Payrolls Barely Rise in Weak Jobs Report

[theSoulfulMofo]

For those who bet on employment statistics, don't believe everything you see:

Payrolls Barely Rise in Weak Jobs Report

Fri Jan 9, 5:07 PM ET

By Anna Willard

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. employers hardly hired any new workers in December, the government said on Friday in a disappointing report showing economic recovery has yet to translate into sustained jobs growth.

The unemployment rate fell to 5.7 percent, the lowest in over a year and down from 5.9 percent in November. But this was mainly because 309,000 people dropped out of the work force.

The number of workers on U.S. payrolls outside the farm sector in December increased by just 1,000, after a downwardly revised rise of 43,000 in November. It was the fifth consecutive monthly climb but was far below economist expectations for a rise of 130,000.

The poor report is a headache for President Bush (news - web sites) as he seeks re-election in November with the economy -- specifically job creation -- expected to be a key issue in the campaign.

But Bush, speaking to a small business forum, was upbeat, saying all economic signs were "very strong." He said the drop in the jobless rate was a "positive sign" of an improving economy.

Economists disagreed.

"It's a shocker. The one ray of sunshine, the decline in the unemployment rate, is ironically a sign of weakness," said Cary Leahey, senior U.S. economist, Deutsche Bank Securities, New York.

"The only reason it declined is that fewer people were looking for jobs in December."

Since Bush took office, more than 2.3 million nonfarm jobs have been lost.

Pollster John Zogby said his surveys still show 21 percent of people, and 25 percent of those earning over $75,000, are afraid of losing their jobs in the next year.

Democrats seized the opportunity to criticize Bush's record on the economy.

"I think it's time that George W. Bush loses his job so that we can put the American people back to work," said Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark (news - web sites).

The dollar and stock markets fell, while the expectation of continued low interest rates caused U.S. Treasury bond prices to rise after the report. The Dow Jones industrial average ended the day down 133.55 points at 10,458.89. The dollar tumbled to a fresh low against the euro and benchmark Treasury yields, which move inversely to prices, posted their largest drop in more than two years.

The data reinforced expectations the U.S. Federal Reserve (news - web sites) will keep interest rates on hold at 45-year lows at its next policy meeting on Jan. 27-28, and for some time after that.

"The good news is that there is absolutely no pressure on the Fed to raise rates any time in the foreseeable future," said Edgar Peters, chief investment officer, Panagora Asset Management Inc.

JOB-SEEKERS DISCOURAGED

The Labor Department (news - web sites) said there were 433,000 "discouraged" workers in December who were not looking for work because they believed no jobs were available, up from 403,000 a year ago. The jobless rate had been forecast to hold steady at 5.9 percent.

Economists had been expecting a more robust rise in payrolls, encouraged by a reasonable holiday shopping season and a drop in filings for jobless benefits in December.

However, the report showed retailers cut payrolls by 38,000, which the department said was caused by general merchandise stores taking on fewer workers than usual.

The troubled manufacturing sector failed to break its job-cutting trend, shedding 26,000 jobs in December, the 41st month of declines. Some economists, pointing to recent data suggesting a turnaround in manufacturing, had predicted factories would finally take on new workers in December.

In another bad sign for job seekers, the number of hours worked per week dropped to 33.7 from 33.9 in November. The average workweek had been expected to climb to 34.0 hours. Employers often increase the amount of hours worked by existing workers before taking on new hires.

Economists say productivity gains have helped speed up economic growth but allow companies to raise output without creating new jobs.

One bright spot in the report was hiring in construction, which was up 14,000. The building industry has boomed as low mortgage rates have fueled home buying.

 

[LCK]

When people such as Bush (or here at home the now ousted controversial Premier of Ontario, Mike Harris) are in power- the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and in this polarization the middle class begins to disappear.

 

[U2andPolitix]

oh what a nightmare if we have to deal with 4 more years of this man.

 

[STING2]

It will only be a nightmare for the liberal wing of the democratic party.

The fact is that most Americans approve of the Job Bush is doing. Most Economist predict the US Economy will grow by a strong 4% in 2004. As the economy continues to grow, business's will start to rehire workers. Eventually it will become an economic necessity for them to do so, provided that the steady and strong GDP growth of the past year continues.

