By many metrics, the US economy is humming along. The jobs market is robust; consumers are spending again; and inflation has eased to a three-year low.
On the contrary, the fastest growth in real income right now is among those in the lowest quintile. Which means income inequality is actually decreasing for the first time in decades.
That just shows that the economy is not “booming” as they say in the capitalist media - the needle may be moving in the right direction, but we need to acknowledge that the current position of that needle is deep in the gutter, with a lot of improvement still needed before the voting public feels like the economy is actually working for them. Claiming that the economy is doing well, when the people are not doing well economically except for a handful of ultrawealthy, causes feelings of resentment and alienation in people who are currently working hard and still unable to afford basic necessities, ie the majority of Americans. It makes the journalists and the politicians they appear to be hyping seem out of touch and unaware of the problems the voters are dealing with, and therefore it does not inspire hope that those problems are being worked on.
Showing that the needle is moving in the right direction is an important component of effective messaging, but so is demonstrating a clear eyed view of the problem. Articles that talk about how ‘strong’ the economy is fail on the latter.
“Fastest growing in real income” sounds really fancy.
But it’s a bit misleading. I assume you’re looking at percentage gains. For someone working 40 hrs/week 42 weeks a year, a dollar raise (which is huge for that “lowest quintile”), would equate to a bit more than 2,000 per year.
At federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr, that dollar gain represents an increase of 13%. At 15 an hour, its a 6% gain. At 200k/year? Barely a percent. For Walmart CEO, for example, who’s salary is 24.1 million is barely even worth mentioning at .08%.
Said another way, Walmart has 2.2 million “associates” which iirc, is everyone whose not a manager. Let’s say 3 million people who aren’t corporate because I don’t care to go get the accurate stats and frankly want to keep the math easy.
So if they gave them all a 1 dollar raise, that would cost Walmart 3 million dollars. Last year, Walmarts annual gross profit was 147.568 billion, with a 2.65% increase over ‘22. An increase of 3.8 billion dollars.
You know the difference between a million and a billion? About a billion. That hypothetical dollar increase would have been a rounding error on their financial statements.
So if they gave them all a 1 dollar raise, that would cost Walmart 3 million dollars.
I think your numbers are off. It would cost $3m to give 3m workers a bump of exactly one dollar on exactly one paycheck. That’s not a 13% increase. It’s not even a 0.01% increase.
If you actually wanted to increase the wage of 3m full time workers from $7.25 to $8.25, it would cost $6 billion.
Walmarts annual gross profit was 147.568 billion
This isn’t really relevant. Gross profit is Walmart sales minus what it paid manufacturers for its products. So if it buys a TV for $200 and sells it for $300, that’s $100 in gross profit.
Gross profit is used to pay employees, rent, utilities, advertisers, etc. The amount left over after paying the bills is the operating income. Then they pay taxes on that, and the actual earnings (aka net income) are left over.
Nearly all of Walmart’s gross profit was used to pay employees, etc. Their operating income was $23 billion in 2023, which is a decrease of 20% from the previous year. Of note, this coincides with pay increases for Walmart’s hourly workers, from $17.50 to $18/hr.
After paying taxes, they were left with $12 billion.
No, operating income does not take dividend payments into account.
The fact is that employee payroll/salaries is one of Walmart’s biggest expenses by far, and gross profit does not include it. So you cannot use gross profit to argue that Walmart could afford to give its workers a raise.
It’s the equivalent of looking only at someone’s salary and then saying they should put more away for retirement. You are ignoring their expenses.
On the contrary, the fastest growth in real income right now is among those in the lowest quintile. Which means income inequality is actually decreasing for the first time in decades.
That just shows that the economy is not “booming” as they say in the capitalist media - the needle may be moving in the right direction, but we need to acknowledge that the current position of that needle is deep in the gutter, with a lot of improvement still needed before the voting public feels like the economy is actually working for them. Claiming that the economy is doing well, when the people are not doing well economically except for a handful of ultrawealthy, causes feelings of resentment and alienation in people who are currently working hard and still unable to afford basic necessities, ie the majority of Americans. It makes the journalists and the politicians they appear to be hyping seem out of touch and unaware of the problems the voters are dealing with, and therefore it does not inspire hope that those problems are being worked on.
Showing that the needle is moving in the right direction is an important component of effective messaging, but so is demonstrating a clear eyed view of the problem. Articles that talk about how ‘strong’ the economy is fail on the latter.
Maybe in a few decades people will feel better about it.
Well said! Very well said.
“Fastest growing in real income” sounds really fancy.
But it’s a bit misleading. I assume you’re looking at percentage gains. For someone working 40 hrs/week 42 weeks a year, a dollar raise (which is huge for that “lowest quintile”), would equate to a bit more than 2,000 per year.
At federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr, that dollar gain represents an increase of 13%. At 15 an hour, its a 6% gain. At 200k/year? Barely a percent. For Walmart CEO, for example, who’s salary is 24.1 million is barely even worth mentioning at .08%.
Said another way, Walmart has 2.2 million “associates” which iirc, is everyone whose not a manager. Let’s say 3 million people who aren’t corporate because I don’t care to go get the accurate stats and frankly want to keep the math easy.
So if they gave them all a 1 dollar raise, that would cost Walmart 3 million dollars. Last year, Walmarts annual gross profit was 147.568 billion, with a 2.65% increase over ‘22. An increase of 3.8 billion dollars.
You know the difference between a million and a billion? About a billion. That hypothetical dollar increase would have been a rounding error on their financial statements.
I think your numbers are off. It would cost $3m to give 3m workers a bump of exactly one dollar on exactly one paycheck. That’s not a 13% increase. It’s not even a 0.01% increase.
If you actually wanted to increase the wage of 3m full time workers from $7.25 to $8.25, it would cost $6 billion.
This isn’t really relevant. Gross profit is Walmart sales minus what it paid manufacturers for its products. So if it buys a TV for $200 and sells it for $300, that’s $100 in gross profit.
Gross profit is used to pay employees, rent, utilities, advertisers, etc. The amount left over after paying the bills is the operating income. Then they pay taxes on that, and the actual earnings (aka net income) are left over.
Nearly all of Walmart’s gross profit was used to pay employees, etc. Their operating income was $23 billion in 2023, which is a decrease of 20% from the previous year. Of note, this coincides with pay increases for Walmart’s hourly workers, from $17.50 to $18/hr.
After paying taxes, they were left with $12 billion.
That’s a mountain sized “etc” covering mainly shareholder dividends and artificial profit minimizing for tax avoidance purposes.
The publicly reported profit margins are always AFTER those things and as such as informative about reality as having literally no information.
No, operating income does not take dividend payments into account.
The fact is that employee payroll/salaries is one of Walmart’s biggest expenses by far, and gross profit does not include it. So you cannot use gross profit to argue that Walmart could afford to give its workers a raise.
It’s the equivalent of looking only at someone’s salary and then saying they should put more away for retirement. You are ignoring their expenses.