• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Which businesses focus on low income consumers that pay great wages?

Axulus

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
4,686
Location
Hallandale, FL
Basic Beliefs
Right leaning skeptic
I've noticed a common pattern among the wage critics: the businesses they focus on primarily serve lower income groups in society. Costco and Trader Joes (and similar examples) are praised for their living wages, yet their higher prices (or membership fees) and product selection cators primarily to higher income groups that can afford the higher prices. So, where are the examples of great wage paying companies frequented most by the bottom 50%?
 
I've noticed a common pattern among the wage critics


What is a "wage critic?" Do you mean people who correctly point out that poverty wages are not sustainable? Or are you of the opinion that no wage is too low?

the businesses they focus on primarily serve lower income groups in society.


Like grocery stores. Gosh knows middle and upper income groups don't buy food!



Costco and Trader Joes (and similar examples) are praised for their living wages,


You must think they're communists, huh?


yet their higher prices (or membership fees) and product selection cators primarily to higher income groups that can afford the higher prices.


Ah yes...Costco...playground of the rich.


So, where are the examples of great wage paying companies frequented most by the bottom 50%?



You tell me.
 
What is a "wage critic?" Do you mean people who correctly point out that poverty wages are not sustainable? Or are you of the opinion that no wage is too low?

Please define "too low". Depending on the definition, I would probably agree.

Like grocery stores. Gosh knows middle and upper income groups don't buy food!

You do realize that the low income groups don't frequent certain grocery stores?


You must think they're communists, huh?

Quite the opposite. Savvy capitalists who get positive press for their wages when it actually fits quite well with their particular business model.


Ah yes...Costco...playground of the rich.

Try to read what is written. Upper income groups does not mean rich. Average household income for costco customers is 96k, more than double Wal-Marts customers.

http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...es-costco-one-of-americas-best-companies.aspx

So, where are the examples of great wage paying companies frequented most by the bottom 50%?

You tell me.

If I knew of some good examples I wouldn't have started this thread.
 
Loblaw companies, Canada's largest food retailer, is one example of a corporation that offers banners that caters to all demographics. Their wages and benefits vary by banner and region. Some of their franchise venues offer decent wages and benefits and some of their low end banners are almost on the line of warehouse stores, catering to price and less to service. I'm not sure what kind of an example this is, save that it demonstrates a very interesting and some might suggest predatory way of capturing market share as well as offering employment opportunities for people across the range of skill sets.

http://www.loblaw.ca/English/About-Us/banners-andbrands/default.aspx
 
Loblaw companies, Canada's largest food retailer, is one example of a corporation that offers banners that caters to all demographics. Their wages and benefits vary by banner and region. Some of their franchise venues offer decent wages and benefits and some of their low end banners are almost on the line of warehouse stores, catering to price and less to service. I'm not sure what kind of an example this is, save that it demonstrates a very interesting and some might suggest predatory way of capturing market share as well as offering employment opportunities for people across the range of skill sets.

http://www.loblaw.ca/English/About-Us/banners-andbrands/default.aspx

Thanks for the example. Being Canada's largest retailer definitely takes some widespread appeal to large swaths of society. I tried to search for average and or median store employee wages and had trouble locating it.

Looks like mimimum wage ranges from 10 to 11 Canadian dollars per hour (about 8.75-9.75/hr USD equivalent). Are staff positions paying somewhere in the neighborhood of ~16.50/hr (15 usd/hr equivalent), the most common number I see brandied about as the mininum acceptible living wage for a full time employee?
 
Aldi pay above going rates for similar jobs in the UK and US. The parent company is German. Asda, the UK branch of Walmart, pays below going rates or minimum wage.
 
Aldi pay above going rates for similar jobs in the UK and US. The parent company is German. Asda, the UK branch of Walmart, pays below going rates or minimum wage.

And which would you say is more popular with low income consumers, Aldi or Asda? Would you say that Asda's customer base tends to have lower household incomes than Aldi's, or pretty similar?
 
Aldi pay above going rates for similar jobs in the UK and US. The parent company is German. Asda, the UK branch of Walmart, pays below going rates or minimum wage.

