32 votes

Peter Schiff: Will Walmart shoppers support "Every Day High Wages?"

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Not an economic genius or a fully studied Austrian but

Got to agree that folks do not have to work at Wal-Mart, also disagree with minimum wage laws and all of that. Also, what about Costco? They pay their folks a living wage and their CEO last I heard earned a reasonable but not exorbitant salary.

A responsible and moral capitalist should think more in terms of what has been discussed as his "Social Contract" (NOT SOCIALISM) When you export all of the jobs and pay low wages, so will everyone else. Who will that leave to buy your goods?

"But the Walmart workers are

"But the Walmart workers are more important." :D

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

Create your own jobs

No one forces people to work at WalMart.

I thought that Ron Paul and this site was about individual freedom. How can so many commenters be in favor of minimum wage laws?

If you are for higher wages, hire someone yourself to clean your house or do something for you and pay them as much as you'd like. Don't go around telling others how to run their business.

Tim Maitski
Atlanta real estate agent
Atlanta real estate website

Right on

The focus is so much on Walmart that they forgot the smaller competitors that will take the hit much more severely if higher minimum wage law becomes implemented.

Nobody is gonna a hire a high-school kid who has zero jobskill but wants to enter job market for $15/hour. It's cheaper to invest in automated machine in long run.

Minimum-wage law will kill small competitors, meaning big companies will thrive. And people complain about 1% getting richer and 99% getting poorer? This is one of many reasons.

Unemployment will go up, too. More young people will enter welfare since noone wants to hire them for $15/hour (kids have no job skills).

Not really a good example

I would never give money to ANYONE, in a parking lot; even if they told me it would go to the workers. Tell me whatever story you'd like, but in my eyes, and the eyes of anyone with a brain, anyone asking for money I consider to be a con-artist until proven otherwise.

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison

Beautiful video.

Point well made.


I love peter but he simplifies things. that type of math works for a small business, not a giant corporation with billions in profit. i appreciate the point he is trying to make, that we can't just say raise the minimum wage, that there is always a quid pro quo, but he is associating being pro-capitalist with being pro-Walmart employment policies. Henry Ford paid his workers a lot and he put out a great product. in Atlas Shrugged, Hank Rearden pays his nonunion workers more than his competitors.

Ford produce $$$$ cars

Walmart sell low-price goods. They're 2 completely different beasts. Both uses completely different skill sets, too. Plus, Ford can afford that since the world hasn't catch on the technology to be as industrial as US. Obviously, it's different now. Free market flexing its muscle, that's why US auto industry is failing. Competition comes to town (there's no too big too fail in free market)

You can't sell low-price goods and increase wage at the same time, even if you're big boys like Walmart. Walmart has tons of stores all across the nation. Each is expensive to run and maintain.

If you don't believe me, try creating a company yourself and hire people with high wages while keeping prices low. Then try to stay in black every month, assuming you pay all the bills and taxes. Good luck.


Here;s the thing. Being for freedom doesn't mean I have to worship at the alter of capitalism. It annoys me that some libertarians assume that beyond getting rid of government, we should also share their economic values. Personally, I don't think "production at the cheapest cost possible; all else be damned" is a good thing.

Also, fuck walmart. I was wary of shopping there. The one time I went, I was with a girlfriend in florida, and I went to buy a CD. I put the CD in and.... half of the cd or more was missing. As in the tracks had huge blank spaces. I remember thinking WTF? I looked at the CD case closely. ON THE BACK, there was a tiny speaker with small print, "CD edited by Walmart." I threw the CD out the window and promised myself I would never shop there again.

Fortune Favors the Bold

You don't know Free Market Capitalism

This minimum wage is a hidden barrier for small competitors. If people complain about minimum-wage in Wal-Mart, don't make it a mandatory law because that means it's also enforceable to EVERYBODY including smaller mom-and-pop grocery stores.

This minimum wage law will create a huge strain to small competitors and straining their ability to be fully productive (increasing prices, hiring less workers, being open in less hours/day etc.). Some will be forced to close down since they don't make as much profit as Walmart does.

Big boys like Walmart and Target can handle this minimum-wage law. Sure it sucks initially, but at the end of the day it's good for their bottom line since all their smaller competitors will go out of business and/or struggle thus their customers will now shop to Walmart instead. At least Walmart can still sell goods for low prices (that were previously offered at mom-and-pop stores, too)

More government regulations kill competition. This is crony capitalism at work, not free market.

sorry but

if you run a business you ALWAYS want to find a cheaper most efficient way to produce your goods or services. and all other more expensive and less efficient methods BE DAMNED!

Hey everyone

Thats the Walmart in my CT town.

Patriot News
Stand up For your Civil Rights


autocorrect ...

Patriot News
Stand up For your Civil Rights

The Women's Movement...

the result? Both members of a household have to work now in order to make the same money that one traditionally the male ( I don't care which one as long as its just one)or just one only working member would make when the pie wasn't divided up into twice as many pieces.

