Walmart Offers To Foot College Tuition Bills for US Employees (bloomberg.com)

Walmart will begin offering to subsidize college tuition for its 1.5 million workers in the United States, joining a growing list of companies that are helping employees pay for higher education as a perk in a tight labor market. From a report: The retailer's 1.5 million employees can now pursue associate's or bachelor's degrees in business or supply-chain management at three nonprofit schools for $1 a day, according to a statement Wednesday. Walmart will subsidize tuition, books and fees and provide support with the application and enrollment processes. As many as 68,000 employees might sign up, Walmart executives estimated. "Many of our associates don't have the opportunity to complete a degree," said Drew Holler, Walmart's U.S. vice president of people innovation, in an interview. "We felt strongly that this is something that would improve their lives and help us run a better business." The tuition program -- offered to part-time staff as well as full-timers -- is the latest move by Walmart to improve employee retention and engagement. A handful of other companies, including Starbucks and Amazon, also offer tuition support.

Comments

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Know what else might help?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about paying a livable wage.

Re:Know what else might help?

[Anonymous Coward]

nope
put them in college with tuition "assistance" so they still incur massive debt
walmart customer 4 lyfe
walton clan plays the long game

Re:Know what else might help?

[DarkRookie]

I rather give my money to Bezos if it will keep me outta their stores.

Re:Know what else might help?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> a livable wage

Nah...I'd take a serious look at this if I was about to start college in a semi-rural community.

I worked in a crappy health care data center for $10/hr during my first two years of college but I did it because they paid for most of my school, which boosted my real wages to closer to $20/hr (in the 1990's), or closer to $40/hr since half the time I was "working" in the data center I was actually working on homework.

As for all the shmoes who are perfectly happy stocking shelves their whole "career": meh - here's your $10/hr.

Re:Know what else might help?

[jellomizer]

Tuition assistance is actually more affordable.

Low Labor cost tends to go to the young where their livable wage is much cheaper ( often do not have a home or family to support)
As employees stay at the company longer they will normally get raises (especially if they are ambitious and hardworking) There reaches a point where their work ability exceeds what Walmart can offer. So Walmart is paying more for an employee then their actual worth to the organization is.

So Tuition assistance will attract young people trying to get a college degree, work at Walmart for 4 or 5 years graduate and move to bigger and better things.

So they keep employees long enough for them make the company money, have them leave on their own free will once they become too expensive to keep on board.

Walmart may not be a livable wage, however it isn't too bad for a introduction job without having any skill sets.
 

Re:Know what else might help?

[Wdomburg]

How long does it take to incur "massive debt" at a dollar a day?

Re:Know what else might help?

[ShanghaiBill]

If they raise pay, much of it is taxed away by payroll taxes (SS, SSDI, unemployment tax, etc) and is taxable income for the employee. Many of Walmart's employees qualify for EITC, and higher pay will push them out of that bracket. For every dollar extra that Walmart pays, about 60 cents ends up in the employee's pocket.

Tuition assistance avoids these problems. A dollar in is a dollar out.

Re:Know what else might help?

[Archangel Michael]

So, what you're saying is taxes are regressive.

Re:Know what else might help?

[Archangel Michael]

The idea of a "livable wage" for jobs that require almost no skills is laughable. "Entry level" jobs are simply not career choices, and we shouldn't be looking at them that way at all.

Additionally, the real "minimum wage" is always going to be $0. Those people who want higher and higher minimum wages are supporting barriers to entry into job market. Preventing access to the job marketplace to the people who need it most.

The best way to raise wages isn't government mandates, but rather a robust economy that has full employment, which are the real way to raise wages and salaries, across the board.

Re:Know what else might help?

[MightyYar]

Not only that, it attracts ambitious hard working people who view their unskilled Walmart position as a means to an end. That's going to be a big improvement over your current pool of employees who are there for the job itself.

Re:Know what else might help?

[MightyYar]

This isn't exactly an example of that. This is an example of an employer following the incentives put into place by the government.... they are doing exactly what the government incentivized them to do. Apparently the government values continuing education more than it values additional tax revenue, so that is what is happening.

Re:Know what else might help?

[king neckbeard]

You don't understand how poverty works. Having a living wage gives you a lot of extra opportunities for self-improvement, as well as the ability to buy decent goods that provide better value. Even a change of a few dollars an hour can make an enormous difference in one's standard of living, which enables people to move on to viable career paths.

Plus, being cheap assholes holds back technological progress. Why bother investing in improvements when you can just throw cheap labor at all of your problems? No, we need to pay workers what they are worth, so that human time is valued instead of wasted.

Re:Know what else might help?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let them eat textbooks.

Re: Know what else might help?

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea of a "livable wage" for jobs that require almost no skills is laughable.

Good idea, mocking and deriding people is the best attitude to show. The more you condemn them, the better they will understand their place beneath your booted heel.

Re:Know what else might help?

[CanHasDIY]

I rather give my money to Bezos if it will keep me outta their stores.

LMAO yea, because he's a real humanitarian....

Re: Know what else might help?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, it isn't MY booted heel. Law enforcement have nice boots and are paid well enough to do that job.

Re:Know what else might help?

[alvinrod]

Even minimum wage labor is often a major part of expenses. Consider restaurants where employees are minimum wage or potentially below that in jurisdictions where tips can compensate for wages paid out if they're above a threshold. The leading expense for a restaurant will still be staff, and even if you include the cost of sales with expenses, the labor will be as much or more than the food in most cases. That's why there's any number of restaurants that offer $10 all-you-can-eat buffets. It's no more expensive for a restaurant to give Americans (who can shovel down enough food to make one third of the country obese) as much as they want to eat if it means they don't need to involve wait staff or servers in the transaction. The automated system to replace that human labor isn't going to get high and not show up for work either.

Also, not all jobs can command a living wage for a given area. You make the mistake that assumes all labor is valuable. Should I be guaranteed a living wage if I want to fashion life-sized busts of president Trump from cow manure that I sell by the side of the road in western Oklahoma? You can only pay someone as much as consumers are willing to pay for their labor. If no one in western Oklahoma wants to buy a Trump dung-head, then my labor is not valuable at any price.

Money is merely a commodity and attempts to shuffle it around do not change the underlying reality that there is a certain amount of productivity and that the relative value of any labor cannot be established by fiat. Were that the case, the Soviets would have won the cold war and many Venezuelans wouldn't be facing starvation at the current moment. If you want the most impoverished individuals to be more well off, the only effective method is to increase the overall amount of productivity and wealth in the world. They will still be about as poor relatively speaking, but they can get a tiny slice of a bigger pie. That's why it's not uncommon to see homeless people with cell phones. Productivity improvements and technological advancements have made them so ubiquitous that their within reach of almost all of society.

Re:Know what else might help?

[mark-t]

The idea of a "livable wage" for jobs that require almost no skills is laughable.

What difference should the skill level required to do the job make? Even jobs that require supposedly "almost no skills" can be no less demanding of a persons time and energy. If a person is willing to work hard at such a job, and presumably the job needs to be done, then why shouldn't they be entitled to a living wage doing it?

Re:Know what else might help?

[king neckbeard]

Also, not all jobs can command a living wage for a given area. You make the mistake that assumes all labor is valuable.

On the contrary, I consider lots of labor not worth human effort. That's why we need either a reasonable living wage, or a UBI, because cheap, often subsidized, labor is a disincentive towards labor-saving innovations. Why make something efficient enough to pay a decent wage when you can throw an army of dirt-cheap labor at your problems?

Re:Know what else might help?

[king neckbeard]

The difference is that Mikey here needs to feel better than someone else, so he needs to be sure that there is someone lower than him on the totem pole. Regardless of the social costs of state-subsidized wage-slaves, they allow people like Mikey to feel better than someone else, and not feel bad that they are probably being exploited as well.

Re:Know what else might help?

[Anonymous Coward]

At a dollar a day I'll be in the grave before the interest payments are enough to really worry about.

Re:Know what else might help?

[Dorianny]

If they raise pay, much of it is taxed away by payroll taxes (SS, SSDI, unemployment tax, etc) and is taxable income for the employee. Many of Walmart's employees qualify for EITC, and higher pay will push them out of that bracket. For every dollar extra that Walmart pays, about 60 cents ends up in the employee's pocket.

Tuition assistance avoids these problems. A dollar in is a dollar out.

Or it could be a lot cheaper to give a "temporary bonus" to 0.45% of their workforce (according to their top enrollment expectations) while fending off calls for higher wages because all the employees have to do for a higher salary is "get an education on their dime." Not to mention that unlike payroll, this is very likely a tax write-off for the company

Re:Know what else might help?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you don't understand how the number zero (0) works. Push your government mandated minimum wage above the value the wage earner generates for the company and then that person gets fired or never gets hired in the first place. Their wage now is zero and they are much worse off than before you "helped" them.