 

[U2andPolitix]

its a nightmare for the families of men and women dying every day in iraq and the forgotten afghanistan, its not a nightmare to those drinking water with arsenic in it, its a nightmare for those of us who have to worry about not having social security and paying off the debt that our parents generation has created. i could go on and on but i'll stop there.

 

[sharky]

mmm....aragorn. oh sorry.

sting -- economists predicted that the Bush tax cut would create 900,000 jobs by this point. Instead, only 278,000 have been created. Included in the data on Friday was the fact that only 1,000 jobs were created in December. 1,000! When it comes down to the election, people are going to care more about the fact that they can't find a job than they are going to care about the stock market rising or the overall economy is rising. At this point, the economic growth isn't creating jobs.

Not to mention that there will be less international investment in the US due to the extremely weak dollar. The economy may be rising but there is no foundation to support it because of the HUGE deficit Bush has run up and the increase in jobs OUTSIDE of the US.

 

[STING2]

sharky,

"sting -- economists predicted that the Bush tax cut would create 900,000 jobs by this point. Instead, only 278,000 have been created. Included in the data on Friday was the fact that only 1,000 jobs were created in December. 1,000! When it comes down to the election, people are going to care more about the fact that they can't find a job than they are going to care about the stock market rising or the overall economy is rising. At this point, the economic growth isn't creating jobs."

Can you provide me some documentation that the Bush Tax cut in 2003 was supposed to create 900,000 jobs by January 2004?

Certainly there are a number of people who can't find a job at the moment, but they are vastly outnumbered by the people who have jobs and or approve of the way Bush is doing his job. Bush's Job Aproval rating is currently close to 60%.

New economic growth takes time, usually around a year to start to create serious job growth. Another 6 months of strong GDP Growth will produce the Job growth everyone is looking for. Provided continued strong growth over the next 6 months, July will be the start of a stronger increase in Job creation as business expands and becomes more confident. While the Bush administration has had strong GDP growth for over 6 months now and should have it for the rest of 2004, serious job creation will probably not start until July. Bush will have four months of it prior to the November election. Based on the current situation where Bush beats Dean in every poll, Bush will handedly defeat Dean in November.

If the Democrats really wanted to have a shot at winning, they needed to be ahead in the polls at this point. Barring some major setback for Bush in the next 10 months, he will be elected as President of the United States for another four
years.


"Not to mention that there will be less international investment in the US due to the extremely weak dollar. The economy may be rising but there is no foundation to support it because of the HUGE deficit Bush has run up and the increase in jobs OUTSIDE of the US."

Ahhhh, but what you do not account for is that the WEAK Dollar means that US goods and services are comparitively cheaper than similar goods and services in other industrialized countries. People outside the USA purchase nearly a trillion dollars worth of US goods and services every year. A weak dollar makes such goods cheaper which will lead to an increase in US exports of goods and services to other countries. Increasing exports leads to job creation here in the USA.

A weak dollar will actually help create more jobs because of the increase in Exports. Tourism will also increase because Europeans, Australians and Japanese, will find such trips to be cheaper than before.

 

[bonoman]

But sting all the US has been exporting is their jobs. Jobs that are going to countries that offer cheaper labor, and the Bush admin is doing nothing for it.

Why is that Wal-mart imported 12 billion dollars worth of goods into the US last year? Because the Bush admin is to chicken shit to stand up to companies that live off the backs of cheap labor and sweat shops. Why dont they introduce reforms for companies working within the US to be buying more domestic goods? Because they are suck the corprate **** and dont want to lose their support within the super rich communities!

The US dollar is falling, fast! But what you dont state is that it costs American companies much more to import OIL from places like Canada.

I am all for the American economy to be stronger as it equals better economies in my country but it wont be done if there are no middle class anymore, and thats what is happening. These big companies are stomping ont he average person for profits, with no desent from the White House.

Dick Gepherdt is one person that actually supports the working class as he supports workers rights through unions. Unions at are all time lows, because of the lack of care and attention from politicans like Bush!

 

[sharky]

sting-- the problem with cheaper american goods overseas is that there is then less profit to be had. less net profit means less investing back in the US for things like plants and jobs.

as for evidence of the numbers, from the WSJ:

Pity the poor Wall Street economist.

