It seems that Asda owners Wal-Mart pay some of their own staff so poorly that at least one store has set up a foodbank, in store, to collect food for staff who are in need.

Yet the Wal-Mart owners are some of the richest people on the planet, running a massively profitable company.

How do they square that as even remotely moral/ethical?

Robber barons don't seem to have really died out, do they?

[url=http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/11/asda-owner-walmart-runs-food-bank-for-its-own-underpaid-workers/[iPolitical Scrapbook[/i[/url. [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/giving-thanks-for-what-exactly-as-america-celebrates-with-turkey-and-pumpkin-pie-walmart-employees-donate-food-to-colleagues-who-cannot-afford-a-thanksgiving-dinner-8952700.html[iIndependent[/i[/url.

WallMart aren't the only ones....

[url=http://www.buzzfeed.com/tracyclayton/the-advice-mcdonalds-gives-its-underpaid-workers-is-not-supe"Worried that your job doesn't pay enough? Take a vacation and sing a song"[/url

Interesting discussion [url=http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/924775/urlHERE[/url

Link broken?

The comments below that article are even more depressing. How can those college educated "I am all right jack, so you can be to" types not have the brains to understand not everyone is college material and that we all need people to work in service industries such as restaurants and supermarkets?

We've had the same on here – people claiming that if others want decent pay, they can simply 'aspire' themselves into better-paid jobs. The same people never answer the question of why it remains acceptable to them – presumably – for these jobs to be so poorly paid. They never explain how people are supposed to live and how that impacts on the wider economy.

It's as though we've moved to a situation where some people feel that certain work (which they decide, of course) does not merit a living wage.

How the hell did we get to such a state?

Hmmmm.... [urlhttp://chowhound.chow.com/topics/924775[/url

Surely the real issue is that the majority of people are happy to consume from businesses that pay low wages because they charge less? If people boycotted these businesses and took their cash to those who paid higher wages, and consequnetly charged more to the consumer change would happen. If you care enough about it check whether places where you spend your money pay their employees what you consider to be acceptable, and if you don't care enough to make the effort then don't worry about it.

I think it stems from teachers telling kids to "do better or else they'll be cleaning toilets all their life". It's got to be cleaned by somebody and people should be paid correctly for doing so. It would be interesting to see what salaries would be if they were calculated in order of the jobs necessity. Some of the services sector could see a big reduction!

I don't think comparing 'job for job' is the issue. There will always be a disparity in pay between jobs with low talent pools and high barriers to entry, and those with larger pools and lower barriers to entry - and there is nothing inherently wrong with that, providing that everyone can live to a resonable standard.

The issue is that large businesses are paying so little that it is putting employees in a position where they find it impossible to live without state and/or charitable support. In the McDonalds example, the US taxpayer is subsidising McDonald's to the tune of $7bn in welfare programmes (presumably whatever the US equivilent of tax credits is).

In the Wallmart example, it is easy to claim that the low-skilled shelf-stacker should have tried harder at school and he should count himself lucky to be earning $7.00ph, but it is (for some reason) much less popular to argue that four of the richest people on the planet shouldn't be expecting the state to subsidise their fortunes.

The minimum wage didn't come about by people boycotting low paying employers. Most positive labour law has arisen from the "great and the good" campaigning for change while society carries on with the same poor labour law until the campaigns have succeeded.

The majority also aren't in the position to pick and choose how they shop. I am sure there are plenty who would prefer to shop a John Lewis as its a partnership (despite their treatment of the cleaners!) but have to buy from elsewhere such as Asda because its cheaper.

You can't be ethical if you are one of the ones on low pay! Poundland and Aldi/Lidl are your lot whether they are ethical on pay or not.

Your argument is little different to the "I am all right jack, you can be to" types I referred to above. That is saying, in effect, "If you don't want low paying employers shop at John Lewis or accept low paid workers" is the same as "If you don't want to work at McDonalds, go to college or accept your low paid job". Impossible for many in both cases.

In short in I don't think you have a valid point.

Low pay won't change because I and others in my position who are able to do so try and use the Ethical Consumer web site!

It's a new slant on victim blaming.

Essentially what you're doing is a form of what I touched on earlier: obviating the employer of responsibility.

In case you hadn't noticed, a lot of people shop at cheap stores because they're low-paid and struggling too.

And one of the reasons that those stores can charge less is that they screw the producers and suppliers. But doubtless that'll be someone else's fault too.

As only a very slight aside, Charles Fishman, in his [iThe Wal-Mart Effect[/i, shows that, about five years after Wal-Mart has set up a big store in an area, poverty in that area has increased slightly.

Well said. It's linked to another discussion on here recently about the disparity between pay of those at the bottom and the CEO and the suggestion in Switzerland that the ratio should be no more than 1 to 12. When you consider some wages are too low to live off when those at the top in this case are four of the 12 richest people in the world then no amount of economic theory can justify that. It is downright immoral, pure and simple.

Spot on.

And just to extend what you say about it being "easy to claim that the low-skilled shelf-stacker should have tried harder at school", if there is a job that needs doing, then it needs doing. If everyone had "tried harder at school", then there'd be nobody to do the job that needs doing.

In which case, the person doing that job should be paid a wage that allows them to live.

Pretty much spot on.
Welcome back BTW.

I think you're missing something explicit in what I wrote, people shop at these places because the prices are low, the prices are low (at least in part) due to low wages paid to staff, because wages are one of the biggest variable costs that a business has. You could force a statist intervention to raise wages, but that will just push the higher cost somewhere else, like higher prices which the customer will then have to pay (they might squeeze the supply chain, but that just pushes it around - lower wages somewhere else). It's the same circular logic as goes round in tax incidence arguments, nobody doubts its possible to force higher costs, its only self-deception that believes these higher costs will not simply flow to the groups that ultimately bear the costs in a different way.