Re:Know what else might help?

[b0s0z0ku]

Which is why there needs to be either a UBI, or students need to be paid a stipend as is the case in much of the developed world. It will give people the ability to increase their employment value without being born with a golden spoon. But no, that's SOCIALISM. And socialism is bad as we all know.

Re:Know what else might help?

[king neckbeard]

That's not a bug, that's a feature. If a human can't do a job for a living wage, that job shouldn't be done by a human. Any job that fits that criteria is either not worthwhile, or the process has not been optimized.

Re:Know what else might help?

[Dare nMc]

> Those people who want higher and higher minimum wages are supporting barriers to entry into job market.

Is not a barrier to entry. While it does reduce the number of low paying jobs, that effect at current federal levels is minor. The last study of states that have minimum wages over the federal levels concluded a 10% increase in minimum wage, caused a 1% decrease in employment in low level jobs. It also creates a greater incentive towards productivity increases, through things like automation and training.

This is especially important to the government, as the government supports those who cannot support themselves, as long as the % decrease in employment, is less than the % increase in wages, it saves the government more money to increase it's payments to the 1% losing their jobs, and remove payments to the other 9% who no longer need support due to having a higher wage.

Re:Know what else might help?

[larryjoe]

Many of Walmart's employees qualify for EITC, and higher pay will push them out of that bracket. ... Tuition assistance avoids these problems. A dollar in is a dollar out.

Well, any extra income is helpful even with potentially higher marginal tax rates. Tuition assistance is also helpful, assuming that that particular form education is exactly what is desired. Otherwise, the money at whatever tax rate is preferable. The really big question is whether this education will result in better positions or pay within Walmart or better job opportunities outside of Walmart.

For every dollar extra that Walmart pays, about 60 cents ends up in the employee's pocket.

Assuming that a typical Walmart employee earns less than $38,700, their federal marginal tax rate would be 15%. Social security adds another 7.65%. State income tax rates at the low end range from 0% to 5.8%, with a 2.4% average. So, the expected total tax-based income tax rate should be about 25%. So, the average net pay should be about 75% of the gross. There are other optional deductions such as for 401k, ESPP, etc., but those generally still end up in the employee's pocket, albeit perhaps in a different pocket.

Re:Know what else might help?

[ShanghaiBill]

Not to mention that unlike payroll, this is very likely a tax write-off for the company

Payroll is a tax write-off, just like any other business expense.

Re:Know what else might help?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you define what a livable wage is? What is the dollar amount? Should the high school kids running a rollercoaster at an amusement park also get "a living wage"? Or do we pick and choose where to apply this, and demand a wage that is completely arbitrary?

Re:Know what else might help?

[mark-t]

That's Mikey's problem. If he's being paid fairly for the work he is doing in the first place, why should it reasonably matter how close to his wage someone else is making? Effective slavery for jobs that are no less essential to our culture but do not have a high skill criteria should not be the price for Mikey's insecurities.

Re: Know what else might help?

[Anonymous Coward]

The minimum wage could never be $0. Opportunity costs are a thing.

Go back to school, yours failed you.

Re:Know what else might help?

[king neckbeard]

In a nutshell, a living wage is one that keeps you a certain percentage above the poverty level with full-time employment. The poverty line has pretty well-established metrics. Everyone should get a living wage, and the minimum wage should be a living wage. However, those high school kids are unlikely to be working enough hours to be able to support themselves, on account of them also being in high school.

Re: Know what else might help?

[ljw1004]

I think tuition support is a taxable benefit. So the folks will pay $1/day for tuition, but the IRS will count it as then having earned an extra 15k/year or whatever its market value is, and some folks (maybe the married ones in dual income families) now find themselves pushed into a taxable income bracket.

Re:Know what else might help?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like prices, wages are a measurement. They're not arbitrarily set by someone who thinks low-skill workers are less important.
People who don't need to support a family are available to work at Walmart. If they weren't, those jobs would pay enough to support a family.

Re:Know what else might help?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Even minimum wage labor is often a major part of expenses.

A manager in a restaurant chain told me last weekend that labor is 20% of revenue. I assume that's the number for his branch, I doubt he has access to corporate numbers. Revenue is (hopefully) more than expenses and you can say that 20% is a major part but it gave me something to think of.

Re:Know what else might help?

[Anonymous Coward]

... the only effective method is to increase the overall amount of productivity and wealth in the world.

It was an interesting read until you started spouting Reaganomics. You're implying that 'giving' everyone more money, means we can all afford nice things. Only, if the nice things don't cost more as well. You're arguing for slavery, or at the least, international sweat-shops.

The way forward is ensuring rich people pay a higher tax-rate than the working class and eliminating wage-stagnation and other policies that disadvantage the working class.

... see homeless people with cell phones.

Homeless people did not get richer, phones got cheaper. Also, homeless does not mean penniless; it means they don't get efficiency from having a convenient and permanent play to stay.

Re: Know what else might help?

[ShanghaiBill]

I think tuition support is a taxable benefit.

The first $5250 per year is not taxable. Most of the tuition is going to community colleges, where tuition is not very expensive.

Re:Know what else might help?

[king neckbeard]

Your reasoning is circular. Wages are more reflective of bargaining power than meeting needs, especially since so many Walmart employees are on government assistance. Because Walmart holds almost all of the power here, they underpay their workers.

Re:Know what else might help?

[mark-t]

Working full time at Wal-mart takes up no less of a person's time than jobs with higher skill requirements, and there are only so many hours in a day to work. Why should a person who is putting in that time and working hard at Wal-mart not be entitled to being able to a fair wage that is actually enough to live on? Why should a person who may not have the skills to get a better job, have to work for wages so low that they are effectively in slavery, unable to get out simply because of the lack of more gainful employment that matches their skillset elsewhere?

Minimum wage is roughly half of what a living wage is where I live... and I would suggest that it is only an appropriate amount to pay someone who otherwise is still classified as a dependent for taxation purposes.

Re:Know what else might help?

[Archangel Michael]

Word salad, with almost no meaning, other than emotional arguments. Clear sign you have nothing useful to actually contribute. Instead, you believe that people are entitled to a "fair wage" (meaningless term) simply for breathing air and maybe showing up to work maybe sober. You have absolutely no idea what it actually takes to pay people a wage, make payroll every month. Fair Wage proponent's basic assumptions of economics are flat out in error.

I happen to know for a fact that people in low to no skill jobs (burger flippers, baristas etc) tend not to be the most reliable people in the world. And the fair wage proponents want to pay them a "living wage" (nebulous term), ignoring all the other complicated economic factors that are involved, simply because it appeals to their emotions. Reality doesn't care about anyone's emotions.

Here is a quick test:
What is a "fair wage"? Be specific.
What is a "living wage"? Be specific.

If you can't actually answer either question with specificity, then you're not making an argument on facts, but emotions.

social costs of state-subsidized wage-slaves

Basically, you're making the case that the state shouldn't subsidize wages at all. Good for you.

Re:Know what else might help?

[Archangel Michael]

How is it not an example of regressive taxes?

If they raise pay, much of it is taxed away by payroll taxes

This is an example of an employer following the incentives put into place by the government.

Incentives cause unintended behaviors, we all know and recognize this fact. Welfare incentivizes not getting a job. Now you have competeting incentives that produce the weird unintended consequences of people who when they want to work, end up having much of their income taken away in taxes, that it is either better to not have a job, or have the employer use the the incentives placed by government to help pay the wages of their employees.

The obvious real solution is to make it so that people can't get off welfare and improve their lives by getting a job, that way, they are perpetual victims of the white patriarchy. Oh, and lets increase gas taxes by $.12 a gallon (also not regressive tax) to pay for it all. And we can blame it all on Trump and the evil Republicans and Corporations who aren't paying their Fair Share(tm).

Re:Know what else might help?

[MightyYar]

How is it not an example of regressive taxes?

Regressive simply describes the shape of the plot when you chart tax rate against income. A flat tax is a straight line. A progressive tax trends upward. A regressive tax trends downward. Since the concern here is in bumping the employee to a higher tax bracket, it would actually be an example of a progressive tax.

Incentives cause unintended behaviors

Preaching to the choir.

Oh, and lets increase gas taxes by $.12 a gallon (also not regressive tax).

Well, you are applying income tax terminology to a sales tax. The sales tax in this case would be flat. But converting to percentages to make it look like an income tax, it would actually be regressive since poor people would pay a higher percentage of their income to the gas tax than rich people would. This is a common problem with sales taxes in general, which is why states tend to exempt necessities like unprepared food and basic clothing.

Re:Know what else might help?

[DarkRookie]

He not, just slightly less evil than WalMart.

