Welcome to DU!
    The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
    Join the community:
    Create a free account
    Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
    Become a Star Member
    Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
    All Forums
        Issue Forums
        Culture Forums
        Alliance Forums
        Region Forums
        Support Forums
        Help & Search
    
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Democrats back $15 minimum wage, but stalemate on Social Security [View all]KeepItReal
(7,770 posts)26. Walmart can go to $15/hour simply by cutting the size of its stock buyback.
        They wouldn't have to raise prices one cent.
Can Walmart really afford a $15 wage increase? It can if company executives dip into the substantial pool of money Walmart has allocated to repurchase shares of its own stock. Share buybacks, as they are called, reduce the number of shares traded on the market so that the same level of earnings are distributed over fewer owners, making each remaining share worth more. To bolster its stock price, Walmart recently authorized $20 billion for share repurchases in 2016 and 2017. But share buybacks do nothing to strengthen the companys productivity or bottom line.
If Walmart redirected the $10 billion per year it has authorized for buybacks toward investment in human capital, it could provide its 825,000 lowest-paid U.S. employees a raise of as much as an additional $7.67 per hour without raising consumer prices by a penny. On top of the $10 an hour Walmart has already committed to, this would more than pay for the $15 an hour Walmart workers are calling for.
http://prospect.org/article/how-walmart-could-afford-pay-15-hour
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
  Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
						
							70 replies
							
								 = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
						RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
 = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
						RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
					
                    
					
                     = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
						RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
 = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
						RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
					
                    
					
        
        "the current minimum wage is a starvation wage "  As opposed to Social Security. n/t
        jtuck004
        Jul 2016
        #1
      
        
        Those who receive "dividends" or stock in lieu of pay won't pay anything
        cpamomfromtexas
        Jul 2016
        #44
      
        
        "After midnight, during a session that began nearly two hours after it was scheduled, two amendments
        merrily
        Jul 2016
        #4
      
        
        "...both amendments failed by about the margin that Clinton enjoyed over Sanders..."
        George II
        Jul 2016
        #20
      
        
        It was a pretty long article, but for some reason you chose to isolate that one short passage.
        George II
        Jul 2016
        #65
      
        
        Some reason?  That passage describes the vote cited in the title of the article.
        merrily
        Jul 2016
        #66
      
        
        Actually, it really doesn't.  The title of the article mentions $15 miminum wage and "stalemate"....
        George II
        Jul 2016
        #67
      
        
        Actually, it does. Also, it's still Sunday morning where I am and I usually enjoy my Sundays, but
        merrily
        Jul 2016
        #68
      
        
        If we don't expand Social Security we will just spend more on the disability and SSI part anyway
        hollowdweller
        Jul 2016
        #6
      
        
        Yes -- and also we will ramp up fear if we don't expand Social Security. Great points you made!
        Akamai
        Jul 2016
        #38
      
        
        The way DU is now, you can have a post scrubbed for just quoting the words of
        NorthCarolina
        Jul 2016
        #39
      
        
        That is the thing that needs to be done first, before other things can be addressed.
        still_one
        Jul 2016
        #14
      
        
        That is the direct solution to the Social Security short fall.  Of course money should have never
        still_one
        Jul 2016
        #41
      
        
        Completely agree with you on scrapping the cap and that SS funds should not be used
        suffragette
        Jul 2016
        #42
      
        
        So then no 'cap' on the guaranteed ss check *everyone*(who paid in) including billionares get?
        Sunlei
        Jul 2016
        #34
      
        
        This is so sad...  This is why I was a Bernie Sanders fan..oh well, we must carry on.   I will
        secondwind
        Jul 2016
        #15
      
        
        I am blown away how the Democrats shaping the platform are making it such a conservative one.
        avaistheone1
        Jul 2016
        #48
      
        
        To be honest I would have preferred a platform that would take the setting of the minimum wage
        cstanleytech
        Jul 2016
        #60
      
        
        "The platform as it existed promised that Democrats would "expand" Social Security"
        Tactical Peek
        Jul 2016
        #61
      
  