
Walmart Paid Its People More to Get Cleaner Stores and Higher Sales - finid
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/upshot/how-did-walmart-get-cleaner-stores-and-higher-sales-it-paid-its-people-more.html
======
losteverything
Another Wally post that gets many comments. Perhaps I am the only HN poster
with actual working experience at wally - in the retail area too. So let me
react to others' posts.

The Walmart worker image I seem to read by comments are the sales floor and
cashier type associate. Yes, there are Some that you wonder if they can be
employed elsewhere. But that is not even close to a majority at the store I
know about.

Can a Walmart worker work at a Starbucks? Of course!! Can a Starbucks worker
work at Wal-Mart? Sure. But retail sucks at times and I would bet more
Starbucks -> Wally failures than the other way around.

Many wally workers have been there decades. They earn 50 -125% more than the
$10/hr publicised. First level managers Get the 48k required to avoid overtime
when the new law takes effect.

Since the new wage hike in my store there has not been any "ventilation" of
out with the old and in with better employees. Its really really hard to hire
anybody now. Heartbeat? You are hired.

Promotions come at such a rapid pace it is truly wonderful to see. 20 year old
given 4 Promotions in 18 months to become assist the manager at 48k. It
happens. On another site Many posts about how rapidly promotions occur. Many
store managers who make 130-250+ and more started out selling dirt alongside
those "can't be employeed elsewhere" associates. In many cases it only takes
10 years to get to that level.

Retail is its own form of servitude. It's hard. Takes work and a special
person to succeed. Once off the clock you can not work.

The "$10" pay more to employees was a brilliant move. The press ate it.

I'll finish by my own transformation. I used to think Wally workers were in a
class of their own. I worked at Costco too. There is no difference. There are
substantially fewer Costcos than Wally. And Costco has much less need for
employees. So you don't see the "can't work anywhere else" types.

~~~
fuqted
I've worked at Walmart as recently as a month or so ago and, after being
fired, I now work at Target - please reserve judgement for one of America's
lost boys. I only worked there for a short time and the fire came from not
showing up to work, so I'm not holding any grudge.

This store was in the Bay Area. I'd say there were quite a few of the types
that were nearly unemployable, including new hires. This is probably due to
the fact that the job is nearly unworkable. One time I mentioned the fact that
I was tired to a woman who had been with the company for 15 years, she said
'Working at Walmart will do that to you'. I don't think it takes a 'special
type of person' to succeed at working there, and I'm not sure I'd call it
succeeding. I only worked on weekends so my perspective may be skewed but it
felt like doing a wave of work, consisting mostly of putting things back to
there proper place, only to come back tomorrow and do the same thing with no
end in sight. This may be a phenomenon of employment at large, I don't know.

I'll say that my experience with Target astounds me how Target is apparently
so much less popular than Walmart, and for the reasons that this article was
trying to push. The training software with Walmart felt very cheap,and
something to be rushed through (or in my case something to be milked for a
week while I read a book on my phone). Target's training is done in small
groups by team leads. I worked at Walmart for almost two months and, despite a
few attempts at trying, I was never trained in finding items in the storage
room (I was actually coached to say 'we're out of that item'). I was trained
in this after working at Target for a few days. Not only that, but there's the
fact that business management software is much more deeply embedded into the
average Target employee's workday. It makes for a better store. More on 'the
investments', some Walmart employee's get 10% off select items in the store.
All Target employees get 10% off everything in the store (except produce,
which is an extra 10% for a total of 20).

Anyway, I'm just chipping in.

~~~
davidf18
Target (and Lowe's) were hacked for credit cards (but not Walmart) because
they did not update POS software to newer OS as recommended by the
manufacturer, Microsoft.

So, glad to see Target spends money training employees, for it didn't spend
the money for upgrading their POS terminal software (and apparently Walmart
has).

~~~
manyxcxi
Target didn't get hacked for not having updated software. They were hacked
because an HVAC contractor was hacked to get the HVAC system credentials and
it wasn't properly segregated from the same network as the POS terminals. They
even had FireEye installed and detected the exfiltration malware [0], but for
some reason ignored the alarms.

[0] [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-13/target-
mis...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-13/target-missed-
warnings-in-epic-hack-of-credit-card-data)

~~~
davidf18
I used to work as a consultant to a subsidiary of one of the largest software
security firms. The security hole exploited by the hackers was essentially
closed by Windows 7 embedded in 2010. Target was running Windows XPe
(embedded).