And which would you say is more popular with low income consumers, Aldi or Asda in the communities where both options are available (or if both options were available in low income neighborhoods)? Or would you say that both have nearly identical demographics for their customers as far as household income is concerned?
No, Aldi here caters for even lower income customers than Asda. But pays better.
 
and so, apparently, does Lidl - the other German discount supermarket here.

(Comedian Alan Carr on UK's booze & violence chav culture : "I cut my finger and had to go to A & E (Accident and Emergerncy hospital dept) the other Friday night. I thought there'd been a bomb in Lidl)
 
Last edited:
In paying employees who run a business in the place of an owner and are therefore indispensable to the profit making of that owner, who the business caters to has no bearing what-so-ever.

What matters is the profit made by these people who run businesses that owners couldn't run on their own, these indispensable individuals, because it is the people running the business making the profits. They are the indispensable elements.

But what is happening everywhere in the current capitalist distortion of importance, is the indispensable people are not sharing in the profits they make.

That is the problem and abomination of current capitalism.

Not paying people the money they have earned is what bothers people about capitalism. Institutional theft bothers people.
 
And which would you say is more popular with low income consumers, Aldi or Asda in the communities where both options are available (or if both options were available in low income neighborhoods)? Or would you say that both have nearly identical demographics for their customers as far as household income is concerned?
No, Aldi here caters for even lower income customers than Asda. But pays better.

I've been researching them a bit more, and it appears this is a good example. A few things: what took a company so long to finally begin to break through Wal-Marts 30 year successful model and still pay reasonable wages (although the wages still appear to be slightly below what most advocates for a living wage consider to be livable, at around $15/hr). Also, the greatest form of worker protection is competition amongst employers for qualified employees. Shouldn't we be encouraging and cheering entrepreneurs of companies like Aldi who figure out ways to make a profit in a fiercely competitive market and encourage ways for new businesses to compete against established giants so that these new business can hire the employees of the existing giants (they will have to offer a slightly better deal to get the employee to agree to work for them instead of any other option). Shouldn't we also be trying to encourage employees to be more mobile with their job selection, constantly being on the lookout for those better offers (and making it easier to discover when better offers might be available)? When costs are low, especially labor costs, why is it the case that so few new start ups can figure out a way to make a profit with such low costs? Isn't the core of the problem that so few are able to figure out such ways, Aldi being a notable exception?
 
No, Aldi here caters for even lower income customers than Asda. But pays better.

I've been researching them a bit more, and it appears this is a good example. A few things: what took a company so long to finally begin to break through Wal-Marts 30 year successful model and still pay reasonable wages (although the wages still appear to be slightly below what most advocates for a living wage consider to be livable, at around $15/hr).
It didn't take them "so long", they've been doing it since the 1940s. Just not in the Anglo-Saxon model countries where nothing prevented employers doing the same but the culture of profit maximisation.

Also, the greatest form of worker protection is competition amongst employers for qualified employees. Shouldn't we be encouraging and cheering entrepreneurs of companies like Aldi who figure out ways to make a profit in a fiercely competitive market and encourage ways for new businesses to compete against established giants so that these new business can hire the employees of the existing giants (they will have to offer a slightly better deal to get the employee to agree to work for them instead of any other option). Shouldn't we also be trying to encourage employees to be more mobile with their job selection, constantly being on the lookout for those better offers (and making it easier to discover when better offers might be available)? When costs are low, especially labor costs, why is it the case that so few new start ups can figure out a way to make a profit with such low costs? Isn't the core of the problem that so few are able to figure out such ways, Aldi being a notable exception?
No, a 12-year-old could figure it out : don't squeeze wages while there's still a profit margin. The core problem is the ruthless profit-maximisation culture of the Anglo-Saxon model. Aldi - and indeed Lidl - come from a culture where that isn't acceptable, where workers are by law represented on the boards of firms and nearly everyone is effectively covered by collective bargaining agreements. A culture which is also highly productive and competitive with respect to others. There's yer problem and yer solution right there.
 