Big staffs, sophisticated models, reams of historical data, degrees from schools known by merely the name of the biggest benefactor (thank you, Messrs. Wharton and Tuck), and still they forecast about as well as groundhogs.

The Wall Street consensus utterly blew the latest employment report, forecasting a strong gain in jobs for December and whispering that the report could show an even bigger gain. Instead, merely 1,000 people were added to nonfarm payrolls in December, a major disappointment. Moreover, November and October figures were revised downward. When the economy runs at roughly a 6% rate, as it did in the second half of last year, typically payrolls rise by 300,000 to 400,000 a month. This time, the figure has been about 37,000.

------------

The payroll gain of 1,000 jobs is "quite shocking. ? I would certainly have not expected anything resembling that."
-- Bill Cheney, chief economist, John Hancock Financial Services
* * *
The minuscule payroll gain "calls into question a strong recovery in the labor market" despite the drop in the jobless rate.
-- Bill Quan, economist, Mizuho Securities
* * *
"Over the next few months, all the signs are that payroll employment will rise dramatically." But this report "does not help the cause of a May tightening" of the Fed's monetary policy.
-- Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist, High Frequency Economics
* * *
"Even the positive signal from additional [temporary-worker] hiring is offset by a shorter workweek. The [Fed] will not begin to raise interest rates until substantial job creation returns regardless of how strong economic growth is."
-- Steven Wood, chief market economist, Insight Economics
* * *
"The continued softness in employment suggests productivity growth remains very strong, supporting profits ? and GDP growth. For a market keen to gauge when the Fed may begin to tighten, today's disappointment should push expectations of the first move later in 2004."
-- Daragh Maher, economist, ING Capital Markets
* * *
"Overall, a weak report across the board despite the drop in the unemployment rate. When coupled with upcoming inflation data that is likely to drop further, this must have the Fed somewhat worried. All this suggests that there will be no Fed hikes whatsoever in 2004."
-- Ian Morris, chief economist, HSBC
* * *
"We're at least about three to four million jobs below where we should be."
-- James Glassman, economist, J.P. Morgan
* * *
"We don't have evidence of solid job creation, and that must be factored into economic and financial projections for the rest of the year."
-- William Sullivan, senior economist, Morgan Stanley
* * *
"Disappointing employment implies more productivity rather than lower [gross domestic product] for late 2003. Signs of a significant employment turn, including weekly claims and business surveys, imply a pickup in early 2004. We do not alter our U.S. expectations for 2004. Lack of employment in this report only highlights the ongoing employment risk."
-- Stephen Gallagher, chief U.S. economist, SG Corporate & Investment Banking
* * *
"Neither business nor potential employees have confidence in the economy. ? Hopefully, employment gains will be much healthier during the second half of the year. By then this recovery will be three years old, persuading businesses to start hiring more people."
-- Sung Won Sohn, chief economic officer, Wells Fargo Bank
-----------------------

The U.S. jobless rate fell to a 14-month low in December, but for all the wrong reasons.

The Labor Department reported the unemployment rate fell to 5.7%, its lowest level since October 2002. But the decline wasn't the result of a surge in new hiring, as many economists had expected. Instead, it occurred because the labor force itself contracted as thousands of potential workers stopped looking for jobs and effectively stopped being counted as unemployed.

The development points to a puzzling trend in the U.S. job market: More than two years into a recovery that many economists believe has accelerated in recent months, workers still are leaving the labor force. "Job creation has stalled," said David Autor, a labor-market economist with Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. "People respond to that by leaving the labor force."

The employment report also showed that nonfarm businesses added just 1,000 new jobs on a seasonally adjusted basis, a statistically insignificant change in a nation with more than 130 million payroll jobs. The tiny increase, combined with downward revisions to estimates for job growth in October and November, came as a big surprise to economists. They had been watching a wide range of other indicators of an improving economy and predicting that payrolls would rise by 150,000 in December and by similar amounts in the months ahead. "I was totally wrong," said John Silvia, chief economist with Wachovia Securities in Charlotte, North Carolina. "We're getting tons of [economic growth] but we're not getting the jobs associated with it."

