If he took the proceeds from the sale of his CA home and bought a simple stock such as BAC in feb 2009. He would have paid 4.25 pre share. Today BAC is trading at 31.24. Say the average CA home is 500k at the time. He would have approximately 3.67 million today. And spent the dividends along the way.
That's right, they do. And when people get priced out of their home (through more expensive cost of living, not just home prices) then they should adjust their living to compensate by attempting to move to a place where their money can take them further rather than resigning to live in poverty. Doesn't work for everyone, but it works for a lot more people than currently elect to do it. And none of it is Walmart's fault. No, but this has to do a lot more with Federal Reserve policies driving hidden inflation than Walmart agreeing to pay a particular salary. I don't know what this means. But politicians on both sides of the aisle drive inequality measures, because both benefit from it.
Wal-Mart vs. the Unions In October 2003, some 70,000 union employees of the nation's three largest grocery chains went on strike in Southern California over their employers' plans to cut wages and benefits. The three chains -- Kroger, Safeway and Albertson's -- determined they could no longer be competitive in the Southern California market if they had to pay their employees as generously as they had in the past. Why? Because Wal-Mart, the biggest grocer in America, was coming to town. Though Wal-Mart had a presence in California for years, it had recently announced plans to introduce 40 Wal-Mart Supercenters -- 200,000 square-foot retail and grocery stores -- to the area. "The supermarkets themselves were terrified that they would be undercut -- severely undercut -- by Wal-Mart," says Edna Bonacich, a sociology professor at the University of California, Riverside, "and that it would drive them out of business." In 2003, Wal-Mart paid its hourly associates an average of $9.64 per hour -- almost $10 less than the average hourly wage the California supermarket workers were receiving1. "We don't necessarily pay the exact amount that they do in terms of dollar per hour," Wal-Mart Vice President Bob McAdam tells FRONTLINE. "But we have a competitive package of benefits and pay that we believe is what's attracting people to work for our company." That "competitive package" includes profit sharing and 401(k) programs, the opportunity to purchase stock and to move up the corporate ladder. "[Critics] don't always value the promotion opportunities that come with a job at Wal-Mart that might not be available for people with unionized job," McAdam argues. "Last year we promoted 9,000 of our hourly associates to management position." https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/transform/employment.html The unions were a reaction to the power of the companies, of course they were too powerful after a time but there needs to be a balance. Now we know perfectly well Bob McAdam there is covering for the fact that WalMart created a desert, however many rose to management 90% were now very poorly paid workers. There is such a thing as too big and too powerful in an economy. That is why monopolies and mergers are studies. But Walmart was a juggernaut, people got cheap prices, good, but they got a LOT of hidden costs. Last year in 2017, Trump's first year Chinese imports to the US surged 15%. Did WalMart giants and similar have anything to do with an increasingly disastrous balance of trade? https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/business/economy/walmart-china-imports-job-losses.html "Imports from China by Walmart, the nation’s largest retailer and biggest importer, eliminated or displaced over 400,000 jobs in the United States between 2001 and 2013, according to an estimate by the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive research group that has long targeted Walmart’s policies." Walmart is now a major part of the US economy. There is a direct relationship between it's success as a corporation and the middle class and lower being squeezed to near nothing. It is not the only giant who has destroyed diversity of the economy however I believe that "too big" company breakups may be required to bring heath back to capitalism. http://fortune.com/2017/06/30/walmart-food-stamp/ Walmart Could Lose $12.7 Billion in Sales Over Next Decade if Food Stamps Are Slashed The food stamps go to the workers in traditional smaller companies who lost their jobs I guess. Want to look into how Wal-Mart lobbied for food-stamps? I don't know if they did but I kinda think they will have been responsible for the expansion of these programs far more that xyz politician or party.
It is extremely challenging to keep you on one topic. You're all over the place. I'll attempt to answer each one of many points in your response. As someone who has worked in CPG for all but the last two years, I know and understand this quite intimately. Safeway and Albertson's (at the time, Albertson's is under new owners now) and to a lesser extent Kroger were based on higher price models. Their pricing allowed them to cover expensive overhead and inefficiencies. Walmart moving into the area puts pressure on all retailers as they have a much higher degree of transportation efficiency, and can demand better trade pricing from manufacturers because of their buying power (this is how manufacturers get around Robinson-Patman restrictions on trade funding). So Walmart actually resulted in lower prices for food and other consumer goods for the public, even as higher price retailers had to exit. This is how capitalism is supposed to work! It is absolutely important to consider the entire benefits package when looking at comparisons - Walmart is 100% correct. What hidden costs did people get? There are monopoly laws in place for this very reason. But walmart has plenty of competition and isn't even close to monopoly status. All supermarket, convenience stores and even QSRs (fast food) lobby for food stamp programs. All. They aren't about to turn down a free lunch. Your ire would be better served in going after why politicians (democrats as well as republicans) allow someone on SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) to get KFC, Burger King and slurpies from 7-11.
So you don't understand the difference between economic growth and economic output? I linked to economic output, not economic growth. In fact it's easier for economies with smaller base to grow faster but the fact that those two inbred shitholes with smaller economies couldn't outgrow a smaller state with a bigger economy and a smaller population is evidence of how bad conservative economic policies are. Sometimes I think I am being rude by calling cons dumb but seeing that you try to shit on others while not even knowing the basics convinces me that conservatism is a consequence of low intellect.
Follow the thread dummy.... The thread was about how California leads the nation in welfare recipients and how 1 in 5 residents are classified as poor - before you hijacked it with other metrics to try and convince us that Leftist policies do anything but doom a majority of a population. Yes, your intellect is dazzling us all here...please continue...
So why didn't you say that in the first place? You tried to counter my argument with wrong numbers and when you get it wrong, you declare that I was not supposed to bring it up. Who are you kidding Con, try these kind of lame deflection on Breitbart comment sections. And you are upset about 1 in 5 being poor? 1 in 4 are poor in the most conservative state in the nation, why aren't you bitching about them? And even there, at least California doesn't leech off others to take care of it's poor unlike you cons who steal from others to feed the dumb inbreds.
They aren’t wrong numbers retard. If you can add 1.2+0.6 you would get it - but you cannot. When California doesn’t have 1/3 of the nations welfare recipients - maybe you will have a pot to piss in with your invalid argument. Until then, it’s back to the well, momo....
Any number or fact by itself isn't wrong, what I am trying to get through your thick Con brain is that if I bring up ECONOMIC OUTPUT or GDP as a number and you respond to it by bringing up ECONOMIC GROWTH and then you bring up population which is AGAIN a major factor in GDP and NOT growth, then your argument to me was WRONG. Kapish? Los Angeles County itself has more people than 44 states and has a GDP of 664 billion dollars which is again more than 44 states so of course there are more welfare recipients because of the sheer numbers. Do you understand numbers at all or just blurt out whatever to cheer leader your shitty incestuous shitholes by trying to show others in a bad light? You fail miserably, AGAIN.