The people that work at Wal Mart and Wal Mart type stores have the freedom to look for other work. If they want higher wages, there are many ways to get education in this country. I went to part time college for eight years after working 8 hours a day at a low paying job. The Wal Mart low prices are what make it possible for many of us to have some of the "goodies" of life that the higher income people already have. Stop trying to legislate everything or else we will not have a FREE country.

Obviously there are strong feelings on both sides of this, but the clout that Wal-Mart has economically has been destructive of both smaller enterprises in the area and the quality of life of the country. Consumers are benefitted by the low prices, but the tactics on workers to give them less than a living wage is not beneficial. If work was freely available elsewhere a free market approach might be good, but the high unemployment rate throughout the country does not give workers the freedom to seek work elsewhere.

This been tried, it's call Japan and France. Japan has prevented competition from large efficient companies in an effort to protect jobs, and in some ways this is enviable. On the other hand, their economy stinks and has for quite a while, prices are artificially high and it imposes an artificial tax to maintain jobs that perhaps should not exist. France too is a fine example of social engineer that has done wonders for the ecomony. People think WE have high unemployment, France would drool for an unemployment rate of 5.9%. How many noble prizes has France won, how many life saving drugs are invented there, nanotech - don't think so. Other then demanding smoking-on-the-job rights at Euro-Disney, what great advances have they made recently? I say Michael Jordan should have worn leg weights and the other should have worn springs, that would have made it fair. Let's not handcuff the invisible hand too much.

There is a very odd disconnect in the minds of employers and many conservatives about wages and consumers. Workers with low wages can make an employer more competitive, but labor is not like other outlays. Employees are also consumers and keeping wages low also depresses buying power. Those workers that are not capable of sustaining themselves on wages offered must resort to some sort of welfare to stay alive. Food stamps and other entitlements thus become subsidies for employers who underpay, so, in the long run, these establishments are a social drain which must be made up in taxes and undeserved misery.

If your goal is to provide a disincentive for success, this is one way of doing it. As with any other governmental attempt at artificially pegging wage rates, this would only serve to hurt those on the very bottom. How does this liberal idea square with the liberal notion of "fairness?" A person employed by Wal-Mart should receive a higher wage than someone performing the exact same duties at a local shop just because Wal-Mart is bigger?

You have a strange way to measure success. Is it success to be able to mistreat people by putting them into a situation they cannot escape for personal gain of the employer? Any business which is not viable enough to provide its workers with at least a living wage does not deserve to exist.

What is the definition of "living wage"? Does an employee get a raise if they have another child so their family is still making a living wage? Maybe people should have their children taken by the state if they give birth and they are not already making a living wage high enough to cover the new child. If a company isn't "viable" enough to exist, then if people want to buy that product, they will buy it from a company that pays a cheaper wage in another country, how does that help? McDonald's is derided for their wages, but the majority of McDonald's management and execs worked they way up from an "unescapable" position flipping burgers. Why not just increase everyone's taxes a bunch and redistribute it to those that can't earn a livable wage? Some people may think a lot of people are too dumb and lazy to move up the job chain, but I don't.

A living wage is not what the minimum wage is now. It does not pay the rent nor give enough for food and clothing and other unavoidable expenses. Employers who do not pay sufficiently for basics are subsidized by the government by giving employees food stamps and other public benefits. If they cannot provide their workers with these minmums, society must make up the lack or let the workers suffer or perhaps die for lack of medical care or shelter. Why should society subsidize these owner spongers?

I feared this thread would turn into a debate over free markets vs. government protection of the weak members of society. There are obviously arguments for both sides in that debate. Everyone here though is putting more value in his desires than in the way the world really operates. For example, the fact remains we don't live in a completely free market, and many fulltime Wal-Mart employees rely on government assistance to survive. Should taxpayers subsidize the minimum cost of living for these vital Wal-Mart employees, or should we require the company to? And while people "freely" choose to work at Wal-Mart, the company itself limits the options for its would-be employees. Wal-Mart frequently uses their lower cost structure to put other companies out of business, and then those companies' unemployed workers have no choice but to work for Wal-Mart, even though they would've preferred to remain with their original employer and his higher wages. There are of course counter arguments to those points and so on and so forth, but that is not the purpose of my post. Whether you think it would morally, socially, or economically a good idea for the government to pass a law requiring companies of Wal-Mart's size to pay a higher minimum wage is in fact completely irrelevant to my "Why Not" idea.

