Seems Walmart made net profit of c. $17 billion on turnover of c. 469 billion in their latest reported year. So, about 3.6% of turnover. Couldn't readily see staff numbers and what % of revenue staff costs represent. But, it would seem liklely that a big hike in wages would wipe out profit.



So, is your argument that because Walmart pays low wages it should not exist at all, which is how I interpreted what you said? That being the case an awful lot of (largely) Americans would be unemployed and an awful lots of low-priced stores would close. Surely that would cause alot of suffering as there are few unskilled manufacturing jobs to take up the slack (indeed supermarkets have taken up the slack from de-indusrtrialisation).



So, you've identified a "problem", what is your solution?

See my immediately following post, wriiten simultaneously.



The Walton's set up the company to run a business and earn themselves (and others) a return. They did not establish a charity (or at least Walmart was not established as one). If someone wants to run a business for the benefit of their workers or some wider ideal then they can do and they will need to compete with Walmart et al should they wish to be retailers.

Absolutely. I think you've hit a nail on the head about where at least part of the problem lies.







Spot on again.



Over the years, the quality of service – which has cost [ime[/i time and money – at a number of retailers that might appear to be cheaper than John Lewis (forgetting the 'never knowingly undersold' thing) has ensured that now, if I need household goods, say, I go straight to JL and, where I use a supermarket, it's Waitrose too. It seem that a number of retailers no longer care about customer service.



But there's also the related point that increasing numbers of businesses seem to see their employers simply as a cost – to be cut as much as possible – and not as an investment, which partly brings us back to the living wage, as mentioned earlier. Not only is it better for individual employees – it's better for business, if business is prepared to be slightly less short-sighted and short-term in thinking. I do wonder how much the pressures of the Stock Exchange/City exacerbate this.



There's also the wider point that, quite simply, the current situation is not sustainable. And why does anyone want to keep pushing an unsustainable approach?

If you think JL customer service is good try ordering carpet / flooring from them and see what happens when things go a bit wrong!

Likewise I have also received good service from RS to the point where I may need a new main TV set before xmas and will be buying it from RS, have done the price comparisons and they are within £10 or so of the very cheapest retailer (Tesco), so the choice is, do I buy a TV set from Tescos or from a specialist retail outlet who only employ people who actually know what they are talking about ?



Hmmm







They are lucky in that they have a niche market where employing generic shop assistants isn't really an option, they need to employ experts to advise the (often) geeks who shop in there, AND they also take it beyond the selling boxed TV Sets to doing full home cinema installs, and commercial installs, so they do have to know their onions.

Well I'm going on my experience – and reports from a number of people I know – and I suspect we outnumber you, Dally.

I used to love going into the Virgin Megastore on Oxford Street, to the classical music section. The staff in there really knew their stuff. They could suggest things to you that almost always worked for you. I might be able to get things cheaper from Amazon, but I miss that experience and that human interaction.



HMV at Piccadilly Circus had been like that too, before it closed.

What really grates with me is the Walton family actively and aggressively employ any meaures they can to avoid or minimise paying federal and state taxes. They then expect the US and UK taxpayer to pick up their slack on behalf of their employees.

Frankly, on that basis alone, they're filth.

It surely wouldn't be that difficult to assess the total goverment support (tax credits, housing benefits etc) paid to subsidise a company's employees. HMRC could then simply present the company with an annual bill, including all costs of calculations, to reimburse the exchquer. That might be one way to concentrate a few minds away from paying less than subsistence wages

Sheer genius.

It would be interesting to work out for some companies. And see if it could be alleviated through higher wages, company provided employee benefit schemes, higher/correct amounts of tax paid etc

Name one FTSE 250 company that does not pay the correct amount of tax in accordance with the law of the land.

Except you very well know that there is not one single "law of the land" to say yea or nay to any tax dodge - every new tax dodge scheme is created on the basis that one set of expensive suits reckons either it is at least arguably within the complex provisions, or that it will still probably work out worthwhile even if it falls foul as even then the chances are a very favourable deal will be done.



Your point is entirely bogus. If a company assesses its own tax liability following such arrangements as being nil, but the taxman disagrees, then the taxman will assess the company to pay £X instead. Thus both positions are "in accordance with the law of the land". That's how it works. But if, say, Vodafone do a sweetheart deal with HMRC letting them off millions, that doesn't mean the scam couldn't be challenged in court; and a court may think differently; and Vodafone would have to pay. That payment would be also in accordance with the law. Unless they successfully appealed, and didn't have to pay after all. Which would yet again be now in accordance with the law.