I had read the Bloomberg article when it came out with some interest, because
the reason Target was hacked was simply because they did not upgrade the POS
OS as recommended and it was for this reason that Target was hacked.

"Both Home Depot and Target Corp. (TGT) -- whose registers were compromised
last December -- appear to have fallen victim to a decade-old exploit of
Windows XPe.

What's more, these losses -- which may total as many as 100 million customer
credit and debit card numbers -- could have likely been prevented by simply
paying to upgrade to a more modern Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) operating system,
such as Windows 7 for Embedded Systems." [1]

Each version of Windows has security upgrades (sometimes using new features of
Intel CPU hardware) that previous versions of Windows don't implement, even
with security updates.

Many of these security hacks happen because firms that use computers refuse to
pay for proper security software, perform recommended upgrades and to hire
very competent people to work with their systems. Of course, the systems can
still be hacked, but there are easier systems to exploit and the attacks can
be caught earlier and with limited consequences.

[1]
[http://www.dailytech.com/Appalling+Negligence+DecadeOld+Wind...](http://www.dailytech.com/Appalling+Negligence+DecadeOld+Windows+XPe+Holes+Led+to+Home+Depot+Hack/article36517.htm)

------
Animats
Costco pays much better than Wal-Mart.[1] "(Costco) pays workers an average of
$20.89 an hour, compared with Wal-Mart's average hourly wage of $11.83."
There's an article in Forbes on why Wal-Mart shouldn't raise wages to Costco
levels.

Costco has some advantages which don't involve hammering the employees. Their
stores are plain warehouses. They only sell in bulk. They have a membership
system, which not only encourages repeat visits, but cuts shoplifting way
down. (Few shoplifters will come in, be photographed, and buy a Costco
membership.)

[1] [http://www.businessinsider.com/why-walmart-cant-pay-
costco-w...](http://www.businessinsider.com/why-walmart-cant-pay-costco-
wages-2015-5)

~~~
donarb
Costco employees check all customers leaving the store to match goods with
receipts.

~~~
Implicated
AFAIK this is more about making sure people have what they paid for rather
than checking for shoplifting.

~~~
myrloc
This is the optimist's view; in fact, I've never considered this in the 10+
years I've shopped at Sam's Club/Costco.

They just briefly skim over the receipt -- until they hit a more expensive
purchase, so your view would make sense (the opposite is not possible for
shoplifting).

~~~
dboreham
In my experience they do check to see if you have items that are likely to be
forgotten because they have to be brought from the wire cage such as stamps
and gift cards.

~~~
a3n
I doubt that. They've been checking receipts since long before gift cards were
a thing.

------
Noos
The issue isn't really the wages.

You get poor quality workers when you make the majority of them have to work a
second job, since you don't give them full time hours or benefits. Retail
often can have 100% turnover or more in the span of a year because of this.
The average retail job works their employees part time, from 15 or less hours
to near full time, on a schedule which changes from week to week. Sometimes
even keyholding staff are worked like this.

You don't create employees loyal to your store when you do this, and
especially if they also have to work an additional 5 or more hour shift before
showing up at your job. Then you also get into tiny payroll budgets overall,
preventing the store from hiring enough people to meet needs. So your 15 an
hour worker can't clean the store, because he is on register all day, and he
can't work extra hours because there is no budget. Or he does work them, but
he has to take the next day off because he can't go over his schedule.

These things among others create a culture where all you can do is punch in,
survive the shift, and go home. You can't do a good job because the district
managers don't want you to do a good job. they want you to meet their metrics,
and most of it is about money and budget. They don't care much about clean
stores, since they visit your store maybe once every few months. They do care
that you spend more than your payroll, no matter whether you needed to or not.

Honestly, retail sucks.

~~~
losteverything
This.

But I used to brush all Walmart workers with the same crusty paint brush
(bought at Wally).