---------------------
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3918633/

Critics of Bush?s economic policy, including his Democratic rivals for the presidency, were quick to pounce on the report as evidence that last year?s huge tax cut package had failed to achieve the White House?s stated goals for job growth, which called for 510,000 new jobs in 2003. The economy has lost 2.3 million jobs over the past three years including 74,000 jobs last year.


note: I will conceed that the story I saw the numbers -- NBC Nightly News -- does not have the story online.

 

[STING2]

Sharky,

I was looking for a source to support your report that 900,000 Americans were to be hired back by January 2004 because of the Bush Tax cut. I did not see it. When an economy is coming out of slow growth or recession, it takes anywhere from 1 to 2 years of strong consistent GDP growth before one starts to see companies start to hire back workers. Thats what happened with the 1990-1991 recession, and this will be no different.


"sting-- the problem with cheaper american goods overseas is that there is then less profit to be had. less net profit means less investing back in the US for things like plants and jobs."

This is incorrect! The goods are cheaper only to NON-AMERICANS. American products have not been reduced in price nor has the income that Americans receive from the sale of such products overseas been reduced. What has happened is that foreign currency is worth more and there for foreigners can buy more American goods than French or German goods.

French, Germans and Irish will be buying American goods now rather than their own countries goods because FOR THEM, the goods are cheaper. Americans will be still selling these goods at the same price and receiving the same amount of money. The factor for AMERICANS will be that they can now sell a lot more goods and make a much larger profit in addition to stealing market share from products and services produced by Europeans. While American products sell like hotcakes, French, German, and British products will be more likely to sit on the shelf.

 

[STING2]

bonoman,

"But sting all the US has been exporting is their jobs. Jobs that are going to countries that offer cheaper labor, and the Bush admin is doing nothing for it."

The United States believes in Global Free trade and hopefully that will continue. The USA exports nearly 1 Trillion dollars of goods and services every year. If a private company wants to take a chance and move to a third world country for cheap labor, its their right.

The USA has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world and currently has the 7th highest standard of living in the world.

It is true that foreign oil becomes more expensive as the US dollar decreases in value, but that also means that domesticly produced oil becomes comparitively cheaper as well. Both US and foreign companies are likely to increase their purchase of US domestically produced oil. So, Canadian Oil companies are the ones that are really hurt by the depreciation of the US dollar. A weak dollar means Americans are more likely to buy American.

 

[bonoman]

ok, so let me get this straight, you support the transfering of well paying American or Canadian jobs to thrid world countries, in which they pay them EXTREMELY lower wages (or what i consider slave wages)?

For me to discuss this any further I am very intrested in what you do for a living? I'm not going to attack you but i just want to see where you are coming from.

 

[STING2]

If you believe in the private sector, Globalism, Free Trade, then I don't think that you will look at Company A started in America and tell the people in that company that they cannot not leave the borders of the USA to expand their business.

If American individuals can leave the country and go make money and live and work in other countries, why can't they take their business or company with them?

"ok, so let me get this straight, you support the transfering of well paying American or Canadian jobs to thrid world countries, in which they pay them EXTREMELY lower wages (or what i consider slave wages)?"

Should I infur that you support preventing the employment of people in other countries (who have no income and live in absolute poverty) by American companies?

 

[bonoman]

Ya i infur that we should never help the third world countries, give me a break!

Take a company like Wal mart for example. They are lowering wages in Canada and the US with no moral sense. They are robbing people of their livelyhood. They are after only one thing and that is profits. That is whats wrong with the world and free trade, to some extent. If you seem so concerned about people in thrid world countries then why do you support companies paying them a tenth of the money they would pay a American? When Home Depot employees 80% of their staff as part-time to avoid paying benefits then there is a problem. When compnaies like Enron and Worldcom are doctoring their finacials to apess the investors (you and me) at the risk of jail time their is something wrong. It doesnt only have to do with free trade it has to do with the concience of the corparte world and we are the ones that are feeding that fire. We demand the profits to be bigger and the dividents to be larger. Its a fundemental issue that must be addressed through our gov'ts, without their help our countries and world are going to be run by big business.

Free trade works, but only if it is monitored. People will do whatever they can know a days to make more so strict measures must be taken to have competition that is able to compete.

When a company like Walmart is as big as it is, because of their low wages and barely there benefits, it is a problem. When they can enter into any segements of the market place and wipe out the competition because of their vast amount of money to under cut costs then it is a problem.

When companies are driving more and more people into jobs that pay below poverty then it becomes a problem.