If you read my post, it is clear I am making a simple point. For those Wal-Mart employees, Wal-Mart competitors, union officials, and progressives who want to Wal-Mart to pay their employees more, campaigning for the passage of a variable minimum wage is the best strategy. Now some may thing that is an immoral goal or an immoral technique, and may compare my post to giving advice on the best way to rob banks. Even so, I think it would be valid to ask why bank robbers aren't using more effective techniques, even if you oppose theft. So too one can ask why the worker's rights movement isn't pushing for a variable minimum wage, whether you think this would be a "good thing" or not. If someone can find a reason of why that would be counterproductive, or can come up with a better idea, I'd love to hear it. But remember, whether you approve of it or not, there are those for whom it would seem to be in their rational self-interest (and political self-interest) to push for this idea, and yet they don't seem to be doing it. (At a minimum they have terrible marketing since I never heard of the idea.) Any suggestions on why that is would be most appreciated.

Not all jobs need to provide a living wage. Students and dependants, for example, may merely be looking to earn extra cash. These workers are well suited to companies like Wal-Mart (and many others) which pay less than a living wage. If such companies were required to pay a living wage, unskilled workers could expect to be replaced by workers whose production value would match the cost of their employment. This is result would likely hurt the very people it was intended to help.

The true problem is not that Wal-Mart et al do not pay enough but that Wal-Mart employees do not earn enough. If these employees were equipped with skills that commanded more remuneration, more remuneration they would get (albeit not at Wal-Mart).

Thus, a better solution would be to assist unskilled workers in training. You seem to assume that Wal-Mart, as an extremely profitable company, is better suited to bare the burden of social problems. This is the rational behind the graduated income tax. Wal-mart pays taxes and so do its shareholders.

When I go to Walmart, a nice, 70-year old man greets me at the door. Now, he does not get paid much, certainly no where near a "living wage". BUT, he does not do much. I assume he has this job because he wants to supplement his social security, the size of which is not Walmart's fault. If Walmart were forced to pay more money for a job like this, it would go away, how would that help. Would I hire an "undocumented worker" to do some menial labor at my house for a menial cash sum; sure. Would I pay a documented worker 5 or 10 times as much and deal with social security taxes and the like: heck no. So I can create a job that does not exist and does not steal work for an existing laborer, or I can do it my self and not help someone out - is that better? By the same token, if Nike pays someone two dollars a day to make $200 sneakers, it that bad. Maybe. But what if that person was making 75 cents a day before by scavanging a trash pile for recycles to feed their family, then $2 ain't so bad. The point is, it's all relative and we should becareful of setting artificial and arbitrary limits like a "living wage".

For those who disagree with the way the Wal-Mart's of the world treat their employees, the best way we can vote is with our $$$. However, a lot of the very people who complain about Wal-Mart paying low wages, buying overseas and putting so much pressure on the margins of their suppliers that some have gone out of business - are the same ones shopping there every week.

It's easy to talk about what Wal-Mart should do - but they won't change unless it hurts them financially. So stop patronizing Wal-Mart. Shop at the local merchants, support your home town businesses. Yes, you may pay a littel more - but you're contributing to the local economy and the small businesses and workers.

Costco stands in marked contrast to walmart by valuing its labour and not dumping people on to the public purse. It is possible to pay living wages, if you employ living people. I don't jive with paying taxpayer-subsidy to help the deficiency left by walmart in its employees accounts. Better they have their own ability to buy food without food stamps, and their own ability to get healthcare outside of the public purse. Living wages is simply common sense, and those who stand agasint them are ignorant economists at best.

The people of this world who feel that another person (or perhaps the sky) owes them something always puzzle me for their lack of being able to see basic fundamental concepts of existence.

The economics everyone talks about regarding this idea are incidental and irrelevant to any decision to FORCE Walmart to pay anyone a certain amount of money, whether you are the government or the consumer.

For anyone to have a right to a certain economic status means some other person has to be forced to give it, and the decision (presumably made by yet other people) of who is sacrificed and who is rewarded is arbitrary. If other people can decide that I must be sacrificed to give someone else this or that economic status means we are not equal and this is no republic.

So I don't owe you a job. And if I employ you, all I owe you is what you agreed to work for to begin with (I didn't make you work for me, remember that). Now say another person runs the company with me (ie, a small business). He doesn't owe you anything more, and I still don't. Now say another 100 people run the company with me (ie, global corporation). They individually don't owe you anything beyond what you agreed to work for, I still don't, and we all together still don't assume some new responsibility for you by virtue of us running the company collectively. A group is a number, not an entity, it doesn't have rights or responsibilities. It's for counting. Nothing more.

Incidentally, I'm one of the low-wage workers at Walmart.