Re:Know what else might help?

[king neckbeard]

A living wage is a wage where full time employment can have a family of four at or above the poverty line. A fair wage is a wage where pay is roughly equivalent to productivity. If a fair wage for a job is not a living wage, that job should not exist, as the process is too inefficient to waste valuable human time and effort.

Advocates for low wages are enabling crappy businesses and crappy jobs, instead of having them eviscerated for their failure. As for people advocating for fair wages "having no idea," go fuck yourself. Productivity is higher today than at any other point in human history. The wages to the people who actually do useful work, outside of a few exceptions, have not seen an effective raise in decades, despite constant growth in productivity.

So, there is no reason that a competently run business would be unable to pay living wages to a job that should continue to exist, outside of a prisoner's dilemma-type race to the bottom. However, that case is handled by raising the minimum wage, as the minimum wage is the limit of that kind of race.

Re:Know what else might help?

[JackieBrown]

The idea of a "livable wage" for jobs that require almost no skills is laughable.

What difference should the skill level required to do the job make?
Even jobs that require supposedly "almost no skills" can be no less demanding of a persons time and energy. If a person is willing to work hard at such a job, and presumably the job needs to be done, then why shouldn't they be entitled to a living wage doing it?

Define livable wage.

Does a married person who has kids automatically get paid more than someone single even though they are both doing the same job? If they live with their parents, do they get paid less? Do people with roommates get paid less than people that have the pay the rent themselves? If they require a special medically required diet, do we pay them more?

Re: Know what else might help?

[JackieBrown]

It's not mocking.

Starting at low skill low paying jobs is a path to build a skillset to get you out of poverty. I did these jobs and respect the people that do. It doesn't mean I think that they should pay more.

Getting rid of low skillset jobs (which is what you do when you raise the price of labor) blocks poorer people from getting the job experience to better themselves.

Re:Know what else might help?

[Anonymous Coward]

If there are people willing and capable of working for less money then who are we to say that corporations should HAVE to pay more. They pay this much because there are abundant resources of people without skills. Skilled workers can demand more because they as a human resource are more scarce. I would actually like Walmart to start paying high wages like you're suggesting so that some of the worthless meth heads that work there will be displaced with people capable of being professional and handling customer service.

Re: Know what else might help?

[king neckbeard]

In order for someone to reasonably progress, they need a wage that puts them ABOVE the poverty line. Yes, we can't all start at CEO pay, but if someone is going to progress to a better job, they need to actually be making progress. If minimum wage had kept pace with productivity, we wouldn't need to have this conversation.

Re:Know what else might help?

[king neckbeard]

People with at least a rudimentary understanding of concepts like game theory. So long as there are hungry and desperate people, we have the risk of a wage floor that could lead to many more people being hungry and desperate. Now, if we had a UBI, we could possibly get rid of minimum wage, because the potential for exploitation would not be there, or at least not nearly as much.

Re:Know what else might help?

[king neckbeard]

One definition of a living wage is enough to keep a family of four at or above the poverty line. When comparing such a wage to productivity, there's no need to carve out a bunch of hypothetical exceptions, just stop being a cheapass piece of shit.

Re:Know what else might help?

[mark-t]

If there are people willing and capable of working for less money then who are we to say that corporations should HAVE to pay more.

Down that road lies the effective legalization of slavery, even if you don't necessarily call it that.

They pay this much because there are abundant resources of people without skills

That's a very poor excuse to pay someone who might be working as much as they can (again, only so many hours in the day) and who has to support himself in today's society anything less than a living wage.

Re:Know what else might help?

[JackieBrown]

How many family of 4s do you know? If a husband and a wife get a job at Walmart, Walmart has to pay for a family of 8?

Start your own fucking company and stop spending other people's money you cheapasss fucking douche.

Re:Know what else might help?

[king neckbeard]

How many family of 4s do you know?

I know plenty of families of 4, and even some larger. In fact, 2.1 births per woman is the line for population replacement. What the fuck is wrong with your brain to even ask that kind of question?

If a husband and a wife get a job at Walmart, Walmart has to pay for a family of 8?

The point is that a single full-time income should be able to keep a normal-sized family out of poverty. If a modern job can't do that, then that job shouldn't exist, because that's a very low hurdle.

Start your own fucking company That's always the answer to any critique of bad business practices, and ignores basically any reality about how businesses actually work or are founded, and assumes that the only people that can comment are entrepreneurs, or more realistically, PHBs. and stop spending other people's money you cheapasss fucking douche.

Wal-mart and other businesses that don't pay a living wage are the cheapasses, and they are the ones stealing other people's money.

Re:Know what else might help?

[JackieBrown]

Then open a business and do it.

I'd rather be at the poverty line and working than unemployed because people like you decided the job shouldn't exist.

And yes, I've been in that situation. It's why I worked so hard to better myself so I wouldn't be in that situation again.

To pay every person that works enough to support a family of 4 is a great way to devalue our money and just move people in the middle class to poor. (If all 4 family members are working at Walmart, your system would have them bringing home more than a hundred grand a year which is more than my family of 6 makes yet we are living better than paycheck to paycheck.)

Re:Know what else might help?

[king neckbeard]

Then open a business and do it.

You're a broken record. "Start a business" is not an argument, you dipshit.

I'd rather be at the poverty line and working than unemployed because people like you decided the job shouldn't exist.

You are ignoring all the jobs freed up by people not having to have multiple jobs, and family members working part-time or not at all. You are also ignoring all the waste and overhead of our welfare system subsidizing these wages. Cheap pieces of shit need to go out of business, because they cost us all so much.

To pay every person that works enough to support a family of 4 is a great way to devalue our money and just move people in the middle class to poor.

No, it's how the American middle class was built in the first place, and if workers were paid proportionate to their historical productivity, we'd have more than enough to support that lifestyle.

Re:Know what else might help?

[JackieBrown]

You're a broken record. "Start a business" is not an argument, you dipshit

I think we can at least agree that you are an idiot who enjoys telling other people how they should spend their money.

Your plan would be a great way to ensure only mega-corps that can afford to pay people what you think is fair stay in business. You are a corporate tool.

Re:Know what else might help?

[king neckbeard]

No, you are the corporate tool. Mega-corps control our government, and real wages haven't gone up since that really became the case. If higher wages were good for mega-corps, we would have them.

It's quite hilarious that you think that one is a corporate tool for taking the stance of unions/pre-Reaganomics American policy.

Re:Know what else might help?

[JackieBrown]

I'm glad you are willing to laugh rather than learn

The catch

[DarkRookie]

The catch is that you can only apply to one of three schools.
Which will be ok for some with the online classes, but most prolly won't be able to do it with a crappy connection.

Re: The catch

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. More horeshit disguising itself as goodness. Wal-Mart...

Re:The catch

[DarkRookie]

I missed another.
The only allowed degrees are 'business or supply-chain management'
AKA what Wal-Mart wants you to learn to keep you stuck there.
Seems like a bad deal. It'll be good if you could work towards any degree.

Re: The catch

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya those degrees are worthless outside of Walmart. Who wants anyone with supply chain management?

Re: The catch

[bobbied]

Ya those degrees are worthless outside of Walmart. Who wants anyone with supply chain management?

Not true. Many retailers need supply chain management and MBA's to run things. Walmart is not the only game player in the market, though they may be the only game in town in some places.

Re: The catch

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya those degrees are worthless outside of Walmart. Who wants anyone with supply chain management?

Not true. Many retailers need supply chain management and MBA's to run things. Walmart is not the only game player in the market, though they may be the only game in town in some places.

McBain: That's the joke.

Re: The catch

[HornWumpus]

What's a 'supply chain management' degree? I've never heard of it.

I'll bet it's an 'associates', that's specific to Walmart's supply chain management software configuration. Sure a smart person could get some sort of start with that, but for the average Walmart employee? Shallow training for a future assistant manager, if they manage to step on enough necks to get the job.

Re:The catch

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, who needs a business degree... not you apparently.

Re: The catch

[Anonymous Coward]

Supply chain management is a business focus. It is pretty standard stuff that's needed for any retail focused company, although many other businesses interact with a "supply chain".

That's great, but ...

[Green Mountain Bot]

Will they also allow employees the time to actually take advantage of the benefit? Do only full-time employees qualify, or can part-timers take advantage as well?

Re:That's great, but ...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

For once, TFA provides the answers:

"offered to part-time staff as well as full-timers"..." Courses can be taken...online"...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-30/walmart-s-tuition-play-comes-as-choosy-employees-head-for-exits

Re:That's great, but ...

[ClickOnThis]

For once, TFA provides the answers:

"offered to part-time staff as well as full-timers"..." Courses can be taken...online"...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

But once you sign up for the program, you can no longer be a full-time staffer. That's in TFA, at the end.