Put yourself in a employee shoes of one of these companies. Ask yourself can you survive on 7 dollars and hour with two kids? I didnt think so, but your so concerned about free trade and completely open borders you dont relize it.

You never answered my question about what you do to earn a living, i assume, even though i dont like to, that you make a comfortable living. You obviously can afford a computer and internet. Peg yourself at 40 getting paid 10 dollars and hour because every year the company you work for tells you they wont give you the promotion or give you full time hours or the benefits that you and your children have been recieving are no longer at your disposal. Maybe your tune would change.

 

[STING2]

bonoman,

I certainly do have a problem when companies like Enron and Worldcom break the law. I don't have a problem with a company seeking to make profits. The goal of business is profit. There are four guys named Bono, The Edge, Larry and Adam, and they make huge profits compared to most people who work at Walmart. Is that a crime? I don't think so.

As long as Wal mart pays at least minimum wage and does not break the law, I don't see anything wrong. A person does not have to work at Wal mart if they don't like the pay and benefits structure. Wal mart is a private business, not job security program for Canadians and Americans.

I do feel that the current American minimum wage should be increased, although such an increase will temporarily lead to more unemployment. I do feel that the US government should be a little more active in breaking up monopolies as they occur.

But the Free market and free trade system that the USA currently has produced a standard of living for Americans that is 7th in the world according to the extensively researched 2003 figures from the UNDP.

US unemployment and inflation rate is low compared with most other time periods in history and compared to most other countries on the planet.

"When a company like Walmart is as big as it is, because of their low wages and barely there benefits, it is a problem. When they can enter into any segements of the market place and wipe out the competition because of their vast amount of money to under cut costs then it is a problem."

Ever hear of K-Mart where U2 launched their POPMART tour? Ever hear of Woolworths, Walgreens or Target? Wal mart is far from having some invincible monopoly.

Walmart is a private Company! It is up to their leaders to decide how best to spend the companies revenue. No individual has to work for Wal mart and its not as if they are not aware of the pay and benefits provided by Wal mart prior to getting a job there.

"Put yourself in a employee shoes of one of these companies. Ask yourself can you survive on 7 dollars and hour with two kids? I didnt think so, but your so concerned about free trade and completely open borders you dont relize it."

First, in my opinion, I don't think it is wise to be starting a family if one is only making 7 dollars an hour. One should not start a family until they have built up a sound financial base and experience and skills in order to compete in an ever changing job market.

There is no law which says Wal Mart must pay a minimum individual wage high enough to support a family of 4, 5 or 6. It is only required to pay the national minimum wage, and often many starting positions will being paying more than that anyway.

If you discover the company you work for or want to work for does not offer you the things you want, find work with someone else. Before you start a family, make sure your financially secure, and have the flexibility to move and compete in the job market.

 

[bonoman]

You might have the opputunity to look over jobs offers but most people that have to work for 7$/hour dont have that choice.

They were born into low income families that could not afford jigh priced schooling.

Wal mart has broken laws, many of them.

They are being sued as we speak for locking employees into the building and making them all stay until everyone has completed their jobs. Oh and they wouldnt pay them overtime, they said to talk one for the company, the company that makes billions of dollars a year. Oh and theres that lawsuit for employee illegal immigrants knowingly and paying them less then Americans. At this time 4,000 people are sueing Walmart for labor reasons!

You named off a few competitors to walmart. These compnaies that have had better labor standards then walmart are now being forced to cut wages and benefits to stay competitive.

What about the people on strike in California that are being asked by their employers to take pay cuts and benefits cuts to be able to stay competive.

I am not saying what walmart is doing is all againist the law, what i'm saying is that it SHOULD be againist the law.

And dont give me your people shouldnt have children till their financially secure. Just thank God that your daughter or sister or mother didnt make a mistake and have a child. All your looking at is the law, that is what is amatter with todays society, they dont care about the people that are being treated like shit!

Support a company that supports its employees!

 

[U2LipstickBoy]

WalMart is a great company

WalMart is a great company, the selection they offer is excellent, their low prices are excellent, and I love being greeted at the door and treated nicely.

I have yet to see a story in the newspaper where WalMart puts a gun to someones head and makes them become an employee, and I have also not heard of any stories where customers are forced at gunpoint to shop at Walmart.

