Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1071607)	5/30/2018 12:41:19 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576297

"So w/o taxpayers subsidizing WMT's employees, WMT would have to pay more to get people to work with them." Nope; employees would just have to eat less and skip medical care. Inadequate wages are better than no wages at all.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1071607)	5/30/2018 1:25:49 PM
From: zzpat	Respond to of 1576297

WMT is raising wages but it took many years which included many years of the stock underperforming before they figured out it didn't work anymore. Today, we learn WMT might do what other liberal companies are already doing and that's paying for a college education for their employees. Maybe people will stay around long enough to become good at their jobs and they won't have to waste money because of near zero retention rate. To get WMT stock up they had to close 63 Sam's Clubs (which means thousands of employees were fire) and they fired 7000 other employees. We don't hear the "media" talk about these massive job losses because they make Trump look bad. I heard one CEO (when pressed) said his turnover rate was 400% per year. He needs to be fired ASAP. When another CEO said his turnover rate was 104% per year I sold every share I owned.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1071607)	5/31/2018 12:15:59 PM
From: zzpat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576297

So w/o taxpayers subsidizing WMT's employees, WMT would have to pay more to get people to work with them. "Buyback monsters (% of shares bought back) Wal-Mart (since 2002) 30 percent ExxonMobil (since 2000) 41 percent IBM (since 1998) 53 percent Kohl's (since 2006) 50 percent Target (since 2004) 40 percent Boeing (since 1999) 39 percent What does it mean? It means that these companies have dramatically boosted their earnings, not by selling more stuff, but by buying back stock. It means that all other things being equal, Wal-Mart, for example, has improved its earnings by 30 percent since 2002 just by buying back stock." CNBC WMT bought back almost $100 billion in stocks - this is money workers didn't get for their labor. In other words, WMT like most companies redistributes wealth away from workers who earned it to people who didn't earn it (investors).