I'm not doing any such thing, I'm just pointing out that in the much maligned "real world" somebody ultimately has to bear the costs, and short of some magic totem that can fill the gaping hole in the argument, if you increase the costs the increase will flow to those who ultimately bear the costs. It's not magic, people want cheap prices so suppliers squeeze costs, and some costs are easier to squeeze than others to keep those prices low. For the argument to be serious it has to at least offer an explanation that gets to an end point without dropping down a hole, then you can judge how strong it is.

I think that would be a good solution to the issue. If the CEO wants a high salary, the rest of their employees have to earn no less than 1/12 (or similar) of their wage and I would include benefits and bonuses as well. This would not only give the rest of the employees a fairer wage but limit the excessive wages of those at the top.

When a company in "the real world" is massively profitable, it's pretty easy to see where the money can come from. And Wal-Mart apparent profits of more than $15 billion in 2012.

Only people who rate increased profits above a workforce being paid decently would conclude otherwise. For clarity: I'm not saying profit per se is a bad thing or that a company should not make profit. But that when companies make vast profits, it's pretty easy to see where the money for decent wages can come from without any great suffering and without the costs being hoiked onto the suppliers etc.

Why should the taxpayer be left to pick up the tab when hugely profitable companies pay such low wages that people cannot afford to live? Or perhaps people should just have to choose between, say, food and heat?

And that's without mentioning the knock-on effects on the wider economy.

And the likes of Wal-Mart is already screwing suppliers and producers. Every time they announce more cuts to prices, they hand on the cost of those deals. This is well documented.

Are you really suggesting that the corporate world is no place for ethics or morality? If that's the case, perhaps it will be acceptable for chronically low paid workers to steal from the store to feed themselves?

Seconded

I didn't miss it. It was in fact that very point along with this unrealistic point:

"If people boycotted these businesses and took their cash to those who paid higher wages, and consequently charged more to the consumer change would happen. "

...I was responding to.

It is practically impossible to avoid shopping at "unethical" shops and the fact some people seek out the lowest price is a necessity not an obsession with saving money. The fact the low wages of those employed there allows them to do this is a problem in itself not part of a solution that delivers low cost goods to equally poorly off people!

I was also making the point that boycotting such places won't bring about social or economic change. It's politicians and bodies like trade unions and other campaign groups that do that. And while they campaign life goes on and these unethical business still attract customers who may well support the campaigns against them. That isn't a paradox either.

You also actually said "people are [uhappy[/u to consume from businesses that pay low wages ". I would suggest they are happy to pay low prices but don't really have much of clue about the wages paid. I am sure they would also prefer it if the employees were not paid wages not enough to live off. That is also not a paradox.



Your arguments ignore the most important point. [uThe wages paid are not enough to live off[/u. Where does your personal moral compass lie with that?

It's also not clear in the Wall Mart case that paying the 800 odd thousand staff who earn less than $25K a year, $25K a year would have the affect on costs you state given the vast profits made. Smaller profits, yes but a more equitable distribution of profit between the employees and the shareholders, not necessarily higher prices.

In my opinion there is a willingness and desire of some businesses to devise ever more exploitative employment t&c's in an effort to keep costs down. This is not motivated by a desire to lower prices but to increase profits.

I feel currently there is a climate that if a company could charge a fortune for its goods for whatever reason there are companies in that position who would still exploit their employees. Put it this way in Wall Mart's case if they could slash their wage bill or other costs by a third I doubt you'd see a 1/3 off prices. Many modern businesses seem to have lost the concept that paying their employees well is a good thing for their business. Maybe they have concluded they don't need to. Maybe a high turnover of slave labour will still deliver the required return to shareholders.

If so this is where that "statist intervention" you mention has to occur. It's called regulating the market and the fact Wall Mart pays wages not enough to live off should be telling us more regulation of the market is required to deal with Wall Mart's exploitation of its work force.

The cost you mention is already pushed elsewhere anyway. The taxpayer subsidises the business. In the Wall Mart case in the USA the majority of employees can't afford the deductions from their wages to pay the necessary employee contribution to "company provided" heath insurance. So they rely on public health services such as they are that thus cost the tax payer a fortune.

Indeed.

It's massively profitable because it pays low wages and people want to buy from it as a result.

So, ultimately it is the "consumer" who drives the wages. Waitrose offer an alternative model in the UK but the vast majority of people cannot afford to shop there or choose not to.

Until people are educated and care about their actions nothing will change. If people accepted higher grocery bills and cancelled their cheap foreign holidays, weekend breaks, etc the country would be alot better.

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/high-fidelity-julian-richer-rewards-staff-loyalty-with-holiday-homes-and-trips-on-the-company-jet-next-hes-planning-their-inheritance-8952760.htmlYou can be a profitable boss – and a decent one.[/url

Sounds like he's got a moral compass – which brings us back to Dave's question.

Nonsense. As has been pointed out with profits of $15bn it could afford to pay its 800 odd thousand worker who earn less than $25K more without affecting prices.

[urlhttp://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/11/walmart_could_raise_wages_with.html[/url

It's obviously not the consumer who drives this. It's the the level of profit the company chooses to take.



Who can afford or chooses to shop at Waitrose has nothing with why Wall Mart exploits its employees.

People boycotting low wage employers or being educated didn't bring about the minimum wage either. Nor will them being educated and caring about their actions force change on the likes of Wall Mart. Reguation of the seemingly unfettered market is the only thing that will force such change.

Arguing its all our fault for buying cheap goods is a cop out justification for the excesses of capitalism.