Thus your challenge is pointless.

What the aardvark said.



If there was a smiley for the black American woman clicky finger thing I'd use it.



But Vodafone were not paying the correct amount of tax for long enough. Even then, what do you think to the rest of the point rather than one incredibly narrow and almost irrelevant element of it?

I wonder how many of those FTSE 250 companies remunerate all their employees sufficiently that they do not require in-work benefits? Why should companies who do pay well be forced to subsidise their competitors through paying corporation tax and NI?



If the delinquent companies could be encouraged to remunerate their employees sufficiently that there was no requirement for in-work benefits, then taxes could reduce. I thought that wa s a major aim of the tories?

My point is entirely valid. The issue that I was leading up to is that the problem is not with the company's but with the incompetence of our legislators (effectively our politicians and more particularly our lawyers) who draft poor law.



As to your other points - I always thought "Common Law", for instance, referred to an entire body of law not?



Why do HMRC do these deals? Presumably because they consider that the law is poorly drafted and if they were to lose in Court they would potentially lose alot more revenue. So, as you say Vodafone paid the correct amount of tax under the State's own best interpretation of the law. In other words, the fault lies with the lawyers again.

See my reply. I think your statement regarding Vodafone is a dangerous one unless you have evidence that they did not comply with the law.

Companies pay the market rate for the employees they need to run their business. If they operate in a field where they need people with specific skills and there are only a handful of those people about they pay through the nose. If they need someone who has everyday skills and there are lots of those people prepared to work for them then pay will reflect that.



But the real issue comes back to global competitiveness. As many of the UKs businesses priced themselves out of the market - through not producing quality but rather mass market products inefficiently - high land costs, high relative wages, poor production practices there is too little real wealth creation. Accordingly we have a few highly profitable industries but a huge number of people employed in other mainly service industries that are either funded out of taxation or are providing services to a very price sensitive mass market (eg supermarkets). In these circumstances, it is inevitable that wages will be driven down. This process will continue until we are on a par with the emerging economies. There will be no escaping that as we are not a country that could survive prosperously by protectionism and by shunning trade.

It's not a dangerous statement at all since, firstly, I never mentioned the law therefore making it subjective and secondly they've had numerous disputes with HMRC and come to several deals with them over time. So they, at least for a time, weren't paying what they should have done.



But your reply doesn't advance us anywhere does it? Because you've adopted the tactic our resident right-wingers adopt when they don't know what else to post of swerving and avoiding the question or topic at hand. So again, what do you think to the rest of my point rather than one incredibly narrow and almost irrelevant element of it?

Quite clearly they don't though, since they rely on the taxpayer to make sure that some of their employees do not have to sleep on the streets or go without food every day, neither of which would be particularly conducive to good business.

I think you're missing the fundamental point - they pay what people are "willing" to work for not to support any particular standard of living for them. If their actions are not good for business (and I express no opinion on that) then their businesses will decline and their competitors will gain. They will then amend their practices or go into terminal decline.



Another point, if things are so awful in the UK why is net immigration so high?

I take no particular delight in people not earning enough to live on, but a major problem I have with your argument is that it suggests that it is the responsibility of an employer to take over the general management of their employees lives. I don't see it as my employer's responsibility to manage my household, feed, clothe and educate my kids, pay my mortgage etc. I sell my labour to my employer, but I don't belong to them, I'm not a chattel, we have contract for the exchange of labour not one for general ownership of my life. If you believe that the employer should effectively take on responsibilities currently provided by the state around the mimimum welfare of people's lives what rights are you going to hand over to the employers on the flip side? Remember the responsibilities of the state are not unconditional, the state reserves certain rights over those who consume it's goods.



Investor look for a rate of return on their investments, business look for a rate of return on the capital they invest (which comes from their investors), and in most cases they are looking for a normal rate of profit for their industry, that's how they should be managing themselves (whether they are any good at it, or doing it optimally or efficiently is a case by case argument not directly relevant). If actually what you think they should be doing is acting as quasi-state actors, providing some sort of benevolent management of their employees lives, then they're not really businesses and investors anymore they are just another part of the state.

No, I simply believe that an employer should pay his employees a rate of pay that doesn't require topping up by the state to enable their employees to house and feed themselves

I assume you meant net migration rather than net immigration, but either way it's not.

Immigration is lower than at any point in the last 10 years and net migration is lower in 2012 than since June 2004 bar a brief dip in late 2008/early 2009.