One thing the "free market" folks always seem to forget. is that the whole system is based on an elaborate social construct. People derisively talk about “social engineering” well laws against child abuse or child rape are social engineering. One comment talked about how france having a bad economy, supposedly because of social engineering, well there are extensive workplace rules in countries like germany, sweden, switzerland etc. One must not forget the public aspect.- I travel on public roads to wal mart- wal marts goods are brought to it on a public road - wal marts water, sewer, electric, gas, all are brought to it through public rights of way.- the publics police will come and arrest a shoplifter if wal mart calls- the workers are educated in a public school systemso it is a bit disingenuous to talk about ‘forcing’ wal mart to do somethingI am forced to pay taxes for all these public services and forced to yield right of way to them across my property also. I am just looking for them to contribute there fair share and not feed at the public trough.

I'm not sure where the idea got espoused that Wal-Mart doesn't contribute to the community. Believe me, I'm no fan of Wal-Mart (see my comment above) and I don't shop there. But Wal-Mart pays taxes and employs people who buy goods and pay taxes. Both of these activities benefit the local community.

The other thing to understand is that if you increase the wages Wal-Mart (or anyone else) pays then they will have to make up that cost somewhere - either by not hiring as many people (which impacts the individual as well as others dependent on their taxes and purchasing) or by increasing prices which, again, impacts a number of people. If we determine that a "living wage" is $15,000 dollars a year, prices will reflect that and there will be people who struggle to afford what is determined to be the minimum they should have. If you increase that "living wage", prices will be raised and the people at the bottom of the wage scale will still be struggling. You can't legislate people into middle class, the costs will continue to increase. It's a never ending struggle.

If people REALLY want to affect a change...STOP PATRONIZING Wal-Mart!

People misunderstand economics. The reason that the USA is so successful is that our system, capitalism encourages efficiency. New technology increases productivity, which allows for more profit, and increases the average standard of living.

The problem isn't with Walmart. Believe it or not, it's not Walmart's duty to provide a 'living wage'. Heck, the very idea of what a living wage means has changed over the years.

It's the employee's, the person's duty to make a living wage, or to live off the wage they can get. The easiest way to do this is to increase your skills such that you qualify for a job in a field where there's a shortage. The problem with Walmart, McDonalds, and such jobs is that they're unskilled. Any competant adult can perform the duties, so there is hardly ever a shortage of potential employees.

In many areas today though, not even Walmart and McDonalds can get enough (competent)workers for minimum wage, so they end up paying $8-9/hour just to get part time students.

Walmart gets alot of bad press, but have you ever seen what many restraunts pay waiters? Busboys, and dishwashers?

What about an alternative solution for Wal-mart, like employee residences? Employees can live at Wal-mart living spaces and save money on rent and gasoline. They wouldn't need to own a car and can save time not needing to drive to work. Money saved becomes spending power for the employee to buy things from Wal-mart. That alone over time could pay for the cost of building the residences. Here is the idea on WhyNot.net: Wal-mart employee residences

1 solution, don't go to walmart

Only students and teenagers should work at a place that doesn't provide enough money to live. Should we regulate Walmart in their hiring, so they don't hire people that think they will be getting a "living wage"?

The average walmart employee makes $10 per hour. If they work 40 hrs per week, and 4.5 weeks per month, then that is 10*40*4.5 = $1800. Now, I'm not sure what people spend their money on, but I could stay alive with much less than 1800 with a wife and a couple kids. The problem is people want to live like middle class, when they should be living respectably poor. Sometimes you have to ride a bike or walk. Sometimes you have to delay buying a big screen TV. Sometimes you just can't afford to have a professional prepare delicious meals for you. Sometimes you just have to shop at a thrift store because you have a lame job at Walmart. But instead, you'll just petition the government to rob the rich guy on your behalf. That way you can keep the easy job at Walmart. Maybe I should drop out of college. Walmart jobs are easier. They require no thought.

Employees at walmart are getting ripped off, right?

I think that Walmart should add a gratuity line on their credit card signature receipts. That way, if you're a walmart hater, you can put your money where your mouth is. Help these poor people out, please! Walmart, although they do have a money press, will not share the money they're making with anyone!

There are enough laws to take of the minimum wages - why worry -the ball is in theGovernment's court.

I don't shop at WalMart any more. The parking lot is always too full, the checkout is always too busy (usually, only one or two of the twenty-plus are open) and most of the employees are overworked, underpaid, unhappy, and rude. And while WalMart pays its executives generously, it pays the labor force miserly, often requiring them to work "off the clock" to avoid paying for the benefits required for "full time" employees.

WalMart is not a model business: they engage in illegal, unethical labor practices and hire undocumented workers (illegal aliens).

Wal-Mart provides jobs to those individuals who otherwise may not be able to gain employment. The slaries are typically commensurate with the education and experience background of the applicant. They enables Wal-Mart to keep costs down which is passed on to the consumer. They also have career buliding programs for employees with the desire to move into management positions.