Sure, i'd rather still be earning 6 figures. But when we did we all knew it
could not last. What do you do? Leave early when the golden handcuffs are
attached?

Retail is my second job. What you describe is very spot on true.

Yet probably the surprisingly largest difference is my lack of awareness prior
to Wally that people did not have a supportive and wealthy home life. My
retail peers suffer from lives I could not even imagine. Most of this group
have no possible way of seeing parent(s) show them how to have a professional
life. To excel. To build wealth. To dream big. That's the difference. Where my
retail peers come from. Just as my sister in law would not be seen in a
Walmart, my fellow co workers don't like to shop at the mall and enter macys
or Lord and Taylor. Sears is ok.

------
ekianjo
That's not revolutionary at all, despite what the New York Times claims. This
was done, long, long ago already by Henry Ford (double the going wage for his
workers):

[http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2014/01/03/history/post-p...](http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2014/01/03/history/post-
perspective/ford-doubles-minimum-wage.html)

~~~
coredog64
This is known as the "Efficiency wage" theory. Megan McArdle has written a
number of posts about where it does and does not make sense. Her conclusion
(and I agree) is that generally speaking, "WalMart worker"* isn't beholden to
efficiency wages.

It's also worth mentioning that a side effect of efficiency wages is more
unemployment. Paying more results in a better class of applicant, meaning that
people who would normally use WalMart as the bottom rung of their career
ladder are shut out.

*Yes, Costco can do it, but Costco also has a very different business model.

~~~
gerbal
> It's also worth mentioning that a side effect of efficiency wages is more
> unemployment. Paying more results in a better class of applicant, meaning
> that people who would normally use WalMart as the bottom rung of their
> career ladder are shut out.

This assumes that workers are of a fixed quality. I know I worked harder for
$10/hour than I did for $7.25. Higher pay means stronger incentives to do well
and less stress from poverty.

~~~
winstonewert
Certainly, people will work harder if you pay them more, you won't just get
better people.

However:

Employers will have to hire fewer workers because their workers are more
productive

More people will be interested in the jobs, increasing employee competition

Since people vary, some people's increase in productivity will be insufficient
to cover the increase of wages

The end result it seems is that getting a job is made harder. This is not to
say that increased wages are bad, they are great.

~~~
gohrt
"getting a job is made harder" isn't a problem, when the the people are
getting better at getting a job.

"increase in productivity will be insufficient to cover the increase of wages"
is only true if the company isn't turning a profit or paying high salary to
managers. This is relevant for some small businesses and bankruptcy-threatened
large business, but not for the largest players in the economy, like Walmart.

~~~
winstonewert
1) Given that there are fewer jobs available, and more people seeking those
jobs, its simply absurd to think that people are just going to get better at
getting those jobs to make up for it.

2) Whether the company is turning or a profit or paying a high salary is
completely irreleavent. The question is whether or not you are productive
enough that hiring you makes the company more money then they pay you.

~~~
adventured
There aren't fewer jobs available. US full-time job openings are at/near all-
time highs and have been for a while now.

~~~
winstonewert
Sure. But I was specifically speaking about these higher-paying jobs at Wal-
Mart. The fewer jobs at Wal-Mart are more then offset by increased jobs
elsewhere.

------
forgotpwtomain
Yes, Walmart where a substantial (2-digit) percentage of their workforce
requires food-stamps or other government subsidies to get by.

[0]
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/15/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/15/we-
are-spending-153-billion-a-year-to-subsidize-mcdonalds-and-walmarts-low-wage-
workers/?utm_term=.014e5668b588)

[1]
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-
walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#6525d99e7cd8)

~~~
jsmith0295
In my experience this problem could be alleviated if it were possible for a
worker to work a 50-60 hour week at a single job without incurring additional
expenses for their employer. The current regulations around that sort of thing
make it so the people who want to avoid needing government assistance have to
get two jobs and deal with potential scheduling conflicts between them. When I
worked minimum wage jobs there were a lot of people who couldn't work out a
situation where they could easily get a second job like this partly because
they were dependent on slow public transportation. You'd likely have
significantly less people on government assistance if they were free to work
more

~~~
badsock
You Americans are so brutal to each other. Instead of trying to address the
problem of why someone can't live on a 40-hour week, you just want to remove
one of the staple worker-protection laws.

60-hour weeks basically means you live to work. Have you considered that
perhaps someone's economic usefulness shouldn't be the only determinate of
whether they have to spend essentially their entire lives on Earth just trying
to survive?

