You shouldn't get your news from unions. Unions don't like walmart because it's not a union shop, and it's large so make a nice target.
Walmart itself is no different from any other large retailer.
Walmart itself is no different from any other large retailer.
You can not compare WalMart and Costco.
cost of set of things found at WalMart A
+ cost of a few extra things not found at WalMart B
+ travel time T
cost of set of things found at CostCo A'
+ cost of a few extra things not found at CostCo B'
+ travel time T'
And second, you can only buy at Costco if you need the quantities they sell. Everything you can get at Costco you can also get at WalMart, but the reverse is not the case - it's not "a few extra thing" - Costco doesn't carry a huge amount of stuff you can get at WalMart.
So for the consumer buying at Costco is exclusively about what quantity they need. (Or if they have a lot of storage space + budget to store extra.) And then they also have to go to WalMart to fill in the rest.
Or in other words they complement each other - they are only partially competitors.
I worked in a UFCW store. Absolute worst mistake you can ever make. The hours are chopped so they can sidestep giving benefits, etc. There is no protection. These unions are an utter scam, selling an ideal and a myth.
I wouldn't be surprised if Walmart effectively pays better than their union competitors.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
A minimum wage just means you can't decide one day that sales are down and now everyone makes 2 cents an hour to cover costs [1]. It means there should be an implicit minimum cost to maintaining a human workforce, because people need to eat.
[1]obviously not an economist
In Australia in the past there was a national industrial court that did this. In Germany regular courts did something similar. Courts are expensive, so why not use a computer program from MIT:
> most of the Wal-Mart jobs would not exist at all if they were forced to pay an artificially high wage to their employees
People would still buy things. Something like this happens:
> With minimum wage laws, the increased costs are passed to employers who in turn charge consumers higher prices if possible. Faced with higher prices, consumers purchase fewer goods thus leading to a redistribution ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage#Impact
> forced to pay an artificially high wage
And who says the wage is artificially high? Maybe it would be the market rate if market power was more equal.
There is quite clearly an asymmetry in information and market power between Wal-Mart and individual employees.
This will inevitably lead to artificially low wages.
So raising them with a law will return them to a free market level, where free market implies complete information, interchangeable goods and services, and lack of market power
Only superficial differences between them.
The Wal-Mart has a very large surface lot that currently has a LED sign like used by interstate construction crews to display a rotating message that shop lifters will be prosecuted, has RVs and sketchy vans parked overnight and the 24/7 security roaming around feels necessary. The customers are obviously poor and unusually overweight (which is saying something for the US!). In short, it's depressing.
The Target has a parking deck because there are stores below it (a Whole Foods and some others). There aren't rent a cops rolling around, but it feels safe. Partly because parking lot is much smaller (and covered) because there are multiple floors. The customers don't all seem to be on public assistance and since it's not 24 hours there aren't suspicious characters hanging out overnight.
The difference is very stark. Wal-Mart is more like Dollar General than Target.