re: For those of y'all who hate Walmart, read these facts and savor them

quote:

---

You claimed that "everything" is more expensive now than in the past.

---

ill play along, what is not more expensive now...

quote:

---

Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.

Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.



“The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs,” reads the report, available in full here.

“It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.”

---

I'm sure you're a big fan of welfare programs. Right?

LINK

quote:

---

uote:
pls conveniently ignore that you could get a great house for ~75-100k "back in the day" instead of the ~250k it costs now
You claimed that "everything" is more expensive now than in the past. That statement is absolutely absurd.

---

As a pretty general rule:

Tradeable goods have drastically reduced in price in real dollars pretty much across the board.

Non-tradeable goods have steadily risen 3 - 5% above inflation for the past generation or so.

quote:

---

airfare

---

true

quote:

---

quote:
Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.

Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.



“The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs,” reads the report, available in full here.

“It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.”


I'm sure you're a big fan of welfare programs. Right?

LINK

---

There are some baked-in assumptions to that study that are a nice sleight of hand, but for starters, the idea that Walmart will employee the same number of workers at higher wage levels is incorrect.

For most of these people, it's either work at Walmart, or no job. The number that Walmart will absorb into its work force shrinks as entry level labor pricing increases. That is indisputable. You could raise the entry level wage at WM to $15/hour, and we'd still have roughly the same, if not more, expenditures on welfare for that same group of people; it would just be allocated differently.

quote:

---

That R&D is baked into Apple's income statement and balance sheet

---

It's expensed as it's incurred so revenues from the sale of Iphones do not match the biggest expense that was incurred to make it (R&D) many times. Yes, intangible are baked into the BS and IS, but like I said revenues don't match expenses, and the way intangibles are accounted for they are not going to reflect the fair value of what it's actually worth (unless it has to be impaired so it would be recorded at FV).

Look, NPM is a useful ratio, but when you are talking about a heavily intangible company a large majority of the time NPM piblished using book value, especially on a product line basis, are not going to anywhere near the same as if they were done at fair value.

quote:

---

ill play along, what is not more expensive now...

---

common household goods



Food

Whatd you do this time?

quote:

---

There are some baked-in assumptions to that study that are a nice sleight of hand, but for starters, the idea that Walmart will employee the same number of workers at higher wage levels is incorrect.

For most of these people, it's either work at Walmart, or no job. The number that Walmart will absorb into its work force shrinks as entry level labor pricing increases. That is indisputable. You could raise the entry level wage at WM to $15/hour, and we'd still have roughly the same, if not more, expenditures on welfare for that same group of people; it would just be allocated differently.

---

Even at $10 an hour, do you really believe Walmart doesn't use the bare minimum number of employees to get things done? Have you seen their lines? If they could use less employees, they absolutely would. They've got box retail down to a science.