A few weeks back, I read in the newspaper that Walmart is paying its store managers $90,000 a year, and managers of the Super Walmarts that have foodstores in them, $ 130,000 a year.

I was never a huge fan of Walmart, but when I read in the newspaper how well they pay their store managers, and how these stores have policies that unions cannot solicit or advertise on Walmart property, I instantly became a huge fan of Walmart. There is nothing worse than seeing some rich educated corrupt union leader walking into a Walmart and tricking minimum wage workers into joining some union, only so this union leader can collect weekly dues from these workers who are getting minimum wage. I once got suckered into joining a union when I was 16, they gave me all these promises of what the union would do and the store didn't pay me much. I quit that job at the age of 16, moved 2 miles up the street to their competitor. Their competitor paid its workers more, had better benefits, had a better working environment, and they were not part of the union. This competitor went out of its way to keep union people off store property and would call police if union representatives did try to come onto the property. I drove by the union office once day, the office was the size of my bedroom, with a pair of new Mercedes sitting outside it, that is when I knew that the union was just in it for the money, not for the workers.

Unions are why your General Motors cars are now being built in Mexico and Canada. Honda and Toyota have the top 2 selling cars in America now, the Accord and Camry, and have had this for a decade now. Honda and Toyota both have plants in America, the cars are built in America, and both Honda and Toyota do not have unions. Unions are why your American and Canadian flags now have little 'made in china' stickers on them.

I just can't wait until WalMart gets into the food business in a bigger way, and starts putting all the other little mom & pop stores out of business, competition is good and Walmart is the biggest competitor around. Starting 6 weeks ago, Walmart is the only place I shop now.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Troll alert! I'm sorry, there's just something completely unrealistic about the way you've gone into almost every thread here and said things like

-Timothy McVeigh was just "pissed off" with Clinton, so we can overlook him murdering hundreds of people.
- There's already a cure for AIDS.
- Cuba should be a model for the world in fighting AIDS.
- Everyone who has AIDS should be locked up.
- Everyone from the "middle-east" should be interviewed, fingerprinted and searched if they want to visit the US. Apparently if your skin is white then you can't be a terrorist.
- All unions are corrupt and just in it for the money. (Although I do admit to being curious about how large your bedroom is for you to be angry that a union would have an office of this size. )

If you're not a troll, then I don't know if I'm more sorry that I've labelled you wrongly, or that you're actually that uninformed on such important issues.

 

[anitram]

 

[U2LipstickBoy]

Fizzing, just open some newspapers and don't be afraid to see what's going in the world.

WalMart is the biggest corporate success in American history. Cuba has just about the lowest AIDS rates in the world. Timothy McVeigh bombed that Oklahoma building for a reason, he just didn't wake up one morning and for no idea decided to rent a Ryder truck and pack it with explosives.

Start reading more international newspapers, start reading books, the world is going to pass you by as long as you keep your eyes shut.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I just can't be bothered to give that post the response it deserves (perhaps re-posting anitram's picture would be the most appropriate ). You know nothing about me so please don't pretend you can make judgements about my level of awareness of current events. I find it hard to take such criticism seriously when it comes from a person who can't differentiate between "prevention" and "cure" anyway.

And for what it's worth, the people who hijacked planes on September 11th didn't "just wake up one morning and for no idea (sic)" hijack planes and fly them into buildings. That doesn't make their actions any less horrifying or any more justifiable, nor do McVeigh's motives make his actions any less repugnant.

*Fizz.

PS - anyone else reminded of Lemonite?

 

[U2LipstickBoy]

open a dictionary

Open a dictionary right after you open a newspaper. Once you have prevented something enough, then it no longer exists, and then you have a cure. A cure is just a remedy, and a prevention will often times lead to a remedy. With the way the world is going, it's so important to keep reading books and newspapers, and see what the rest of the world is up to.

 

[BVS]

Re: WalMart is a great company

I have yet to see a story in the newspaper where WalMart puts a gun to someones head and makes them become an employee, and I have also not heard of any stories where customers are forced at gunpoint to shop at Walmart.

A few weeks back, I read in the newspaper that Walmart is paying its store managers $90,000 a year, and managers of the Super Walmarts that have foodstores in them, $ 130,000 a year.