So its better now for "them". They doubled the tax revenues and the state gets to raise the children. ta da!

I hope you like it.

God forgives always. Man forgives sometimes. But Nature never forgives.

I Think It's More Related To...

...the devaluation of the dollar. It's my understanding that that forced women into the workforce.

Wonder why the "liberty movement" attracts so few women?

Is it because women hate liberty and "freedom"? Or could it be that comments like this, blaming women's own desire for freedom for the economic and societal woes we face today. Let's just ignore the fact that CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 20.1-to-1 in 1965 and 29.0-to-1 in 1978, grew to 122.6-to-1 in 1995, peaked at 383.4-to-1 in 2000, and was 272.9-to-1 in 2012 (http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-2012-extraordinarily-... ) That they are also given more stock options and that these compensations grew 685% from the 1970s to today. And this "pie" you mentioned is being divided up by more stockholders than ever before as well, in the 60s, less than 15% of American households invested in stocks, today more than 50% do so. That seems good, right? Only it is not when you look at the numbers! The bottom 40% of those stockholders own less than $2k in stocks, in contrast the top 1% own an average of $3.3 million in holdings, this only exacerbates the growing income gap. Especially since it represents a larger gap growing between the middle class and the top 1% as even a higher percent of all the wealth is being owned by few. If income inequality continues to grow at the rate it has in these past 40 years, we will be a third world economy. It has nothing to do with women having the freedom to be independent and equal.

"Truth is treason in the Empire of Lies."

Liberty Attractive to Women

I am always pleasantly surprised at how many women are attracted and active in the Liberty movement. Patriots have this special light. The men, women and children active in the movement, all have it and they are actually in fact quite beautiful people. That being said, in my original post I wrote: They doubled the tax revenues and the state gets to raise the children... that was a quote from N. Rockefeller to Aaron Russo when Aaron ask him why the Rockefeller Foundation supported the women's movement and financed it. I guess they knew what the end result would be.

God forgives always. Man forgives sometimes. But Nature never forgives.

I am a big Peter Schiff fan but I take issue on this.

Walmart has to pay a fair price for heat whether they like it or not. Whether they heat with natural gas, oil, electricity - whatever, they have to pay a fair price. And we as consumers have to pay for that heat through some increase in prices. And we do.

But suppose Walmart had wood burning furnaces for heat. And suppose Walmart made it known that they would buy whatever we brought in to burn, for heat - at the lowest possible cost of course.

People who are desperate to feed their families would like bring in wood they find in their garages, maybe wood they need dried grass they could find, whatever they could that Walmart could burn, and would be willing to pay very little for.

Just like they are more than willing to work for very low wages.

Suppose then tomorrow the law was changed saying that Walmart, like other businesses, had to pay a fair price for heat - they had to pay the equivalent of what natural gas or oil costs - even if for local wood people would be bringing in.

Imagine the outrage - WHAT? You will kill business. Prices will go up. Wood won't be bought at all!

I have a feeling Walmart would still heat the place and make a profit paying a fair price for heat.

Here's the difference. There are only a few energy companies so the price for utility is pretty consistent. But if there were a million potential sellers of small amounts of energy - Walmart would be in the drivers seat and could get each one to play against the others. Well that's what happens with individual labor. If YOU won't work for me I will get that person over there.

You lost me at...

…"Walmart has to pay a fair price for…"

I stopped there. If that's your premise, there's no reason to continue reading.

There is no such thing as a "fair price" for ANYTHING. There is only what two or more consenting adults are willing to trade.

So you disagree completely that there is a range of "fair price"

that you must pay if you open a retail establishment.

You disagree that whether you choose natural gas, oil, propane, electricity, or even (higher acquisition cost but lower monthly cost) solar there will be some range of what might be considered a "fair price".

You think that if you open a 100,000 sq. foot facility for retail - the price might very well be $1 per month to $10,000 per month to heat, depending on "what two or more consenting adults are willing to trade."

While building this facility you will be on active look out for a consenting adult willing to charge you maybe nothing, to heat your store. And being the optimist you are (of course) that's what you will use in your Business Plan: Monthly Heating Cost Estimate = $0. And write parenthetically afterward (If I can just find the right consenting adult to provide me heat for nothing. I'm still looking.)

Because as you post, there IS no such thing as a fair price for heat. It could be anything.

Good luck with that Business Plan. Let me know if you get financing.

But of course you won't NEED financing because there is no such thing as a fair price for ANYTHING.

Maybe you can get a consenting adult to provide all your inventory for free too? Who knows? Better put that in the Business Plan too.

So Walmart doesn't have to pay a "fair price" for heat.

It can get it by simply having a consenting adult provide.

I'm guessing this could lead to a whole new department at Walmart.

I might shop that department.

They have a choice...

There are alternative ways to produce electricity and heat, they can invest in solar alternatives and produce their own. Life is about choices, if you don't like what is in front of you, choose a different path. Don't think that you have the right to force others to follow your beliefs or live under your desires.