Re:That's great, but ...

[cthulhu11]

Three schools. How many Mal-Wart employees? If those schools aren't accredited, such a "degree" is worthless.

A Solution That Only In Increases the Problem

[letthelightin]

Funnelling more funding into education, much like massive loans, will only further increase the price and waste of education, ensuring the masses will only become further uneducated, unless they join a corporate/banking caste.

Education ought be a utility, not a luxurious experience.

Re:A Solution That Only In Increases the Problem

[bobbied]

The problem with government garneted student loans for just about any degree (Basket weaving, Women's Studies etc) is clear. However, I don't see where Wal-Mart is going to contribute to the high cost of education with this program. Why?

First, this isn't a loan guarantee, it's tuition assistance.

Second, it's only for areas of study that Wal-Mart finds valuable and one would assume other companies would as well.

Finally, only about a million employees of Wal-Mart are eligible and only a fraction of those will take advantage. If 5% take Wal-Mart up on this offer, it's only going to be 50K students, and I doubt they'd see that many. Hardly enough to drive the market of 20.4 Million students.

Re:A Solution That Only In Increases the Problem

[alvinrod]

University education has become quite dysfunctional. There're large chunks of it that server little in the way of educational value and too many students who are either incapable of even those low bars or have no real interest in attending. It's warped into a perverse kind of monster that is incentivized to attract as many students as possible to get their loan money with no real concern for the quality of education. This has led to an adult daycare type of situation where schools will spend large sums of money on student centers, athletics, and anything else that will attract more students. All manner of useless degrees are offered, because the university doesn't care if it does students no good as long as it attracts students and their tuition payments. Worse (or better if you're the college) yet, if you give a student a useless degree, they'll eventually figure out they need to come back for even more college at some point in the future.

We've done today's youth a massive disservice by telling them that they need a college education. If you're going to work retail for the rest of your life, a college education is useless. Similarly, too many kids overlook trade schools at the expense of chasing a four year degree. There are all together too many young people entering college at 18 that don't have any idea what they want to do with their life yet and invariable fail or drop out due to disinterest or confusion. We need to tell people that there's no shame in getting a minimum wage job and figuring out how to be an adult and what you want to do with your life before going to school. I think that message would prevent a large part of the problem.

Removing government backed loans would probably fix the other half. When banks are on the hook, the actuaries will crunch the numbers and quickly realize that loaning $100,000 to someone for a degree in underwater basket weaving is a good investment. If rich kids want to get useless degrees on mommy and daddy's dime, that's their own business, but letting an 18 year old run up six figure debts that they can't hope to repay is just irresponsible on society's part.

Re:A Solution That Only In Increases the Problem

[ErichTheRed]

"We need to tell people that there's no shame in getting a minimum wage job and figuring out how to be an adult and what you want to do with your life before going to school. I think that message would prevent a large part of the problem. "

I'm not so sure about that. Certainly back when I went, if you didn't apply in your senior year of high school you missed out on certain opportunities. Even one year off unless you were in community college put you in the "non-traditional" crowd and effectively limited your choices of schools that would accept you.

You're not wrong; there's a lot of students who really would benefit. But, there's so much pressure, at least among students/parents that care about such things, to have students follow the traditional path. It's all about what opportunities you have...if you can get into an Ivy League school even by the skin of your teeth, there are jobs available to you that other students can't get and connections other students won't have. If you go the state school route like I did you have to work harder to find work and won't have some of the exceedingly lucrative stuff like banking and management consulting available to you.

Re:A Solution That Only In Increases the Problem

[losfromla]

Maybe some smart but poor kids will now choose to work at WalMart for a few years for the opportunity to attend college without accruing crushing debt.

Re:A Solution That Only In Increases the Problem

[alvinrod]

I'm not so sure about that. Certainly back when I went, if you didn't apply in your senior year of high school you missed out on certain opportunities. Even one year off unless you were in community college put you in the "non-traditional" crowd and effectively limited your choices of schools that would accept you.

It doesn't surprise me that schools would attempt to push people towards a path that results in the most money for the school even if it is a disservice to the individuals involved.

In a perfect world where everyone knew what they wanted to do with their life at 18 and was mature enough to take advantage of all of the opportunities they have with regards to education, I'd agree with you completely. However, we know that isn't the case from the data: Only 19% graduate on time.. Worse still 30% will not finish at all essentially dropping or failing out. That is not good and we as a society need to be aware that what we might want and what happens in the real world are two very different things. Kicking and screaming at reality are unlikely to yield different results.

Re:A Solution That Only In Increases the Problem

[gtall]

I see The Enlightenment has passed you by.

I had an employer do this to me

[rsilvergun]

it was basically an backhanded way to get me into a training program for the job. The way it worked they would send me to a specialized program for some skill they wanted me to have (that had no value outside of their business). If I dropped out I was on the hook for tuition. Also I had to pay out of pocket and wait for reimbursement, which wasn't paid out until 6 months after I graduated.

Fortunately I got out before they foisted it on me. The way it was structured I was basically paying for required training and then if they made enough money off me in 6 months I'd get it back. All the risk was on me. I'm not saying this is what it is, but it sure looks like it.

Re:I had an employer do this to me

[novakyu]

You are right this is meant to benefit the corporation, but it does sound like they are at least taking some of the risk. From TFA:

and there is no penalty for courses already taken if an employee leaves the company while enrolled in school. There’s also no requirement to continue working at Walmart for any period after receiving the degree.

lots!

[OrangeTide]

With diabetes on the rise in America we're going to need lots of podiatrists.

Re:lots!

[religionofpeas]

Actually, we just need someone to tell these diabetics to stop eating/drinking sugar and grains.

Re:lots!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, we just need someone to tell these diabetics to stop eating/drinking sugar and grains.

The obese waddle around refusing to listen to their doctor or common sense, so I fail to see why anyone else should waste time and effort trying to educate them.

They'll learn. Might take amputating a limb or two first, but they'll learn.

Re:lots!

[king neckbeard]

We also need to fix our broken system of subsidies and tariffs that add sugar to almost everything that is both convenient and cheap.

Re:lots!

[OrangeTide]

Hey! You can't tell me what I can't do. this is 'merica and we have freedom here. Unlike those communists and socialists in China and Europe.

Re:lots!

[Anonymous Coward]

We also need to fix our broken system of subsidies and tariffs that add sugar to almost everything that is both convenient and cheap.

Or, you know, get people to take responsibility for their choices. Nobody makes them eat McDonald's and put ranch dressing on everything. People are fat because they make poor decisions and/or have poor self control. Using a tax hammer to force them into better decisions penalizes people who are responsible consumers of things that should be occasional treats. This mentality of "punish the people doing right" has got to stop in this country, from everything from soda taxes to gun control. Start holding people responsible for their actions.

Re:lots!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the opposite of a taxation... a government subsidy that cheaply allows sugar to get into all food.

Re: lots!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you know, stop subsidizing the stuff that does that to people.

Literally paying to make it happen.

Re: lots!

[triffid_98]

How ironic...half the Walmarts around here literally have a McDonalds located inside of them. Pretty much like (figuratively) their waddling diabetic patrons.

Re:But how many podiatrists

[Oswald McWeany]

does Walmart need?

Walmart has a problem with feet. http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

A toe-curling foot offender has pleaded guilty Thursday to sucking a woman's toes at a North Carolina Walmart and was handed a 60-day jail sentence. ...
When asked by the reporter if he had anything to say to the victim's family — whom he met while posing as a podiatry student in the big-box store's shoe section — he went quiet

But... they are wal-mart employees

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no better test for "not college bound" than becoming a Wal-Mart employee.

Re:But... they are wal-mart employees

[bobbied]

There is no better test for "not college bound" than becoming a Wal-Mart employee.

Why?

If one is wanting to go to school, why is a Wal-Mart job somehow crosswise to that goal?

My son has a $10/hour job he's held for two years and is starting college in the fall. Where I don't expect him to work full time and be a full time student to pay his way given I have the means, he *could* easily attend college and pay for it himself working part time, at least for the first two years at the community college.

If he can do it, I'm sure working at Wal-Mart wouldn't be that different.

Re:But... they are wal-mart employees

[b0s0z0ku]

Only because it's hard to find the time to better yourself while working subsistence wages. Believe me -- probably 95% of Wal*Mart employees want the hell out of working for that crappy company.

Re:But... they are wal-mart employees

[CanHasDIY]

My wife worked at Wal-Mart when she was in college. She now has her CPA, a Bachelor's in Economics, and a Master's in Accounting.

You're a fucking moron.

Re: But... they are wal-mart employees

[Anonymous Coward]

And still works at Walmart....

But hey, she's got that bachelors degree in economics, amiright?

You're not even a man. When your wife controls your thoughts, you become a victim. You are a victim. I know she verbally abuses you and reminds you everyday about her economics degree.

It's ok, god made you a man. You can deal with it.

Fucking moron.

How about a living wage instead?

[Rick Schumann]

That's nice, Walmart, but I think what people want is to not have both mom and dad working 60 hour work weeks yet still be living paycheck-to-paycheck.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[bluefoxlucid]

WalMart makes their entire business on low prices, at a 3% profit margin (impressive). They've said they're neutral in minimum wage; they seem to support it, some say because a higher minimum wage will crush WalMart's small competitors.

Higher wages will inevitably lead to higher prices. It's not by much, but it's there. A $2 raise is about a 10% price increase on average--$20 pants become $22 pants--and they don't want everyone running to Target, causing loss of WalMart jobs, gain of Target jobs, and disruption for working families.

A minimum wage increase would cause a wage increase at WalMart and Target, causing the associated price increases. Structurally, nothing changes: WalMart still has lower prices, even if those prices are slightly-higher. Any impoverished Target employees shopping at WalMart are still shopping at WalMart, are better-paid, are paid more than enough to offset the price increases themselves, and so funnel more money into WalMart (so they can keep their same profit margin without as much of a price increase). WalMart gets richer.

It's WalMart's 3% NOP that gets me. That's insanely-low; it's impressive, to say the least. Adidas Shoes has 5%; about 8% is reasonable, just by being a common baseline; Comcast usually has 11%; and Microsoft and Apple hold above 20% NOP. I support a fair corporate income tax with a higher tax rate when the corporation's NOP is above reasonable levels; that generally means WalMart gets a tax cut and Apple gets to pay 48%. I don't honestly have a problem with this.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[bobbied]

Living pay check to pay check isn't about how much money you bring in, but about how much you are spending in most cases.

It's more about managing what you spend to match what you take in than making more money. Usually more money doesn't help people who live paycheck to paycheck, it just allows them to dig a deeper hole. If you are struggling to service unsecured debt, you likely have a spending problem. If you find that a raise only puts you deeper in debt, your problem is spending, not earnings.

In today's day and age, in most places in the USA we are rapidly approaching full employment. This means it's a seller's market in labor. So if you don't make enough, get a better job. If you cannot get a better job, develop better skills and try again. So if you *really* need more money, you can get it by working hard, but if you don't control your debt load, it won't change a thing to earn more.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[slapout]

I believe the idea is that people can use this education to get a better job.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[DogDude]

I agree. There are certain people, that, no matter how much you pay them, will always be living paycheck to paycheck. In our own company, I've seen people who are making 50% more than when they started, in the exact same financial situation as when they started, as well. Inputs matter, but so does what one does with that money.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[king neckbeard]

Wal-Mart's business is not just cheap goods, but the economic class of goods known as "inferior goods." If people have the money to shop elsewhere, they will shop at Wal-Mart considerably less, and likely even save money in the long run (since well-made goods don't need to be replaced as often, or fail less).

Higher wages would be detrimental to Wal-Mart.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[StormReaver]

That's nice, Walmart, but I think what people want is to not have both mom and dad working 60 hour work weeks yet still be living paycheck-to-paycheck.

That sounds reasonable when shooting from gut instinct, but that instinct is almost always wrong. I've watched what happens when the minimum wage gets an unreasonable boost: working hours go down to compensate, and usually go low enough to overcompensate. Thus, employees make less money with the wage increase than they made before it.

In my city, most full time minimum wage employees saw working hours slashed substantially so employers wouldn't have to pay as much as they were already paying. When the Affordable Care Act went into effect, those same employees had their working hours slashed yet again to ensure they fell below the earnings threshold that would require their employers to pay for health insurance.

A better solution would be for those parents to not be parents until they are financially and educationally viable to support a family. For those parents who didn't think before exchanging DNA, this is why your parents told you to not have sex until you were able to support a family. Your life is probably very difficult now, and you have only yourself to blame.

This doesn't require a lot of brain power. It's simple common sense.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[StormReaver]

Living pay check to pay check isn't about how much money you bring in, but about how much you are spending in most cases.

I don't know who you think you are by being rational, but stop it! People don't want to take responsibility for themselves, but would rather make poor decisions and then blame someone else for the inevitably poor results.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[b0s0z0ku]

If you're being paid $10/hr or $20,000/yr, take home more like $18,000, where do you start cutting expenses. Housing = $7000/yr minimum. Car, if you want to get to work, probably $2000/yr just for repairs and insurance. Utilities, $1200/yr. Food, $3650/yr if you eat at home. Health insurance, subsidized, $1200/yr. Gas for the car, just to get to work, $500/yr. Clothes, $1000/yr. Activities outside of work, say $1000/yr (no pleasures make a person go nuts). We're up to $17,550/yr without any unexpected expenses, and that's in a "cheap" part of the US.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[bobbied]

Living pay check to pay check isn't about how much money you bring in, but about how much you are spending in most cases.

I don't know who you think you are by being rational, but stop it! People don't want to take responsibility for themselves, but would rather make poor decisions and then blame someone else for the inevitably poor results.

Yea, I'm very sorry.. The whole "pull yourself up by your own boot straps" "hard work wins" message is quite hurtful to those who think the world owes them and will throw a riot, burring down their own neighborhoods to prove it. I know the pain they feel when the welfare checks get delayed or the WIC debit card stops working for 20 min and I just added to it by making them feel responsible for themselves, if just for a brief moment..

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[b0s0z0ku]

The majority of WIC recipients are actually gainfully employed. Stop repeating racist dog-whistle stereotypes from 1993.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[bobschmagogee]

Walmart's starting hourly wage is $11/hr. If both mom and dad are working 60 hr work weeks, they're making almost $70,000/yr combined. There are a lot of places in the US where making that much is not living paycheck to paycheck.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[Green Mountain Bot]

A better solution would be for those parents to not be parents until they are financially and educationally viable to support a family.

Any solution depends on time travel is not actually a solution.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[bluefoxlucid]

Higher wages across the board would be detrimental to WalMart if and only if the class of people earning those wages were more-interested in less-inferior goods than in lower prices. If the minimum wage pushes prices up at WalMart and its competitors, WalMart's business strategy is contingent on people deciding they like WalMart's lower prices.

WalMart doesn't just sell inferior goods. I'm not entirely sure what's different about clothing bought at WalMart versus Sears, at a glance; and besides, your kids are going to outgrow them in a year anyway. They have groceries. They have toys. They have a lot of the same brand products as everywhere else. They have school supplies that nobody cares about anyway (remember getting a new $15 backpack every year? Pencils? Paper?) which are inferior to high-quality $130 Ogio backpacks. They have computers and cell phones and video games. You can buy a Mossberg 505 Assault Shotgun at WalMart.

WalMart also carries some no-name junk like plastic cups and shitty pillows.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[Rick Schumann]

I'm okay with that concept so long as it's actually a viable concept; if you're saying that people who work at Walmart only work there for a few years then move on to a real job, then that's fine, but I don't have that data.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[Rick Schumann]

A better solution would be for those parents to not be parents until they are financially and educationally viable to support a family. For those parents who didn't think before exchanging DNA, this is why your parents told you to not have sex until you were able to support a family. Your life is probably very difficult now, and you have only yourself to blame

You were doing fine right up to that point where you revealed what a complete and total authoritarian asshole you are, who also by the way doesn't have a grip on reality. People have kids when they have kids and if you want to invoke the most violent reaction possible from them, then try to dictate to them when and/or how many kids they can have, because it's nobody's business but their own. No, I don't have kids nor have I ever wanted any so don't EVEN try that crap with me, mister. Your holier-than-thou superior attitiude, I'm sure, makes plenty of people want to punch you in the nose -- and rightly so. Fix your shit.

Re: How about a living wage instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that most WIC recipients are trump voters in backwards ass republican states? Right?

You also realize that the blue states subsidize most of the red states.

But keep being racist and ignoring the problem. It's only a problem when the black man does it. White people been abusing the system since forever? That's ok, they need to and can because white is right.

TLDR: you're a racist asshole who can't see outside of his own box. I guarantee some your neighbors or family probably gets WIC and you don't bat an eyelash. But because a black person gets WIC, that means they are automatically abusing it and all we hear is "muhhhh tax dollars".

You are the reason we look at people on the right like they are idiots. Because they are so hypocritical it's not even funny. They don't even see it as being hypocritical because they are white. And the white man is never wrong.

Re: How about a living wage instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

So many misconceptions... So little time..

The majority of welfare takers live in big cities and blue states... https://www.usgovernmentspendi...

This means that Trump voters are less likely to collect WIC than democratic voters, just on it's face.

The rest of your assumptions are just as bad.

Re: How about a living wage instead?

[b0s0z0ku]

Adjust this per capita -- costs of living are lower in poorer states, so they can in turn pay less per capita in "welfare." Also, a lot of the poorer red states didn't expand Medicaid.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[king neckbeard]

The very definition of inferior goods is that demand decreases when wages increase, which has overlap with, but is not the same as, cheaper goods. We can debate whether or not, or to what extent, Walmart operates in inferior goods, but if we accept the premise that this is a major part of their business model, it would be hurting at least that part of the model. There is also no shortage of discussing whether or not Walmart is a business of inferior goods, with the consensus leaning towards yes.

Walmart is where the most welfare/WIC/Food stamps is spent. That's a pretty good indicator that they deal in inferior goods. They are socially seen as basically the worst place to shop, and people may shop at other places just to avoid Walmart employees and customers, if they are economically capable of doing so.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're being paid $10/hr or $20,000/yr, take home more like $18,000, where do you start cutting expenses. Housing = $7000/yr minimum.

Get a roommate/rent out a room = $3500/yr

Car, if you want to get to work, probably $2000/yr just for repairs and insurance.

Walk/bike/ride the bus = 0 - $500/yr

Utilities, $1200/yr.

Turn thermostat down in winter/wear warm clothes, learn to live without A/C more = $1000/yr

Food, $3650/yr if you eat at home.

Buy bulk rice, beans and other cheap sources of protein and energy, learn how to cook = $2500/yr (feeds 3 - 4)

Health insurance, subsidized, $1200/yr.

Fair enough. Save on health expenses by biking to work and staying in shape.

Gas for the car, just to get to work, $500/yr.

Bike/walk/ride bus to work = $0/yr

Clothes, $1000/yr.

Buy second hand, actually wear clothes until worn out = $200/yr

Activities outside of work, say $1000/yr (no pleasures make a person go nuts).

There are many free, fun and enriching things to do in life. Cut the cable, get rid of the TV and start doing them = $0/yr

We're up to $17,550/yr without any unexpected expenses, and that's in a "cheap" part of the US.

Now we're down to $8900/yr, so you are talking a savings rate of 55% of salary, which should allow you to retire on $20,000 in 15 years, assuming you invest and use the 4% safe withdrawal rate rule. For a family, expenses will go up (say $15,000 - 20,000), but both spouses could work also, giving $40,000/yr income and they will have an earned income tax credit if they have children, giving a similar savings rate.

Now I'm not saying everyone will choose to live this way, but it is possible to live well and even retire on this amount of money. But it is a set of choices that you make, whether you realize it or not.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[b0s0z0ku]

$7000/yr is about $600/mo. That's WITH a roommate in many parts of the US.

$100/mo for utilities: gas + electricity + phone isn't extravagant in most of the US. And yes, you need Internet or phone to (say) look for jobs these days.

The bus doesn't run everywhere, and good luck walking/biking along a major road with no sidewalk in Detroit winter or Phoenix summer.

Save on health expenses? See above. You just got hit by a car while biking to work. Do not pass go, pay $20,000 for ER bills.

Clothes - maybe. Activities -- you still have to get places.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

We can argue all day long, and I do agree that each area of the country has unique aspects to it, but there are many counterexamples to your "it's impossible to get my expenses down" arguments available to read in fully detailed blogs on the internet. See for example:
earlyretirementextreme.com
mrmoneymustache.com
gocurrycracker.com

amongst many others.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[b0s0z0ku]

I'm talking about cheap parts of the country.

A part of the US where there's good public transport AND cheap housing AND cheap food doesn't exist (IMHO). Usually only one or two out of three conditions hold true.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Counterexample:

Jacob Lund Fisker of earlyretirementextreme.com retired and lived off of $6000-$8000/yr in the Bay area.

I am not saying it is something you want to do, and it requires structuring your life a bit, but it can be done.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[b0s0z0ku]

Did he already own a paid-off house with Prop 13 tax protection, though? If yes, then that's cheating since it required a higher-than-min-wage income at some point to buy it and pay it off.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

WalMart makes their entire business on low prices, at a 3% profit margin (impressive).

Their quarterly earnings reports and SEC filings report a gross profit margin of 24.9%.

Higher wages will inevitably lead to higher prices. It's not by much, but it's there. A $2 raise is about a 10% price increase on average--$20 pants become $22 pants

No. Again, their reports and filings claim total gross operating expenses are about 21% of revenue. That means wages are only a small portion. They have utilities, shipping, leases, etc. Even if it was 50% of their gross operating cost, that's 10.5% of total revenue goes to wages. That would mean an increase in wages across the board of 10% would put their pants at $22.23.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[RyoShin]

They have a lot of the same brand products as everywhere else.

They have the same brand name, but not the same brand products. Wal-mart explicitly encourages brands to make lower-quality versions to sell at their stores for a lower price, capitalizing on the brand name recognition:

The Wal-Mart vice president responded with strategy and argument. Snapper is the sort of high-quality nameplate, like Levi Strauss, that Wal-Mart hopes can ultimately make it more Target-like. He suggested that Snapper find a lower-cost contract manufacturer. He suggested producing a separate, lesser-quality line with the Snapper nameplate just for Wal-Mart. Just like Levi did.

Let's say Wal-mart offers a $500 Sony 55" 4K HDR LCD Display[1] and Target has a Sony model with the exact same features, even the same model number range (but a 5002 instead of Wal-mart's 5001) for $550. If Sony made that 5001 as an inferior version for Wal-mart, depending on the corners cut it might last half as long as the 5002 (usage and environment being the same.) So with Target you spend $550 over 2y years, but with Wal-mart you spend $500+replacement cost over that same 2y period.

Now, that article is over a decade old, so it's possible that Wal-mart has changed their ways since then. But I'm going to need a good [citation required] to believe that.

Some of the other stuff you mention, like school supplies and other consumables, can be had at the dollar store for the same quality and unit price (or even less than Wal-mart).

[1] Likely not a real product; name, size, attributes chosen at random

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[StormReaver]

You were doing fine right up to that point where you revealed what a complete and total authoritarian asshole you are....

I think you have...issues.

No, I don't have kids nor have I ever wanted any so don't EVEN try that crap with me, mister.

I do have kids. I didn't do a whole lot of worrying about getting married and starting a family until after I got my degree and was satisfied that I was in a stable career. I worked my way into a stable and respected position in my career before taking on the responsibility that comes with having a wife and creating young people that depend on me for everything.

Again, it's basic common sense. Be outraged about it all you want, but having a wife and kids you can't support because of poor decision making over what should be really, really simple logic rarely results in anything good.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

... means WalMart gets a tax cut ...

I agree only if there's a equal decrease in corporate welfare, payments for corporate 'good behaviour' and legalized kickbacks.

The second problem was seen in the Kansas experiment when the Republicans lowered corporate tax: Rich people (illegally) declared themselves corporations while both sides of government stood idly by.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. I believe he lived in a mobile home park to avoid the higher cost of renting an apartment or owning a home.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[bluefoxlucid]

The very definition of inferior goods is that demand decreases when wages increase, which has overlap with, but is not the same as, cheaper goods.

Yes, and "when wage increases" is an important but imprecise concept. The difference is really that people would like to buy a nicer thing, but it's expensive; whereas cheaper goods which are not inferior are rationally-preferable even when you have unlimited money.

My point is that now you can afford a $100 backpack; but if you buy the $20 backpack, you can afford nicer food instead of GreatValue (WalMart) brand shit. You'll probably opt for the shitty backpack and clothes, for reasons stated above about their useful lifespans being cut short by your kids growing up, as well as for reasons that your buying power is still compacted and you can extend your standard-of-living by buying more goods or other less-inferior goods.

For people to cease buying those inferior goods, they have to become wealthy enough that the economic consideration of a $5 can opener over a $15 one is not whether they can spend the other $10 on something else, but whether the $10 can opener is nicer. So long as you have to think about every purchase, you're going to buy the cheapest shit you can get (unless you get Vimes's Course on Personal Budget and Finance).

hey are socially seen as basically the worst place to shop, and people may shop at other places just to avoid Walmart employees and customers, if they are economically capable of doing so.

I know plenty of people who go to WalMart even though they make six-figure salaries. They're a combination of poor purchasing decisions and habit. WalMart is convenient: groceries, clothing, ammunition, fishing tackle, and blu ray players all in one place. Most of their stuff is brand-name goods you can get anywhere else, so shopping at WalMart can easily result in the same products purchased as if you shopped anywhere else.