~~~
adventured
> You Americans are so brutal to each other.

Brutal is an exaggeration. Americans don't come close to leading in the 50+
hour work week category. The US now ranks below: Iceland, UK, Australia, New
Zealand, Japan, South Korea on that metric and has been falling down those
rankings for decades.

[https://utopiayouarestandinginit.com/2016/08/15/employees-
wo...](https://utopiayouarestandinginit.com/2016/08/15/employees-working-more-
than-50-hours-per-week-2014-opec-area/)

~~~
badsock
When I say brutal, I'm not specifically talking about people working 50+ hours
a week, I'm talking about the mindset that says that the singular number of
how many bucks you can pull in should determine whether or not you're going to
have a seriously downtrodden life, as if that were the only measure of your
value to the world, or as a human being.

~~~
ci5er
How should you measure your value to the world if not by what you produce? By
being very very good looking and your mother thinks you're smart? By being a
nice person? Being nice should be table stakes, but ultimately, on average,
people need to produce more than they consume or the world as we know it
fails. It wasn't too long ago, that 50+ hours/week was a luxury - and it
wasn't earned by typing at a desk.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>By being very very good looking

Models are paid to be very, very good-looking. "What you produce" is a value
decision _in the first place_ , one that society makes together by how we
allocate resources.

~~~
learc83
Yes. We basically pay people based on 1 metric.

Not what they produce, but how good they are at convincing other people to
give them money. Whether it's by building a product, being very good-looking,
or asking for a handout. (Sure you can say that we pay people based on what
they produce if you argue that a homeless man is producing good feelings when
you donate to him, but I think that's a bit silly).

Obviously this is always going to be the case to some extent in a free
society, but we should definitely do more to help those who don't happen to be
good at convincing other people to part with their cash.

------
davidf18
I don't fully understand how paying worker's more money makes the stores
cleaner, have brighter lighting, or ensures that the shelves are stocked. Much
of that has to do with spending money to remodel stores, paying more money to
ensure that enough staff are employed to clean the stores (McDonald's is
famous for cleanliness thanks to the leadership of its founder), and improving
logistics and ensuring there is enough staff to put items on shelves. I'm glad
people are getting more money, but I see a correlation with higher wages not a
causation, and I don't see they changes in budgets for the stores which may
account for the higher sales per store.

According to Megan McArdle's article on Walmart and Costco [1], Walmart has
one employee for every $211,000 in revenue while Costco has one employee for
every $620,000 in revenue. For each dollar of revenue, Walmart hires 3 people
compared to 1 for Costco, which has 107,000 employees.

 _Thus, if Costco were using Walmart 's metrics, they would hire about 215,000
additional employees, most of whom would need only a high school education, at
that. Jobs that can be done with little education are the jobs that are being
exported to Mexico and China._

Interestingly, articles on paying higher wages never seem to focus on the
number of people employed.

[1] [https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2013-08-27/why-
walma...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2013-08-27/why-walmart-will-
never-pay-like-costco)

~~~
tedmiston
Costco is selling wholesale / larger quantities to a different customer
segment who is also spending more money though. I'm not sure comparing the two
here makes sense to me.

~~~
davidf18
But many people _do_ compare Walmart to Costco by comparing the relatively
lower wages that Walmart pays compared to Costco (or Trader Joe's) [1]

I'm simply demonstrating that Costco _could_ hire more employees among the
segment of people with little education and help to lower unemployment. Many
people batter Walmart for not increasing wages for employees, but just as
important is that Costco could hire many more employees and help to reduce
unemployment.

In my view, I think the writers should point out Walmart as an example of
hiring 3 times more people per dollar of revenue than Costco (I don't know the
figure for Trader Joe's) and thus, compared to Costco, doing much more to
reduce unemployment. But you never read an article asking Costco to hire more
people, only criticizing Walmart for not paying enough.

[1] [http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/the-
trad...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/the-trader-joes-
lesson-how-to-pay-a-living-wage-and-still-make-money-in-retail/274322/)

~~~
tedmiston
It would definitely be interesting to see comparable data around Trader Joe's
or even Whole Foods.

