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.
It's one thing to editorialize a title (though that's still wrong), but in this case the article says the exact opposite of the title. And, if the idea is that paying workers more is better for business, the fact that the lower profits are directly due to the higher wages is an argument against paying more.
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.
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.
I avoid them also because the service is so poor. Even on a late weeknight, you can see 95 percent of the aisle closed and ridiculously long lines of people with full carts. Walmart does not treat their customers nor their employees well. Target cares more about the customer experience, imo.
What you say is true, however I think despite there being levels of salaries/pay that are excessive for some employees and studies that indicate that there are better motivators than salary/pay, from what I'd read, Walmart had not been paying employees adequately or giving them adequate training, so anyone who dismissed what they did as "wrong" I think is misinterpreting arguments for high pay as "paying employees more is always right" vs. "in some cases, employers could be providing a better customer experience and encouraging sales and growth longer-term by paying their employees more."
While it's not always applicable, paying more for the best is not a bad idea in dev and IT. Just be sure that you can survive up to 100% of the top people on your dev and IT teams getting replaced by ensuring you have good design, good code, good management, good training, and good documentation.
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.