Isn't the core of the problem that so few are able to figure out such ways, Aldi being a notable exception?
No, a 12-year-old could figure it out : don't squeeze wages while there's still a profit margin. The core problem is the ruthless profit-maximisation culture of the Anglo-Saxon model. Aldi - and indeed Lidl - come from a culture where that isn't acceptable, where workers are by law represented on the boards of firms and nearly everyone is effectively covered by collective bargaining agreements. A culture which is also highly productive and competitive with respect to others. There's yer problem and yer solution right there.
I th eproblem is the surrounding culture and legal framework, then it sounds like all this anger against Walmart is misplaced: it's just doing what it has to do to survive, and if it didn't it'd be bankrupt and replaced by someone else.

The EU economy is constantly in the shitter so I wouldn't exactly say that the are "highly productive and competitive" compared to the US, but certainly hanging in there.
 
No, a 12-year-old could figure it out : don't squeeze wages while there's still a profit margin. The core problem is the ruthless profit-maximisation culture of the Anglo-Saxon model. Aldi - and indeed Lidl - come from a culture where that isn't acceptable, where workers are by law represented on the boards of firms and nearly everyone is effectively covered by collective bargaining agreements. A culture which is also highly productive and competitive with respect to others. There's yer problem and yer solution right there.
I th eproblem is the surrounding culture and legal framework, then it sounds like all this anger against Walmart is misplaced: it's just doing what it has to do to survive, and if it didn't it'd be bankrupt and replaced by someone else.
Certainly, the surrounding culture and legal framework are primarily at fault, but that doesn't exculpate the firm most willing to exploit it.

The EU economy is constantly in the shitter
Not really.
so I wouldn't exactly say that the are "highly productive and competitive" compared to the US,
I didn't exactly say that
but certainly hanging in there.
The parts of the EU with culture/legal framework I was referring to consistently have some of the world's highest living standards.
 
Also, the greatest form of worker protection is competition amongst employers for qualified employees.

Not at the level you're talking about. The problem is that mobility costs a fair bit, and at the low end it's unaffordable. That's why unemployment is so much higher in areas with no public transport.

Shouldn't we also be trying to encourage employees to be more mobile with their job selection, constantly being on the lookout for those better offers (and making it easier to discover when better offers might be available)?

What makes you think they aren't already doing this?
 
I th eproblem is the surrounding culture and legal framework, then it sounds like all this anger against Walmart is misplaced: it's just doing what it has to do to survive, and if it didn't it'd be bankrupt and replaced by someone else.

These companies paid good money to create this culture and legal framework so I'd say the anger is quite well placed.
 
Aldi is definitely geared toward low income. I am not low income but I shop there every week. One reason they pay more per employee is that they have many fewer employees per customer. Unlike most other chain markets, they will usually only have a single checkout lane and only open another when the line has more than 5 people in it, and almost never open more than 2 checkouts even when the wait is 10 minutes. The checkers are also the stockers, and everything else, so the few employees working at any one time never have any "slow" or "down" time. Customers have to pay for bags and bag all items themselves. They do not price tag each item (prices are only on the shelves) and often just open the wholesale box rather than shelf each item. They also save costs by offering few brands for any product, which means less shelf space and thus lower rent per type of product offered. Note that since most of the 20 brands of potato chips at a typical market are the same crap and mostly the same parent company, this reduced brand selection has little impact on quality or real variety.
 
Aldi is definitely geared toward low income. I am not low income but I shop there every week. One reason they pay more per employee is that they have many fewer employees per customer. Unlike most other chain markets, they will usually only have a single checkout lane and only open another when the line has more than 5 people in it, and almost never open more than 2 checkouts even when the wait is 10 minutes. The checkers are also the stockers, and everything else, so the few employees working at any one time never have any "slow" or "down" time. Customers have to pay for bags and bag all items themselves. They do not price tag each item (prices are only on the shelves) and often just open the wholesale box rather than shelf each item. They also save costs by offering few brands for any product, which means less shelf space and thus lower rent per type of product offered. Note that since most of the 20 brands of potato chips at a typical market are the same crap and mostly the same parent company, this reduced brand selection has little impact on quality or real variety.

Aldi in Australia do all of these things too, but it has been literally decades since any supermarket in Australia price-tagged each item.

Are you telling me there are grocery stores in the U.S. that have the quaint price guns with the little stickers in them still?!!?
 
Back
Top Bottom