Walmart drives out the majority of competition in most small towns so the people have no choice. Walmart purposely sell toys and such items where they don't make profit therefore driving out any competition in larger towns i.e. the bancruptcy of Toys R Us and Kay Bee Toy stores. Then they pay their architects, contractors and other consultants late in order to keep the money in the bank longer to earn from the interests rates in order to make up for these losses.

And trust me no store manager for WalMart is making close to $90,000. I have worked with WalMart in many different levels, I've been to their headquarters I've spoke to the department heads of many different departments and they don't even make close to that kind of salary. WalMart was built upon being frugal and their employees are forced to do the same. They have great benefits but terrible pay.

I know a storemanager in a large community right outside of Dallas, one of their biggest selling stores in the southwest, she's worked with them for 10 years and makes less than $50,000.

 

[U2LipstickBoy]

BonoVoxSupastar

Wal-Mart store managers earn about $95,000 annually, including bonuses, according to the company. Supercenter managers earn $130,000.

That was taken from the SEATTLE TIMES newspaper, here is the link http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/
2001802228_walmart27.html

La-Times also did a story on Wal-Mart, where they said that managers are paid over $ 120,000 at many stores, and here is that link www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-walmart23nov23,1,2729555.story

The Teamsters website also has a PDF file describing how much Wal-Mart managers make www.teamsters117.org/docs/The WAL.pdf
" Supercenter managers earn $130,000 " can easily be found in that .pdf file

Wal-Mart managers are highly paid, this Wal-Mart manager friend of yours must be managing just the service desk or maybe the friend of yours is lying, but I know for sure, that the Seattle Times, the LA Times, and the Teamsters aren't lying.

It's very important to keep reading those newspapers and constantly keep trying to learn more about the world, this 'friend' of yours in Dallas is leading you on.

 

[BVS]

Re: BonoVoxSupastar

Wal-Mart store managers earn about $95,000 annually, including bonuses, according to the company. Supercenter managers earn $130,000.

That was taken from the SEATTLE TIMES newspaper, here is the link http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/
2001802228_walmart27.html

La-Times also did a story on Wal-Mart, where they said that managers are paid over $ 120,000 at many stores, and here is that link www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-walmart23nov23,1,2729555.story

The Teamsters website also has a PDF file describing how much Wal-Mart managers make www.teamsters117.org/docs/The WAL.pdf
" Supercenter managers earn $130,000 " can easily be found in that .pdf file

Wal-Mart managers are highly paid, this Wal-Mart manager friend of yours must be managing just the service desk or maybe the friend of yours is lying, but I know for sure, that the Seattle Times, the LA Times, and the Teamsters aren't lying.

It's very important to keep reading those newspapers and constantly keep trying to learn more about the world, this 'friend' of yours in Dallas is leading you on.

Ok first of all both the Seattle times and the Teamsters page had the same exact quote and the quote was from Walmart(the LA Times you had to register). The quote said that included bonuses. Yes some Walmart SMs can make that much with bonus, but ask them the hours they put in. So yes what you said is partially true, but that was by no means an average. A single SM can take home a bonus that doubles their salary.

On another note quit telling people to read the newspapers. This forum is full of very educated people from all over the political spectrum you really need not to come in here one day and insult everyone who disagrees with you by telling them to go read the newspapers. And honestly you shouldn't put THAT much trust in the printed word.

but I know for sure, that the Seattle Times, the LA Times, and the Teamsters aren't lying.

How do you ever know that for sure?

 

[U2LipstickBoy]

Imperative to keep reading those newspapers

It's imperative to keep reading those newspapers and see what's going on in the world. The world is going to pass you by if you only listen to these 'friends' of yours working at Wal-Mart and around town, there is a whole huge world out there.

Wal-Mart pays their managers very well, maybe not according to your 'friend', but according to the LA TIMES, Hartford Courtant, SEATTLE TIMES, Teamsters, and according to other more reputable sources, we see that the story is different. What you want to do is to keep reading newspapers and find a striking similarities between them all and then go off of that, these 'friends' of yours can be highly misleading.

 

[STING2]

bonoman,

"You might have the opputunity to look over jobs offers but most people that have to work for 7$/hour dont have that choice."

