Concerning the differences between Walmart and Costco, it isn't an argument, it's a fact. They are completely different models focusing on completely different demographics.

I suspect that if either model worked on the other demographic that Walmart and Costco would compete. Presently they do not.

Thus, to argue that Walmart should adopt the Costco business model while targeting a different demographic is not going to be productive or competitive argument, in reality.

"the HAVE NOTS" also end up working for Walmart.

then it is all good, isn't it? The HAVE NOTS manning the cash registers and customer service counter serving those exactly like themselves.

A marriage made in heaven......:D:D

Might not be a good comparison. As an example in Long Beach when Douglas Air Craft closed up out here there was a lot of skilled workers that had been making more Money out of work and there was no Jobs available in their professions.
Unemployment Benifits don't last forever either.
I can see those People looking for jobs at Walmart after the Unemployemt Bnifits run out.

The People I see on the Floor working at Walmart and Target seem to be Young People out of High School or slightly older working their way trough College. There seems to be a gap of Workers ages in their late 20s-late 30s.
Somwhere close to the 40s n age the group on the Floor is mostly Women and they are often the Cashiers.
In general most Chashiers are Women.

With the Younger workers on the Floor two thirds are Women.
What few Supervisors I have seen on the Floor are also two thirds Women.

I am guessing that the Warehouse in the back of the Store has motly Men but I don't know that for sure.

I believe that your suspicion is unfounded.
Certainly they are different business models, we have established that...
But... why wouldn't a model which pays a decent wage in order to promote productive workers who stay in their jobs work for a company which would seemingly benefit from such?

I suspect that the bean counters at WalMart are not interested in that model, and refuse to try it.
Wouldn't it be an interesting event for them to test drive such a plan in a store or two and see what the results are?
I bet it would work... Betcha one dollar....

I believe your suspicion is unfounded, so there! (two can play that game)

Who defines, "living wage?" That's another useful phrase that means whatever anybody says it means.

Nobody forces people to work at Walmart. Nobody forces people to stay at Walmart. Working faithfully for Walmart a few years will provide the worker with a track record that, if she chooses, will fatten her resume' for a higher paying job elsewhere. Costco, perhaps.

Why would any employer, anywhere, pay somebody more, for the same job they have been doing for several years? Whether picking grapes, flipping burgers or stacking shelves, one soon reaches a plateau of competency that is worth a certain amount and no more.

Ha!
Isn't a 'living wage' when you get paid in chickens??

My personal experience hiring people is that if I pay better, in general I get better work out of the person. Work that is worth more than extra hours at a lesser rate. Of course, I am not a retail giant...;)

Bottom line is that there are as many ways to operate a company as there are companies. Successfully berating Walmart for their policies, which obviously work, can only really be accomplished in a sociological manner. The financial side of it is factually effective.

Why would an employer pay somebody more for the same job they have been doing for years... maybe because they have a compelling benefit to retaining that long term employee that justifies the additional cost?

Not in the Article but it might have been interesting to see which Company has higher rate of Employee theft.

I think fear of losing what they have prevents a lot of People from changing Jobs; especially if someone has a Family and is actually taking care of their Family.

Only if the profit/employee justifies it. But with menial labor the chances are excellent that a newbie can perform (after a training period) as well as a long-time veteran and cost a lot less. This model works for fast food and low level retail. By keeping labor costs down product prices can be kept low, which clearly works for Walmart.

Admittedly my present line of work is a poor example for almost any enterprise. Even so, an employee that isn't seeking to improve performance and productivity is simply not going to advance in pay. Just a COLA. Some people are happy with that and stay at the same pay scale for a good bit of their entire career. When I spot somebody ambitious AND capable I do everything in my power to reward them. People who are capable but not ambitious? They keep the job they have.

When I was a private contract surveyor I hired members of my survey crew. It was a teenie company with a sliver of profit and we moved across states and regions frequently. I hired lots of local menial labor ("Here's a machete, cut everything along this line"). They lived paycheck to paycheck and spent a lot of their money buying drugs and booze. Fine with me. When we pulled up stakes I'd leave them behind. Sometimes I'd get a person (usually a kid right out of high school) who wanted more. Those I'd pay to move and I would give them a bit of a raise each move if they were continuing to learn and work hard. It is a tough life and an eager kid could advance pretty quickly. The unambitious drunks and dopers I dropped, even if they worked well. I knew I could hire a replacement in the next town. There are lots of drunks and dopers looking for a paycheck.

I believe you. Too bad people fear change so much that it freezes them in place. That's not a winning strategy for advancement.

Anecdotally I understand that Walmart has a serious employee theft problem.

But then, so does Anthropologie, a high-end retail "lifestyle" store where one of my kids is a supervisor. Her store does $50 to $80K/mo retail. They don't pay their floor staff much and even supervisors don't get a lot. They have a serious problem with employee theft and they also have a substantial turn-over.

Interestingly, they also have a huge problem with shoftlifting, both professional and "regular" customers. She says a lot of theft is from well-off customers who steal little things and big ticket things. Mostly for the thrill she thinks as they could afford to buy anything in the store.

[QUOTE=Botnst;3254917]Anecdotally I understand that Walmart has a serious employee theft problem.

But then, so does Anthropologie, a high-end retail "lifestyle" store where one of my kids is a supervisor. Her store does $50 to $80K/mo retail. They don't pay their floor staff much and even supervisors don't get a lot. They have a serious problem with employee theft and they also have a substantial turn-over.

Interestingly, they also have a huge problem with shoftlifting, both professional and "regular" customers. She says a lot of theft is from well-off customers who steal little things and big ticket things. Mostly for the thrill she thinks as they could afford to buy anything in the store.[/QUOTE]

High end stores likely don't want to prosecute the High end Customers as they would lose thier business and the High End Customer can afford a good Lawyer; maybe even the Company they work for would Pay for the Lawyer.
With Low end Customers caught stealing it is easier and cheaper to tel them to never come back to the Store.

COSCO's selling giant family plus sized items might help prevent theft.

I'd be willing to bet that any store that has to put a begging barrel outside the door for it's customers to donate food to it's EMPLOYEES is gonna have an employee theft problem.

Well that sure explains Anthropologie's problem, huh?