------
rdl
I'm curious if anyone has done any analysis on the "other Walmart" phenomenon
-- when there are two walmarts (or malls) in a given area, one of them (the
older one, usually) rapidly gets far worse. Overall, it seems like it gets
worse than it would have on its own, and worse than simply removing customers.
What amazes me is that this happens even in suburban/rural locations where
everyone drives to the stores, so going from the bad store to the good store
is at most the direct-drive distance between them (sometimes just a couple of
minutes). Why would anyone at all continue to go to the bad one?

------
jonaf
Meanwhile, Walmart _can_ increase profits by simply hiring fewer workers (or
laying off more). Allegedly, in 2012, Walmart was spending $12MM _per second_
of transaction time in cashier wages alone[1].

[1] [http://www.reuters.com/article/walmart-
idUSL2E8E72FF20120307](http://www.reuters.com/article/walmart-
idUSL2E8E72FF20120307)

~~~
benp84
That's per second of _average_ transaction time, meaning one second times the
total number of transactions (per year I guess?). Kind of a meaningless metric
in my opinion.

~~~
jonaf
Good point, I glossed over that. I'm not sure I understand your interpretation
properly, though. My interpretation was they took all of the transaction
times, divided them by the total number of transactions, and then divided that
number by their total expenditure in cashier personnel costs. I wouldn't go so
far as to characterize this as "meaningless," but I will admit it's a little
weird to measure your personnel costs in terms of dollars per second of the
average time a given transaction takes. I think the idea is to shock people
with a big number -- 12MM per second is shocking. However, the article doesn't
explain that Walmart employs more people than any other company, world-wide[1]
-- that's also a big number, and so when you divide the two, a much smaller
number appears. The more interesting number, I think, is the total personnel
costs versus the number of personnel -- some average or quantile that
demonstrates, on a smaller scale, the ratio of personnel cost. Now, multiply
that number to scale back up to number of transactions and you'll get a better
representation of the personnel cost per transaction, without the oddball time
axis.

In fact, as I'm thinking about this, perhaps you're saying it's a meaningless
metric because it makes no sense to compare dollars per average transaction-
second to dollars for all cashiers, as the units aren't correlated and just
give random values.

[1]
[http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/08/24/24-7...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/08/24/24-7-wall-
st-biggest-employers/14443001/)

------
dwills
The headline is false. Far down in the article, find this nuggest:

"The profit landscape is less sunny. Operating income for Walmart’s United
States stores was down 6 percent in the most recent quarter, reflecting higher
labor costs and other new investments."

And while employee headcount from 2008 is mentioned, there is no mention of
the number of employees who have been let go to allow for paying high wages to
the remaining workers.

This article is yet another example of how the NY Times is a well-disguised
propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.

~~~
intopieces
Sales and operating income are two different metrics. The headline is not
false, it just doesn't say what you want it to say.

Paragraph 10:

"The results are promising. By early 2016, the proportion of stores hitting
their targeted customer-service ratings had rebounded to 75 percent. Sales are
rising again."

~~~
kgwgk
Maybe the person you reply to was confused by the original title in HN, which
was "Walmart generated higher sales, profits by paying workers more, better
training" (that's not the NYT's fault, tough).

------
drawkbox
Another way is how WinCo does it, each employee can become an owner as it is
majority employee owned, and it is a very well run place. Yes you can buy
stock in Wal-mart or Costco and Costco has profit sharing, but there is
something about owning a part of the company you work at that helps
productivity, responsibility and caring what happens to the company.
Personally I like shopping there because I know people there value it and more
money is going to the workers.

One example of how this may be better is a lower performing store that is
still making a profit may stay open, other larger chains may remove stores and
cut lower performing stores even though profit is made. Not a flawless system
but owning shares, ownership and being a part of the company in this way makes
the best work come out of skilled people.