"They were born into low income families that could not afford jigh priced schooling"

The Military has a number of opportunities to include funds to help pay for college. There are also other area's of the economy that are in need of workers from Truck Drivers haulling freight across the country to Nurses. But people need to investigate and be willing to do what is necessary to enter some of these area's which may require leaving the town they live in and doing certain types of work they had never thought of doing before.

"Wal mart has broken laws, many of them."

"They are being sued as we speak for locking employees into the building and making them all stay until everyone has completed their jobs. Oh and they wouldnt pay them overtime, they said to talk one for the company, the company that makes billions of dollars a year. Oh and theres that lawsuit for employee illegal immigrants knowingly and paying them less then Americans. At this time 4,000 people are sueing Walmart for labor reasons!"

Hey, nail Wal Mart to the Wall for violating the law.

"You named off a few competitors to walmart. These compnaies that have had better labor standards then walmart are now being forced to cut wages and benefits to stay competitive."

Only 4 years ago, Companies like Wal Mart were forced to raise wages in order to attract workers to fill unfilled positions. As the economy improves, wage cuts, and job cuts will slow and finally stop. Then after some more time passes, you will in fact start to see wage increases provided the economy continues to grow.

"What about the people on strike in California that are being asked by their employers to take pay cuts and benefits cuts to be able to stay competive."

If the company there is in a downturn, they should probably lay people off rather than cut pay and benefits.

Wal Mart is not a government program for jobs, it is a private company and the owner provided he obeys the law can operate it the way he/she wants to.

"I am not saying what walmart is doing is all againist the law, what i'm saying is that it SHOULD be againist the law."

The history of the United States is one of free enterprise and Capitalism. If I start a business, its my business, and I have the right to hire and fire people according to the laws of the USA. I can take my entire business to another country. Or, I could decide to close down the business and start another business or do something else in another place. It is a private business and not a government for jobs program.

It is this system which has allowed the United States to achieve what is currently the 7th highest standard of living in the world according to the UNDP results for 2003 from the human development index.


"And dont give me your people shouldnt have children till their financially secure. Just thank God that your daughter or sister or mother didnt make a mistake and have a child. All your looking at is the law, that is what is amatter with todays society, they dont care about the people that are being treated like shit!"

Are you advocating that people should have childern prior to being financially secure? Is it to much to ask that people take more responsiblity for the act of sex and the potential consequences?

Far better to wait and develop the means to support a family than to start a family without the means to support one.

Also, the individuals who start a family are responsible for it, not the government or the employer.

 

[Scarletwine]

U2LipstickBoy =

*troll*

 

[BVS]

Re: Imperative to keep reading those newspapers

It's imperative to keep reading those newspapers and see what's going on in the world. The world is going to pass you by if you only listen to these 'friends' of yours working at Wal-Mart and around town, there is a whole huge world out there.

Wal-Mart pays their managers very well, maybe not according to your 'friend', but according to the LA TIMES, Hartford Courtant, SEATTLE TIMES, Teamsters, and according to other more reputable sources, we see that the story is different. What you want to do is to keep reading newspapers and find a striking similarities between them all and then go off of that, these 'friends' of yours can be highly misleading.

It's imperative to actually read someone's post.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I'm inclined to agree with Scarletwine.

However, U2LipstickBoy, if you aren't a troll and you really do want to keep posting here, then here's a few friendly pieces of advice.

Continuously telling people to "read the newspapers" comes across as insulting and condescending. You have no way of knowing what sources people here consult. In any case, there are more sources of information than just newspapers. People get information from the internet, from books, from academic journals, from television, from attending public lectures and from a variety of other sources. Why not address the issues raised in a post, rather than just suggesting that the person who posted it isn't well-informed about the subject? Look again at the thread about AIDS, I've asked you twice what you think about the Cuban government and you haven't responded, but you've told me twice that you think I need to read more newspapers. We could have an interesting discussion about that topic, but to be honest it's quite boring to just hear "read a newspaper" over and over again!

Secondly, if you disagree with what somoene says then it's better to say that you disagree with that *opinion* rather than insulting the person who expressed it. That's how most FYMers manage to stay friends, despite our vast differences of opinion. We disagree with opinions, not those who express them.

People from all over the political spectrum are welcome here, the only ground rules are that we all show respect for each other's opinions and try to avoid being insulting or rude about another poster. How does that sound?