[OC] How Walmart makes money (they just released earnings for the fiscal year ending January 31)Ahab_Ali t1_j9f13sq wrote
Reply to comment by metisdesigns in [OC] How Walmart makes money (they just released earnings for the fiscal year ending January 31) by IncomeStatementGuy
Walmart has over 2.2 million employees, of which between 14,500 and 25,000 receive SNAP, Medicaid, or state welfare program assistance.
metisdesigns t1_j9f270n wrote
Wow, so about 1% of their staff are on direct assistance? That's a lot of folks they're letting down.
BigEOD t1_j9f7d5d wrote
Before you get too upset, did you know about 24% of all enlisted military are on welfare programs because the government doesn’t pay them enough?
Wal mart looks More generous than the government many would argue should be regulating this by percentage and pure numbers. And the government takes in way more money than Walmart. It would take over 100 times the annual profits Walmart makes to pay just the defense budget, and they pay people that little.
metisdesigns t1_j9favsz wrote
I did. Do you usually use red herrings or are you a fan of making falicous arguments in general?
Did you know that center square is a rebranding of watchdog.org and affiliated with the state policy networks and is tied to anti-tax policies that have advocated for cutting military and social policy benefits?
pale_blue_dots t1_j9fi7hz wrote
"These two things are bad, so we should just equivocate and throw our hands in the air and give up!"
Pyro_Light t1_j9fp3xw wrote
One has a blank checkbook and the other is a few bad years away to having to fire millions of people… interesting how peoples minds work… The funny part is that no one seems to give a shit about is every time Walmart raised their minimum wage they close a ton of stores…
goodluckonyourexams t1_j9k04p1 wrote
you think anti-tax policies that advocate for cutting military are bad?
BigEOD t1_j9p0d07 wrote
No, I think they could cut military spending by a 1/4 to 1/3 if congress got rid of the ridiculous rules governing procurement. I manage a sizable budget of govt money and the way I have to go about contracting to get things done adds 15-30% based on what it is.
If they got rid of stupid rules and let us do our procurement like a normal business (at the unit level at least) we could save billions easy.
It’s hard to have nuanced conversations with someone who has opinions but zero knowledge, can’t have a real talk if it’s all nuts broad strokes don’t you think?
goodluckonyourexams t1_j9p2s7w wrote
corruption might add 15-30% without procurement
I was more about the fact that military doesn't create value
what's a nut broad stroke?
BigEOD t1_j9q2seq wrote
Fat fingered, not sure where the nut thing comes into play.
I can’t speak to high level corruption, but at the low levels we are so audited and so controlled everything is proper. If they just allowed us to do things differently at the low level we could save billions.
And if you think the military is zero value, you should tell Ukraine that. Or Europe for that matter, as the Ukraine war has greatly impacted energy prices and the world economy.
And saying no one should have a military is about as stupid as saying no one should have a gun. Your tree correct that if there was no violence we wouldn’t need the means to do it, but people are violent so we need the means to protect ourselves and our interests.
Also many daily technology things you use, like the internet we are having this discussion on, was invented either by or for the military. Even LCD screens were invented by a military scientist in his spare time, I got to meet him once.
goodluckonyourexams t1_j9q4hor wrote
If audits really solve the issues procurements try to solve without additional costs, then sure, sucks how ineffcient everything is.
Ah you know, I know what a military is. Imagine there was only one country, then any military spending would be a waste.
>Also many daily technology things you use, like the internet we are having this discussion on, was invented either by or for the military.
blabla, that's a stupid af argument
Like imagine the R&D 800 billion could give.
BigEOD t1_j9q5cs5 wrote
Oh ok, thank you for the very pointed and substantial argument against how many things you enjoy were borne of military spending.
Also the audits don’t cost money, it’s the rules we follow so that contractors (usually those evil big businesses I know you hate) get to charge 20-30% more because of those dumb rules.
I do construction management, and have many friends in the industry that do both govt and commercial. A good example is a 7.5 ton package HVAC unit. Outside world would pay 12-16k to hook it up to a building, while I was quoted 24k and 34k by different firms. Imagine that happening tens of thousands of times across the govt, not just the military and that’s the best place to start with reducing our govt budget.
In your perfect world with one govt how would that happen? You’d need a military to conquer all the people you’d like to have a benevolent world govt for and none will go without fighting for their sovereignty. So that idea is ridiculous and unrealistic.
goodluckonyourexams t1_j9qhjsd wrote
It is a substantial argument. Military spending for civil research progress is super inefficient.
audits literally cost money but I wasn't trying to say that their cost increase would surpass the savings
yeah I believed you already and 2x/3x for a common thing is crazy
Wouldn't say ridiculous since we could have it. It's just a hypothetical scenario to explain something. Obviously we would gain all military expenses if military wasn't necessary because wars are possible. If military was only about defense of own country, USA could drop all except nuking capabilities.
BigEOD t1_j9ozxbq wrote
I find it funny how people on Reddit love to attack business and want to govt to regulate them, but they do the exact same thing.
My red herring points out the govt you think should protect people actually predates on them the exact same way business do. They won’t help because they don’t want to.
But pick apart what you think I mean instead of what I actually mean, you can win that argument. Too bad it’s not the one I am making.
Tommyblockhead20 t1_j9ggc9x wrote
Is worth noting that about half their workforce is part time. It’s one thing if it’s a full time employee of theirs on assistance, but if it’s someone that works there like 1 day week, that’s kinda different.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments