May the Food Drive Bless Us Everyone: Walmart, Wages and Workers

[RavenSky]

wrong.

In math, an "average" only ever refers to the arithmetic mean. It never refers to the median. You just failed the class.

Try again:

http://www.purplemath.com/modules/meanmode.htm


I omitted the mode because it's pretty meaningless in a case like this.

From your own link: The "mean" is the "average" you're used to, where you add up all the numbers and then divide by the number of numbers

Definition: Average refers to the sum of numbers divided by n. Also called the mean average.

Sums of data divided by the number of items in the data will give the mean average. The mean average is used quite regularly to determine final math marks over a term or semester. Averages are often used in sports: batting averages which means number of hits to number of times at bat. Gas mileage is determined by using averages.

http://math.about.com/od/glossaryofterms/g/Average-Defined.htm

In any case, it is clear in this thread that average = mean = average

 

[Axulus]

In any case, it is clear in this thread that average = mean = average

Yes, but it's still a strawman. The average hourly wage reported by Wal-Mart only includes employees paid on a hourly basis, which includes department managers and other hourly staff, but not assistant or store managers, and certainly not the top executives, who are all on salary.

 

[RavenSky]

In any case, it is clear in this thread that average = mean = average

Yes, but it's still a strawman. The average hourly wage reported by Wal-Mart only includes employees paid on a hourly basis, which includes department managers and other hourly staff, but not assistant or store managers, and certainly not the top executives, who are all on salary.

So your position is that the author of the article is wrong?

Still, when it comes to Walmart, there are certain analysts and observers who can’t seem to remove the blinders. They continue to insist that Walmart pays its workers an average of over $18.00 per hour when even the company acknowledges that the average full time, hourly rate is $12.83—and that number includes the salaries of some of the highest paid employees in the averaging such as the CEO who earned $20.7 million last year.

Prove it.

 

[Axulus]

Yes, but it's still a strawman. The average hourly wage reported by Wal-Mart only includes employees paid on a hourly basis, which includes department managers and other hourly staff, but not assistant or store managers, and certainly not the top executives, who are all on salary.

So your position is that the author of the article is wrong?

Still, when it comes to Walmart, there are certain analysts and observers who can’t seem to remove the blinders. They continue to insist that Walmart pays its workers an average of over $18.00 per hour when even the company acknowledges that the average full time, hourly rate is $12.83—and that number includes the salaries of some of the highest paid employees in the averaging such as the CEO who earned $20.7 million last year.

Prove it.

I think it should be up to the author to provide the source that Wal-Mart is using it's own unique definition for "hourly wage" (to include salaried positions):

http://work.chron.com/average-hourly-wage-earned-mean-14535.html

I tend to assume the commonly accepted definitions for words are being used. However, I can find nothing to "prove" it one way or another. At this point, it is in dispute unless you know of a source that can settle it. The author didn't provide the source.

Source for average hourly wage terminology (12.93/hr):

http://corporate.walmart.com/our-story/locations/united-states

 

[DBT]

Somehow I can't picture the upper management of Walmart, or any other large corporation, working for ten, twenty or even fifty dollars an hour. There seems to be very few limits placed on the incomes of those who have their snouts in the trough.

 

[NobleSavage]

I wonder why Hillary never complained when she was on their Board of Directors.

 

[EricK]

I stepped into a classroom of 7 year olds and finally had an above average penis.

I hope this wasn't 'Show and Tell'.

 

[lpetrich]

I wonder why Hillary never complained when she was on their Board of Directors.

As if her likely Republican opponents want to put Walmart's top management on trial for allegedly being enemies of the American people.

What choice do we have? SERIOUSLY. Study  Duverger's law some time, and you'll see.

 

[Jayjay]

Sometimes you just want line people up and smack 'em. YOU RUN A GROCERY STORE AND YOU DON'T PAY YOUR PEOPLE ENOUGH TO BUY YOUR FOOD!!!!!

That makes as much sense as:

"You run a luxury yacht store and you don't pay your employees enough to buy your luxury yachts!"

 

[DBT]

Sometimes you just want line people up and smack 'em. YOU RUN A GROCERY STORE AND YOU DON'T PAY YOUR PEOPLE ENOUGH TO BUY YOUR FOOD!!!!!

That makes as much sense as:

"You run a luxury yacht store and you don't pay your employees enough to buy your luxury yachts!"

If you run a luxury yacht, have a mansion on the hill, a villa in the Rivera, and keep a mistress with a BMW in an apartment in New York while your employees struggle with the basics of life in spite of working full time in your business...you are most probably taking advantage of their time, skill, labour and and a large chunk of their one and only lives in order to enrich yourself at that expense.

 

[Jayjay]

And how high should it be?

I'm pretty sure we've been over this already.


A living wage is quite simple. If you work a full-time job, it should provide a living.


If you work a full time job but need to supplement your income with welfare, then you aren't earning a living wage.


We're not talking an IPhone in every pot, just that if you put in 40 hours a week, you will be rewarded with an income that puts you above the poverty line.

By that definition, the current federal minimum wage is a "living wage" already. It could even be lower.

ETA: And the context here was not a "wage" but UBI scheme, which is rceeived by working 0 hours a week. That should be even less. In my opinion the appropriate level for basic income is poverty level for two-person household, divided by two, because I think that practically everyone has an option for shared accommodation.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Sometimes you just want line people up and smack 'em. YOU RUN A GROCERY STORE AND YOU DON'T PAY YOUR PEOPLE ENOUGH TO BUY YOUR FOOD!!!!!

That makes as much sense as:

"You run a luxury yacht store and you don't pay your employees enough to buy your luxury yachts!"

You can live without a Yacht, you can't live without food.
A yacht can start at a price in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, a family of four's grocery bill for the month cost in the hundreds.
Yachts are one time purchases or at most rare purchases, you have to buy food every week

AND WALMART IS NOT JUST SAYING BUY OUR EMPLOYEES FOOD BECAUSE WE DONT PAY THEM ENOUGH TO FEED THEMSELVES BUT BUY IT FROM US!!!!

WALMART want to profit from employee labor and then get the customer to directly pay the employees and then profit from the customers' paying the employees.

This doesn't bother you?

 

[Jayjay]

That makes as much sense as:

"You run a luxury yacht store and you don't pay your employees enough to buy your luxury yachts!"

If you run a luxury yacht, have a mansion on the hill, a villa in the Rivera, and keep a mistress with a BMW in an apartment in New York while your employees struggle with the basics of life in spite of working full time in your business...you are most probably taking advantage of their time, skill, labour and and a large chunk of their one and only lives in order to enrich yourself at that expense.

But even if they can afford basics of life, they probably can't afford luxury yacths. And nobody is saying they should. That's why it's silly to say that that Walmart should pay its employees more so that they could afford to by Walmart's products... what you can say though is that Walmart should pay its employees more so that they can afford basic necessities of life in general. Same as the hypothetical luxury yacht store.

 

[Jayjay]

That makes as much sense as:

"You run a luxury yacht store and you don't pay your employees enough to buy your luxury yachts!"

You can live without a Yacht, you can't live without food.
A yacht can start at a price in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, a family of four's grocery bill for the month cost in the hundreds.
Yachts are one time purchases or at most rare purchases, you have to buy food every week

AND WALMART IS NOT JUST SAYING BUY OUR EMPLOYEES FOOD BECAUSE WE DONT PAY THEM ENOUGH TO FEED THEMSELVES BUT BUY IT FROM US!!!!

WALMART want to profit from employee labor and then get the customer to directly pay the employees and then profit from the customers' paying the employees.

This doesn't bother you?

Not any more than any other charity drive where the shop is merely selling its own products and not pitching in.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You can live without a Yacht, you can't live without food.
A yacht can start at a price in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, a family of four's grocery bill for the month cost in the hundreds.
Yachts are one time purchases or at most rare purchases, you have to buy food every week

AND WALMART IS NOT JUST SAYING BUY OUR EMPLOYEES FOOD BECAUSE WE DONT PAY THEM ENOUGH TO FEED THEMSELVES BUT BUY IT FROM US!!!!

WALMART want to profit from employee labor and then get the customer to directly pay the employees and then profit from the customers' paying the employees.

This doesn't bother you?

Not any more than any other charity drive where the shop is merely selling its own products and not pitching in.

You think it is typical for stores to hold food drives for their own employees?

And remember this is WALMART, the company that sends new hires to DSS to sign up for medicare and food stamps, so that public dollars can make up for the shitty wages as well.

 

[NobleSavage]

I wonder why Hillary never complained when she was on their Board of Directors.

As if her likely Republican opponents want to put Walmart's top management on trial for allegedly being enemies of the American people.

What choice do we have? SERIOUSLY. Study  Duverger's law some time, and you'll see.

I'm familiar with Duverger's law and the two party system. I don't see it as a problem, but that is for another thread.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Try again:

http://www.purplemath.com/modules/meanmode.htm


I omitted the mode because it's pretty meaningless in a case like this.

From your own link: The "mean" is the "average" you're used to, where you add up all the numbers and then divide by the number of numbers

It's the most common meaning, not the only meaning. Stat data all too often uses the median without mentioning it.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

From your own link: The "mean" is the "average" you're used to, where you add up all the numbers and then divide by the number of numbers

It's the most common meaning, not the only meaning. Stat data all too often uses the median without mentioning it.

When?

 

[laughing dog]

From your own link: The "mean" is the "average" you're used to, where you add up all the numbers and then divide by the number of numbers

It's the most common meaning, not the only meaning. Stat data all too often uses the median without mentioning it.

That doesn't make it the average. Sorry, but mean and median have distinctly different meanings. For a distribution that is truly symmetrical, the median may equal the mean, but that does imply the concepts are the same. In that case, the value of the mean equals the value of median.

 

[Jayjay]

It's the most common meaning, not the only meaning. Stat data all too often uses the median without mentioning it.

That doesn't make it the average. Sorry, but mean and median have distinctly different meanings. For a distribution that is truly symmetrical, the median may equal the mean, but that does imply the concepts are the same. In that case, the value of the mean equals the value of median.

I think what he meant was that in colloquial use "average" may refer to either mean or median, though the former is more common.