You are missing the point.

Let me try again.

Walmart has to heat the place and within certain limitations it has to pay a fair price (the price other people pay is what that means) for heat. There is a range of costs depending on the system of course. But within certain limits there is some "normal" price to pay and Walmart must pay it.

The reason for this is that there are relatively few providers. There are choices but they are limited choices. If solar was way cheaper (acquisition cost for equipment amortized out along with maintenance) then some cost (in this case acquisition cost) would go up as producers would demand more (people want to be paid for the utility of the product they produce) so that there was a relatively predictable cost for heat.

But because there are MANY MANY providers for labor (each person is a provider) Walmsrt has the ability to play the many providers against each other and to achieve a very low price. If YOU will not work for some very low wage - somebody else will. It works out great for the business. Not so well for the laborer who has little bargaining power. And even less well for the social welfare system that ends up picking up the tab for food (food stamps) health care (Medicaid) for those who make very little.

Walmart decries what would happen if the wage went up. Prices would certainly go up. But is that necessarily a bad thing?

If heat could be acquired by people bringing in sticks and furniture to sell as firewood, Walmart might have lower heating costs and prices would reflect that. Because each person with a stick would be a provider and Walmart could play provider vs. provider. We would all enjoy the lower prices of course as heat would cost less. And people with sticks would scramble for what they could get.

If then a proposal was made that heat would no longer be provided by individuals scrounging sticks - a cry would go out "Oh Heaven help us! We will no longer be able to afford things at Walmart! Prices will skyrocket because Walmart now must use gas (or oil or what have you) for heat. the world would not end for Walmart having to use a public utility. The sun would still come up tomorrow and the birds would still chirp and prices would still be low at Walmart.

All that I am saying is that a rise in the minimum wage would not be a catastrophe. Prices would still be low and that people could actually afford to live without public assistance would not be so horrific as so many think.

This is not about solar vs. gas. Not at all.

The simple answer is...

The simple answer is if you don't like what Walmart pays, get a job somewhere else. Stay out of their business and let the market determine if they stay in business.
If you have better ideas for running a business start your own. I have had my own business for many years. There are always experts like you trying to give me advice on how to run a business. Not one of them has a business of their own or the first idea of what it is like to own a business. In Texas they have a saying about people that wear a cowboy hat and pretend to be a rancher. They say "He is all hat and no cattle" Look in the mirror, do you see a cowboy hat on your head? I do.
The bargaining power that labor has is that they can vote with their feet. The bargaining power that customers have is that they can vote with their wallet.
Watch Peter Schiffs video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLr5oWfoWRY
and you will see how customers vote on this idea.


Duh. Ask customers to vote whether or not they want to pay

higher prices and they say they don't. So profound. Whodathunkit?

Now ask those same customers how they feel about providing food stamps, financial assistance and medical assistance for the working poor and lets see what they say. I kinda bet they oppose.

So the average customer doesn't want to pay MORE for stuff or pay MORE for public assistance. Are you surprised?

What it really boils down to is "I want my stuff cheap." And "I want the people who provide services to me to get by on as little as possible if it comes out of my pocket."

None of that is profound or surprising.

And in Wisconsin we have a saying every bit as profound as your

Texas "too much hat.." saying.

Its "Don't walk into the south end of a cow going north." (Or more properly "a cow going nort'.")

Okay, maybe its NOT really very profound. And maybe it doesn't mean much. But it IS good advice to live by.

When you can muster...

When you can muster up the remaining 50% of your wit we can have a fair fight. I refuse to take advantage of someone that is only half prepared.


Do customers need to pay more?

WalMart has a lot of products made by federal prison workers which keeps prices low. Prisoners pick crops, package up electronics and other tasks for only a few dollars per hour. It's a chain store run on crony capitalism.

So when WalMart sells those items they can do so at a competitive edge due to all the federal help. In fact, your federal tax dollars went towards the creation of those products. In a way, you really paid for a percent already for those items that they stock.

Also the company owns more wealth than bottom 40 percent of all Americans combined. So technically they can raise base pay if they wanted to but they don't.

So you have to ask if the moral obligation to raise wages should fall on the customers, or the owners of WalMart.

It's upper middle class

imposing their values on the rest of us. "It's worth paying extra to get the better service." The people who say that don't understand that lower-paid people buying from Wal-Mart can't afford to essentially pay the employees for a show.

I know a guy who said we should go back to the days when the worker would wrap your flour for you. Well, some people wouldn't be able to afford for the flour to incorporate the cost of essentially hiring someone to do that. It's fine if he can have his upper-middle class stores for that, but he shouldn't be advocating that the poor be cut off from any other way of getting their flour.

The personal touch is something you pay for when you can afford it. People who can afford it need to stop trying to force their ways on people who can't.

Defend Liberty!


error post

Defend Liberty!