I've never understood the mentality of people who get bored, so go to WalMart just to walk around, and maybe buy something, maybe not. I don't spend a lot of time in stores; I have a thing I need, I go in, I buy all the things I need, and I leave five minutes later. Apparently WalMart is a place some people want to go when they're bored of being home, though, so whatever.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[bluefoxlucid]

Wal-mart explicitly encourages brands to make lower-quality versions to sell at their stores for a lower price, capitalizing on the brand name recognition

I often see stuff that's also at WalMart; but your point is interesting.

Sony XBR55X800E at Best Buy and WalMart. Same with various models in stock at the store just up the street from me right now.

If they're labeling these as the same product and yet they're different, the FTC should put a boot in somebody's ass.

As I mentioned: they have the same brand products of food in their grocery area (plus really horrible store brand). It's clothing, blankets, and kitchen wares (plates, cups, utensils) that are often vastly-inferior--anything that's generally a minor purchase, something people don't think about what to buy but just that they need to buy it. They definitely pressure those suppliers for cheaper goods.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen, asshole: What makes you think you get to dictate to anyone how they live their lives? Rhetorical question, you DON'T, and I'll bet your kids grow up to hate you and your wife divorces you because you're such a narcissistic know-it-all asshole. Fuck the fuck off, KYS.

Re:How about a living wage instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

In my tiny hometown, Walmart was where all the high school kids would go to hangout because there was nothing else to do and nowhere else to go. I make six figures, and still shop at Walmart because it's the only store within an hour drive from me.

Re:But how many podiatrists

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Considering how much of their work day their associates spend standing up or walking around? Quite a few. B-)

Walmart, College

[PPH]

Now there's a Venn diagram with a null intersection.

Re:Walmart, College

[Gilgaron]

That makes it much cheaper to offer than a living wage!

Re:Walmart, College

[Anonymous Coward]

Careful, your classism is showing.

This is great news!

[BronsCon]

Until participants get fired for having restricted availability due to the classes they're now taking.

But. . . but. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . .once they get a degree, they'll realize they don't have to work for Walmart any more.

Re:But. . . but. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like all the other college graduates in America not working in the retail/service industry, right?

Re:But. . . but. . .

[HornWumpus]

Business majors? Think again. Those are 'certificates of attendance', at best.

Standard drunken frat boy degree, dime a dozen, each dumber than the last.

Not just useful elsewhere - promoting from within.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Sounds to me, as well that;
  - This is NOT a serfdom scam (like some tech companies that send you to boot camp and then charge you for it if you quit within a rather long time.0
  - The skills and certs are likely to be useful for seeking jobs - and at higher levels - at other companies both in the same industry (which is where their people are likely to work even if they DO go to another company) and in business in general.
  - Their training their people with skills suitable for higher ranking, and higher paid, positions in their own company. To get that to pay off (beyond job satsifaction and retention) they'd have to be promoting from within, rather than hiring middle-to-upper management from without while leaving the rank-and-file stuck in a dead-end job.

Looks like a good deal for all concerned.

What does WalMart want in return?

[Anonymous Coward]

If WalMart is being so commendable which I am not saying this isn't a good thing. But obviously WalMart is not investing in its employee's only to have them walk away with a education. Realistically I doubt WalMart is hurting for anyone with college education unless those students have a big student loan debt and cannot afford to work in a management position at WalMart? Otherwise, most WalMart store positions don't require much education to work there.Let's hope these schools have a good reputation or their degree's are basically worthless.

Re:What does WalMart want in return?

[Joe_Dragon]

Michael Larson became an assistant manage at Walmart

Re:What does WalMart want in return?

[ausekilis]

Fair point. Most companies/agencies I've worked for typically want to own you for the duration of your education + 1/2 years. It's a contract between employee and employer, breach typically means the employee must pay back the past 1-2 years of tuition paid for by the employer.

I would assume Wal-Mart would be similar. Reimbursement for full-time school up to N dollars, half-time up to N/2 dollars, per year. Should the employee quit or otherwise stop working for Wal-Mart, I'm sure WM will recoup at least N dollars in some way.

And why might they want to pick the schools?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The catch is that you can only apply to one of three schools.

Oh, you mean so:
  - They go to schools that the company know do a good job of teaching the skills they company needs for a decent price.
  - They don't go to one of the scam "school" operations that rip you off for big bucks and don't teach you squat.
  - They don't go to an accredited school that teaches left-wing politics, socialist "economics" theories, and that business (especially Walmart) is the enemy - rather than something you need to do and do well if you want to get ahead in one.

Re:And why might they want to pick the schools?

[b0s0z0ku]

The last one. Translation: they end up in a school that toes Wal*Mart's party line. Capitalism good! Capitalism always good! Braaaaaaawk! Braaaaaawk! Now be a good middle manager and help us step on your former co-workers.

Re: And why might they want to pick the schools?

[c6gunner]

Your comment is a perfect example of why this policy is important.

Re: And why might they want to pick the schools?

[b0s0z0ku]

You seem to prefer corporate brainwashing over education. Econ departments at most "traditional" universities tend to be fairly balanced to conservative. The OP favors a monoculture of corporatism.

Re: And why might they want to pick the schools?

[Anonymous Coward]

So they can brainwash employees
And turn them into slaves?

Yea your comment is the reason some people reply with "you're an idiot".

Re:And why might they want to pick the schools?

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism bad! Capitalism always bad! Cuuuuuuuck! Cuuuuuuuck! Now be a good barista and bring me a gluten-free soy chai latte!

Re:And why might they want to pick the schools?

[b0s0z0ku]

You drink soy lattes?

Re:And why might they want to pick the schools?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. You are the soyboy in the Bernie Sanders t-shirt, not me.

Re:And why might they want to pick the schools?

[b0s0z0ku]

So I'm ordering a latte from you, the barista? Good to know.

Re: And why might they want to pick the schools?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The OP favors a monoculture of corporatism.

As the OP in question, I'd like to correct your misunderstanding.

The OP favors a polyculture of interacting individuals - but with the nonaggression principle as the core law for their interaction, recognizing property as "crystalized labor" (to quote the epiphany of a left-wing labor union leader of my acquaintance), and with groups having no more rights than those of the individuals of which they consist.

"Corporatism" is yet another set of socialist schemes, and quite outside the above acceptable set.

(Or are you using the left-wing swear word definition of "corporatism", which amounts to plutocracy? That's not within the set, either.)

Unfortunately, the current left-wing, though its members mostly don't realize it, is a fanatic religion, with anything related to a useful business practice labelled as sin, and the practitioners of business labelled as sinners. So any educational institution whose members adhere to this religion will necessarily be teaching counter-productive lessons to its students.

Re: And why might they want to pick the schools?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rule #1 of political discourse: if "nonaggression principle" (aka the NAP) comes up, the speaker's entire spiel can be safely discarded as childish rambling.

Re: And why might they want to pick the schools?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Ad hominem. I win!

Not bad, but also self-serving

[ErichTheRed]

The summary mentions that these degrees are in "business or supply chain management", and only available through 3 institutions. I'll give them credit for not going to ITT Tech or U of Phoenix or something...that's a plus. But, does the world need any more generic business students? Will Walmart even need them as time goes by?

Even when I graduated a million years ago, the generic business, psychology, communications, etc. students were basically attending class between parties and most just squeaked by. With the increase in students being pushed into college I can't imagine this has changed at all. In the old days when a degree was a guaranteed path to a job, the idea was that if you didn't know what you wanted to do, major in business and some company would find some random job for you. Those random jobs are disappearing, and low-margin employers like Walmart and Amazon are going to be the first to eliminate people wherever they can.

Walmart is at least offering something...they probably cut some sweet deal with the 3 universities to boost their enrollment numbers and got a massive tuition discount, and it's a direct expense that they don't pay tax on. But, limiting where and what can be studied makes this seem like a serfdom arrangement, kind of like the coder bootcamps that take people in and funnel them off to startups desperate for more JavaScript monkeys willing to work 100 hour weeks.

Why restrict the choice so much?

[b0s0z0ku]

Why restrict the choice to second-tier "adult ed" schools in three states? This means that most people will be forced to take the classes online, which denies a lot of opportunities. In a traditional class, you have contact with professors and other students and hear of research opportunities, etc. Of course, that's what Wal*Mart doesn't want -- they don't want students to develop connections outside the company. Otherwise, the students can just up and leave after they have their degree.

Re:Why restrict the choice so much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some online schools require regular video chats with the prof.

Re:Why restrict the choice so much?

[b0s0z0ku]

Which is crap -- being able to go up and speak to the prof after class or attend office hours isn't the same dynamic as some Skype chat. Nor is being able to raise a hand and ask a question during the actual lecture. Being somewhat ADHD, I'd probably forget most of my questions before I asked them.

Re:Why restrict the choice so much?

