEO, it would be a no brainer. That's kind of the problem with the airline industry, way too many jobs, way too many pilots, way too many planes, and way too many airlines providing air service to places that don't really demand the infrastructure and service. Sure, people will buy the tickets at a certain price, but at that price, everything else, like FO wages, suffers, but hey, they got jobs right? I guess the thing to learn from this is that there is ALWAYS demand, it's just a matter of figuring out how to meet and the trail of destruction you leave to make a product that can be offered at a price to meet that demand. I think many people will agree the cost in the long run is not worth it, but we are the "me" society and we want our stuff "right now", whatever the cost...
02-23-2014, 01:27 PM
#65
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Posts: 248
Assuming a 2% rate of return on investments, the Walton family makes 2.894 billion dollars in income, annually. You could increase benefits to each employee in a sustainable way by about 1,900 bucks (around 15%) just by writing checks. Cut that to your 1000 dollars in your example, and you'd still have an annual personal income of 1.4 billion.
All WalMart employees knew the pay scales when hired. If they dislike it, they can better themselves by acquiring in-demand skills. If they don't care for the pay/conditions, then they should seek employment elsewhere.
Walmart doesn't exist to offer money and free healthcare to its employees - it exists to offer products at low prices to its customers. If the employees think they're worth more than what they're paid, they have the freedom to work someplace else or open their own business. Again, nobody is forcing them to do anything. That's one of the things that is (still) great about America.
02-23-2014, 03:09 PM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: "if it's got wings, I can crash it".
Posts: 886
Last year Walmart profited 11.3 billion! Wow, that's a lot of money!
That is from 10,500 stores world wide! Wow, that's a lot of stores!
That's 10.77 Million dollars profit per store. Wow, That is a lot of profit!
Walmart has 1,530,000 employees 600,000 of those are new each year so more than 1/3 of the employees have less than 12 months on the job. That's still a bunch of employees!
Walmart profited $738.56 off of each employee last year. That is just $61.55 per month, per employee. Not so much huh?
To increase benefits to employees by $1,000.00 per year, that is just $83.33 per month each, and keep these profit margins Walmart would have to lay off 25% of it's employees - that is 382,500 people losing their jobs.
The people that would be hurt the hardest would be new hires. Or Walmart could just close their doors. and put 1.53 million people out of work, for lack of profit.
Now that would be social justice!
That is from 10,500 stores world wide! Wow, that's a lot of stores!
That's 10.77 Million dollars profit per store. Wow, That is a lot of profit!
Walmart has 1,530,000 employees 600,000 of those are new each year so more than 1/3 of the employees have less than 12 months on the job. That's still a bunch of employees!
Walmart profited $738.56 off of each employee last year. That is just $61.55 per month, per employee. Not so much huh?
To increase benefits to employees by $1,000.00 per year, that is just $83.33 per month each, and keep these profit margins Walmart would have to lay off 25% of it's employees - that is 382,500 people losing their jobs.
The people that would be hurt the hardest would be new hires. Or Walmart could just close their doors. and put 1.53 million people out of work, for lack of profit.
Now that would be social justice!
1,530,000 mil employees/10500 stores = @146 employees/ store.
10,770,000 mil profit per store/146 employees per store = $73,767 dls profit per employee annually (not $738.56 you stated). And again PROFIT, After ALL operational expenses paid.
Your numbers.
On a related note, Walmart numbers in the US only:
Wal-Mart Company Statistics | Statistic Brain
Just stating facts here. Nothing else.
02-23-2014, 03:23 PM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 197
Wal Mart pays better wages and has better terms and conditions for employment than it's competitors in the discount retail market.
That's why there is always a long line of applicants every time Wal Mart opens a new store. The applicants are people who are employed at Wal Mart competitors like Walgreens and Target. They want to get jobs at Wal Mart because Wal Mart is a better employer.
The sad truth is that wage scales in the discount retail industry are relatively low compared to other industries, but Wal Mart is a relatively higher wage scale employer in that sector.
That's why there is always a long line of applicants every time Wal Mart opens a new store. The applicants are people who are employed at Wal Mart competitors like Walgreens and Target. They want to get jobs at Wal Mart because Wal Mart is a better employer.
The sad truth is that wage scales in the discount retail industry are relatively low compared to other industries, but Wal Mart is a relatively higher wage scale employer in that sector.
Last edited by TheTransporter; 02-23-2014 at 03:26 PM. Reason: spelling
02-23-2014, 03:50 PM
#68
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Posts: 248
Your number are wrong, but it doesnt matter. Compare wages and benefits to Costco, then compare revenue per employee. You will see that Costco generates greater returns by investing in its employees. I'm guessing your version of reality is pretty set in stone at this point, so be sure to add Walmart to you retirement fund, I know I will not be.
By passing on higher employee costs, higher prices would clearly be detrimental to the rank and file shopper.
For many jobs, the $15 an hour worker won't be twice as productive as the $7.50 worker. This is especially true in "service industry jobs" where there is no way to obtain higher productivity since the job often is one where anyone can learn whatever is necessary in a short period of time.
Last edited by Sum Ting Wong; 02-23-2014 at 04:07 PM.
02-23-2014, 04:34 PM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: "if it's got wings, I can crash it".
Posts: 886
And meanwhile they're not using profits to pay back stockholders, loans, fund expansion, pay taxes, set aside for emergencies, etc. Brilliant!
By passing on higher employee costs, higher prices would clearly be detrimental to the rank and file shopper.
For many jobs, the $15 an hour worker won't be twice as productive as the $7.50 worker. This is especially true in "service industry jobs" where there is no way to obtain higher productivity since the job often is one where anyone can learn whatever is necessary in a short period of time.
By passing on higher employee costs, higher prices would clearly be detrimental to the rank and file shopper.
For many jobs, the $15 an hour worker won't be twice as productive as the $7.50 worker. This is especially true in "service industry jobs" where there is no way to obtain higher productivity since the job often is one where anyone can learn whatever is necessary in a short period of time.
Btw, Walmart is not part of the Service Industry. They are part of the Retail industry. Not trying to be rude, just explaining facts.
02-23-2014, 04:57 PM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: CR7
Posts: 267
Lots of truth to this STW, I expect you to take a 50% paycut so the company can add more jobs. After all, having jobs is the most important thing...If I was the CEO, it would be a no brainer. That's kind of the problem with the airline industry, way too many jobs, way too many pilots, way too many planes, and way too many airlines providing air service to places that don't really demand the infrastructure and service. Sure, people will buy the tickets at a certain price, but at that price, everything else, like FO wages, suffers, but hey, they got jobs right? I guess the thing to learn from this is that there is ALWAYS demand, it's just a matter of figuring out how to meet and the trail of destruction you leave to make a product that can be offered at a price to meet that demand. I think many people will agree the cost in the long run is not worth it, but we are the "me" society and we want our stuff "right now", whatever the cost...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