Ah, the good ol' Walmart debate, good to see you again my friend. Food for thought: next time you are in Alexandria, drop by the United Way headquarters (United Way of America 701 N. Fairfax Street, Alexandria, VA 22314) then go check out some of the pictures of the Walmart headquarters in Bentonville Arkansas. You might be a little surprised by who is a better steward of your money.

We introduced a minimum wage system here in the UK, and it's worked out well.

The sky didn't fall, employers didn't go bust and the anti-minimum wage politicians have changed their tune.

It works.

Lets be practical here- there are many large companies that make nice profits that are privately held. All a privately held company has to do is to pay its senior management (owners) huge salaries and - there go the profits. So you have business owners making huge salaries but companies that don't make much in profits. So I suppose that their employees can be paid the minimum? Or do you propose that there be a law as to how much salary a person can make.

How about companies that lose money- will employees pay for the right to work there? After all what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

People need to understand- companies exist to make money for their investors- they do not exist to give people jobs or to stoke the economy.

Ironically, Walmart became a monster corporation by selling cheap foreign products which leverage labor savings after the minimum wage drove manufacturing jobs off-shore. If US wages had risen by market forces instead of government regulations, those jobs would have stayed in the US and Walmart as we know it would not exist. All the wealth that flowed to China allowed them to bid up the price of gas, too. Its the law of unintended consequences, but the intentions were great.

my age is 19, i was just hired in by a local wal-mart and i believe the wages are fair, i make 8.80 an hr, and am getting 40 hrs a week, every 3 months we get a bonus, last bonus was about $400, i get an extra dollar an hr if im working on sunday, or a holiday, i think its fair.

i would also like to add, wal-mart employees over 2 million americans, and supprots over 3 million other american jobs by the products they buy in america

I don't really care for "variable wages" based on company size. Weather you like it or not, Wal-Mart provides a valuable service to most people. Wal-Mart makes things affordable due to their purchasing power. True, some business have went belly up dealing with Wal-Mart, but they shouldn't have made the deal. If you don't like the way a business conducts itself, don't shop there. I don't like the way Wal-Mart treats it's workers (my mom's one), so I don't shop there. I don't like Corporate America in general. I understand that the bottom line for a business is to make money and they owe no one but their shareholders. However, the relationship between Corporate America and the consumer is a symbiotic one. Corporate America may not owe the workers anything but the workers are the consumer and as such if we, the consumer/worker, don't make money, neither do they. Because of Wall Street and investor pressure, Corporate America must continually turn a profit and grow. They've use technological improvements to do this, but they more often than not seek ways to reduce labor cost.

Once upon a time, we were an industrious nation with decent paying manufacturing jobs. Those jobs have gone overseas. There's only so many decent paying jobs left and it's not enough. Why is it that our companies move jobs overseas because of labor cost, but a foreign competitor can move to the U.S. and make money. One reason is because their CEOs and upper management don't get paid millions. I'm sorry, but no one is worth the money these guys are getting paid.

At some point, the consumer will break and just stop buying stuff with their disposable cash. At that point Corporate America will start charging us to work for them.

People need to work their way up. My sister works at walmart to pay for college so she can make more$$. No one needs to work at Walmart it is ones own choice, I understand why most people think they should pay their employees more because they are a profitable company but how much should one get paid to stock shelves or be a cashier? Managers at Walmart stores get paid pretty well ex. store mgr makes close to or over 100K. I say if you dont like the pay at Walmart get a different job and complain about the pay anyways. My sister thinks she should make at least $15.00 an hr for bein a cashier i told her she is F"""""" nuts.

Raising the minimum wage isn’t as great a thing as everyone thinks…It has a negative impact on the economy and will throw off the equilibrium wage and equilibrium quantity of labor and…oh hell with it, this guy explains it a heck of a lot better than me: http://www.mindreign.com/en/mindshare/Global-Economics/Minimum-Wage/sl35291137bp509cpp10pn1.html just and interesting theory most people should consider before supporting a raise in minimum waige

It would be nice if corporations would listen to their employees and play fairly.

In today's economy, there is a powerful need for people to eat. Large corporations like Wal-Mart are going to capitalize on that need to make more profits.

In tough times, employees regularly get the short end of the stick, which violates the principle of symmetry that this site advocates.

Employees can unionize, which is an option not favoured by Wal-Mart. Or employees can try another take and form a co-op.

The trick is to get everyone to be on the same side. North America has had over 150 years of cultivating the attitude that management and workers are in an adverserial relationship.

What both sides don't realize is that they are on the same side. Workers need money and so does the business. Without workers, the businesses would simply not exist. Encouraging a win-win situation is difficult, but I feel that it is possible.

How that is done is up to both parties to decide.