[AHuxley]

The big issues are:
The university SJW demands for a free "living" wage.
SJW are looking for workers to talk to about unions, wages changes.
To put what the SJW academics educated generations of SJW about into reality all over the USA.
The desire for a worker once on campus to discover unionism at university. SJW can help workers on campus discover new ways of understanding their place in society.
The ability for a worker to meet a SJW student who passes on unionist reading material and they get talking.
To then have to see union recruiting attempted at a place of work after getting exposed to the idea of a union on a SJW campus.
It only takes one worker to become a unionist to then get talking to an entire team of once very productive workers.
Such "educational" efforts find the staff with an IQ able to take on more information, learn new information and be productive without supervision when doing a new complex task.
Just enough IQ to learn new skills and want to return to work with the productive new skills. Not to go to a SJW campus and return to start a union.

Re:Not just useful elsewhere - promoting from with

[b0s0z0ku]

The schools are second-tier "adult ed" schools in three states -- so majority of courses taken will be online. No opportunity for networking or making connections. Why do you assume that Wal*Mart employees would want to work in the same industry all of their careers?

Re:Not just useful elsewhere - promoting from with

[ErichTheRed]

About the "training" aspect -- I'd agree if this were the 50s or 60s and this was a massive lifelong employer like IBM, AT&T, General Motors, etc. Walmart isn't that kind of employer; if they could run their stores with zero employees they would because their margin is so low. So, what incentive do they have to train store managers? I'd think they and other retailers would be figuring out how to replace people as quickly as possible, and certainly not be interested in their career development.

The days where you could start at a big employer out of high school, show some initiative and get chosen for a training program/college tuition waiver are over. Walmart doesn't have an incentive to invest in people the same way a 1960s IBM might because you don't need specialized knowledge to run a retail store.

Thank you Trump

[SuperKendall]

joining a growing list of companies that are helping employees pay for higher education as a perk in a tight labor market

Didn't hear that a few years ago... funny how even a slightly fiscally conservative president can make the job market hum.

Re:Thank you Trump

[b0s0z0ku]

Fiscally conservative?

You mean one that supports tax cuts while wanting to pay to revamp out military's murder devices and technologies?

A fiscally conservative president would tell the military industrial complex to go bugger itself.

Re: Thank you Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how you always get modded down. It paints me with joy that there are other people on slashdot who can see directly thru your shit.

And the fact that is happens DAILY, just reminds me that you are a worthless shithead trying to push an agenda.

Just gonna drive the price of tuition higher

[Solandri]

Just like student loans drove tuitions higher. You can subsidize something on the demand side, or the supply side.

If you subsidize on the demand side, you lower the cost to buyers while keeping the price to sellers the same. Someone in the middle (government, scholarship fund, Walmart, etc) makes up the difference. The lower cost to buyers increases demand. If the product is a commodity (all versions of the product are more or less identical and interchangeable, e.g. lettuce, or oil), this increased demand spurs producers to increase production so they can sell more. Supply increases, and prices stabilize again close to what they were at before the subsidy, except now you have more supply.

That doesn't happen with education because it's not a commodity. People want to go to ivy league schools. These schools then experience increased demand without any incentive to increase supply. So they just ratchet up the price of tuition to soak up the extra money the subsidy enables people to pay them. The end result is after several decades, all you've accomplished is the right hand stealing from the left. People who qualify for the subsidy are able to go to school, at the expense of some people who don't qualify for the subsidy being unable to afford to go. The net number of students doesn't increase or increases very little. And the price of tuition increases by roughly the amount of the subsidy per student.

If you subsidize on the supply side, you're directly encouraging an increase in supply. Ivy league schools keep their tuition the same, but your subsidy allows the construction of more schools (e.g. State universities). The increased competition from having more schools drives them to figure out ways to cut expenses, and lower their tuition to attract more students.

Walmart would accomplish a lot more if they instead used this money for a fund to help construct more schools.

can I get fries with my [Walmart] degree?

[Anonymous Coward]

one of the richest families in America wants you and your neighbors to stay poor.

No FT employees so no benefits...

[MacColossus]

But tuition reimbursement?

Get a STEM degree

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you get a STEM bachelors degree you are wasting your time. The liberal arts is a joke - you'll be answering telephones, working a cash register or frying food for money just to pay off that large student loan. Business majors know less than they did when they entered college and are not prepared for how a company really works.

And even better is go to grad school. BS degrees are watered down now that let anyone in and inflate their grades so they can pass. Gotta check those PC boxes.

Re:Get a STEM degree

[b0s0z0ku]

True about business majors -- business education is responsible for a lot of the lack of scruples and short-sightedness seen in US business.

Not sure if bachelor's degrees are watered-down and grade-inflated. In popular disciplines -- i.e. biochem to pre-med, they tend to want to keep the averages at a C+ or so to weed out the people who won't be able to hack it in upper-level classes.

Same goes for CS, I'd assume.

But when will they study?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like many other such employers, they have a habit of only offering less than 30 hours a week employment per employee so as to not have to pay full benefits. Thus pushing people into multiple jobs, multiple commutes per day, and juggling hours. Now with added study hours on top? There's only so many hours in a week.

Re:But when will they study?

[ClickOnThis]

Like many other such employers, they have a habit of only offering less than 30 hours a week employment per employee so as to not have to pay full benefits. Thus pushing people into multiple jobs, multiple commutes per day, and juggling hours. Now with added study hours on top? There's only so many hours in a week.

This. Also, look at this from TFA:

OUR Walmart, an activist group, called the plan a “step forward” in a statement, but questioned how many employees would be able take advantage of it because of the company’s scheduling system, which might make it difficult to juggle work and college.

“As soon as you tell Walmart you’re going to school, you lose access to a full-time schedule,” Andrea Dehlendorf, co-executive director of OUR Walmart, said in an interview after the company’s shareholder meeting Wednesday.

I don't shop at Walmart. I confess, when I saw this headline, I almost reconsidered. Almost.

How about just providing medical benefits

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure Walmart's employees would rather have affordable insurance with quality health care over college educations.

Did you get this from a right wing think tank

[rsilvergun]

or do you work for one and wrote it yourself? This is one of their talking points. It's always the same: We can't raise your pay because somebody else will just take it away if we do. Maybe it's the gov't. Maybe it's the businesses you shop at (funny that for Walmart employees).

It's a lie. No, employees making $15/hr don't pay 40% of their income in taxes. Even at $15/hr (the living wage as of 2018, though it's going to have to be raised soon) you pay about 15-20%. Less if you have kids. I know, I made that kind of money for years before getting a better job.

Tuition assistance is fine and dandy, but it's no substitute for a living wage. People need to live while they go to school, and it's unreasonable to expect people who couldn't make it through college in their teens & 20s to do it while working for a living in their 30s, 40s or 50s. Sure, some people have done it but they're outliers. You're being disingenuous at best and a right wing, anti-worker shill at worst.

Well

[DaMattster]

Instead of footing the bill for more useless college degrees, why not just pay the employees a livable wage?

So be help

[MinoBilgisayar]

The bus doesn't run everywhere, and good luck walking/biking along a major road with no sidewalk in Detroit winter or Phoenix summer. http://www.etemambalaj.com/

Read Again Please

[SuperKendall]

You mean one that supports tax cuts while wanting to pay to revamp out military's murder devices and technologies?

You Trump haters have huge Rage Roid going you can't even read straight....

I said SLIGHTLY fiscally conservative nimrod.

No wonder the news people are constantantly fucking up every single Trump story and having to retract what they said... they are just like you and can't even properly read nor here what Trump says.

I'm not a Tump fan at all, just a person who despises what the left has become in reaction to Trump. As much as the two parties were kind of a sham there was some balance there, now Democrats have fucked that all to hell and they are going to be tossed on their asses in November. Where is the balance then? They have ruined the eternal cycle of mild pain, brought us a thousand years of a new pain.

Re:Read Again Please

[b0s0z0ku]

Nimrod? A mighty builder and warrior? Why thank you, good sire.

Trump isn't even slightly fiscally conservative. He's even less responsible than the two presidents that came before him.

we need more trades / apprenticeships tracks tech

[Joe_Dragon]

we need more trades / apprenticeships tracks in tech and need to stop the idea the schools saying that not going to college is bad.

plumbers and electricians don't need 4 years of pure classroom. and if they do say it better for them to get experience and they say learns skills on how to run there own shop.

In IT / tech there are people who go to 4 years pure classroom that can be clueless. And yet we have bootcamps / tech schools (2-4 years over kill but needed to be roped in the college system)

A little advice for the Waltons

[Anonymous Coward]

Walk around your stores and your HQ. If more than 80% of the employees have red eyes or look a bit stressed out at any location, you're doing something wrong. Also, how many are on food stamps? You think you can stop offloading your labor costs to the communities you serve?

But sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

... none of our workers count as employees.