[http://wincofoods.com/about/an-employee-owned-
company/](http://wincofoods.com/about/an-employee-owned-company/)

~~~
shostack
How does the lower performing store work in that sense? Is it separate from
the rest in some way?

The reason low profit locations are often shut down is because there are often
higher profit places to park that capital.

So if I'm a shareholder employee of another location or HQ, I might wonder why
we're not doing something that will grow the company even more.

Of course this is where things like company values and mission statements come
into play to ensure everyone is aligned.

Not advocating that this is necessarily what I'd do in that situation, just
curious how it is handled when it inevitably comes up.

------
sattoshi
Would be interesting if anybody will follow them. Walmart is taking a hit for
the american economy by giving it's workers more spending power, not something
I would have ever expected from the retail giant.

~~~
pmorici
They aren't doing it for the economy they are doing it because their sales
were sliding as a result of poor customer experience. They realized that their
focus on lowest possible labor cost left them in a position where they were
getting the least ambitious bottom of the barrel labor. So they hypothesized
that by training people in basic retail concepts, like how to stock a shelve
to be visually attractive, offering people an above minimum wage and a path to
better opportunities within the company that they could have a better trained
workforce and better retain those people.

~~~
crdoconnor
It's more a way to try to quell incipient union action. They've closed several
stores in order to head off strike action already (which is expensive) and it
failed.

------
nickpsecurity
Barely a blip about companies like Costco in this. Costco and Publix are my
favorite in terms of using culture and compensation to get great results.
Here's two links on them:

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/19/reasons-love-
costco...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/19/reasons-love-
costco_n_4275774.html)

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2013/07/24/the-
wal-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2013/07/24/the-wal-mart-
slayer-how-publixs-people-first-culture-is-winning-the-grocer-
war/#5b321b976767)

I think it's important in discussions like these to point out that Costco got
to $100 billion a year _without advertising_ by just paying people well and
keeping management out of their way. The result was they did a great job with
high customer service that spread business by word of mouth. Remember that
this $100+ billion business started _in 1983_. Publix, founded in 1930,
similarly minimized number and cost of management and executives while keeping
large numbers of production workers whose personal stock rewards them based on
company performance. Founder, like Costco's, still rich despite taking care of
employees. The result is Publix is _most profitable_ of all grocers with
_highest service_ level. Almost twice the margin of Walmart despite selling
less stuff with very, conservative expansion.

This shit isn't rocket science like biased NY Times and other corporate media
would have you believe. Virtually every company that does these things
outperforms those that don't. Toyota Production System probably being one with
most media coverage. They rarely talk about most, though, since the owners of
corporate media are themselves pulling outrageous amounts of money out of
their semi-micro-managed companies. Any widespread change of the compensation
situation in America to favor workers would pull money of out media managers'
own pockets. So they seem to censor companies like Publix and Costco a lot
while making a big fuss of how McDonalds might handle a raise. Sickening but
makes rational sense given incentives of media executives (highest
compensation) and business model (ad revenue from companies screwing workers).
Don't bite the hand that feeds.

It's that simple for vast majority of cases. As I always say, most of these
medium to high margin firms could take care of and enable workers if a 1.6%,
2.2%, or 5.6% (IIRC...) margin company can do it. That those companies
outperform micro-managed firms treating people like cogs despite less
management & executive compensation means companies forgoing this strategy are
doing it for reasons that have nothing to do with company performance. More
like executive's paychecks and managers' egos. ;)

------
jasode
The HN user submitted the article with the editorialized title: _" Walmart
generated higher sales, profits by paying workers more, better training"_

Please don't mislead readers with false information. The original NYT title
does not have the word " _profits_ " in it:

 _" How Did Walmart Get Cleaner Stores and Higher Sales? It Paid Its People
More"_

This is a critical distinction because the details of the story actually
explain that _profits are down_ \-- not up -- after paying their workers more:

 _> The profit landscape is less sunny. Operating income for Walmart’s United
States stores was down 6 percent in the most recent quarter, reflecting higher
labor costs and other new investments._

 _> In the short term, the Walmart experiment shows pretty clearly that paying
people better improves both the work force and the shoppers’ experience, but
not profitability, at least not yet._

~~~
fizzbatter
I'm curious how much of it has to do with perception too. I avoid Walmart. I
don't feel they treat their employees well, pay them well, or do anything
well, fwiw. I much rather shop where i have the perception that the employees
are happier.

So, just because Walmart is paying them better, does not inherently mean they
are happier OR that i _know_ they are being treated better. I had no clue, and
thusly have not changed my shopping habits at all.

~~~
code_sardaukar
If it helps, Walmart don't pay their employees poorly because they are less
moral than other companies, but because they hire a different type of employee
from, for example, Starbucks. If you happen to live in a place with Starbucks
and Walmart, try visiting both and then ask yourself if the Walmart employee
would stand a chance of getting a job at Starbucks.

------
danellis
Doesn't HN have a policy on linking to articles behind a pay wall?

~~~
Redoubts
I think the policy is to hit the "web" link next to the article.

~~~
danellis
"web"

Wow. That's descriptive.

------
chinese_dan
Higher wages means less jobs. So less people will be getting paid more. It
will also mean less people will have more responsibility and longer hours.

Employees that have higher skills will get the higher-paying job and the ones
with lower skills will have even less of a chance to get a job.

~~~
fizzbatter
It's sad that we even have jobs so below to poverty line, reliant on social
aid programs to live. Someone working 40 hours a week should not be on
government aid. Unfortunately for Walmart's terrible pay (and the terrible
minimum wage in general), it's quite common.

My fiancee has been steadily employed by a different retail chain and was on
Medicaid/etc because of the useless minimum wage pay.

Now we're double income _(along with a moderate engineer pay)_ , so she no
longer needs that, thankfully.

~~~
chinese_dan
Walmart pays above minimum wage for nearly every position:

[https://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Walmart-Hourly-
Pay-E715...](https://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Walmart-Hourly-Pay-E715.htm)

"Someone working 40 hours a week should not be on government aid."

This has nothing to do with Walmart, because they pay above minimum wage.

If you have 3 kids (a personal choice) and have no choice but to work at
Walmart (because of a lack of skills), and you are forced to get government
assistance, you need to start re-evaluating your personal choices.

The problem is that everybody has different needs and should make decision
accordingly. Many people make bad personal choices and can't support
themselves on the standard, minimum wage. The healthcare system does need to
be fixed, but also needs to be more stress on personal responsibility.

"My fiancee has been steadily employed by a different retail chain and was on
Medicaid/etc because of the useless minimum wage pay."

I have a hard time believing she was getting minimum wage. My Wife has worked
at almost every single retail chain stocking and doing other various jobs and
has always gotten paid more than minimum wage.

All of the fast food chains and most retail stores in my area pay at least
$2/hour above minimum wage. The reason is because market competition has
pushed the wages up and they wouldn't be able to find many workers at anything
less.

~~~
vertex-four
> you need to start re-evaluating your personal choices

Note that at that point, you have essentially no option. You can't retrain
because the Government is entirely unwilling to look after your family while
you do, and you can't save money on retail wages to be able to quit your job
to retrain. You're stuck until your children are able to support themselves.

~~~
chinese_dan
"You can't retrain because the Government is entirely unwilling to look after
your family while you do,"

So the answer is to just shrug our shoulders and make it easier and easier for
more people to get themselves into the situation because the government or the
taxpayers will bail them out?

Why is this the job of the government? If this is the case, I, the taxpayer,
should have a lot more control over the people that decide they need me to pay
for their kids while they retrain. The government should have complete control
over the family and money decisions (IE: no drugs, alcohol, or expensive
gadgets) while on the dole.

The people that do the right thing and make better personal choices always
seem to get punished these days. I don't have a problem using some of my tax
dollars to help the needy (I donate money every year to the poor), but when
there are egregious abuses of the system, we should have some say in how our
money is spent.

~~~
vidarh
How about making it easier for people to get themselves _out_ of the
situation?

It is the job of the government if people decide it is the job of the
government to provide a safety net.

And it ought to be in part on the assumption that a proportion of those who
finds themselves in such as situation either is there without fault and/or
want to improve and stop being a drain on the taxpayer. Investing in their
future is also investing in increased tax revenue and reduced future benefits
payments.

