The Left calling out The Left for gaslighting people about crime

[tstorm823]

Ok. Do you think an increase of 5% on 610 billion revenue involves all the same factors, in the same proportions, as an increase of 5% on 145 billion profit?

I think that would be the simplest explanation. There are certainly multiple ways to reach that end state, but in the absence of anything more specific, especially for retail, I would assume their business model operates on selling at cost + margin% and their costs went up. I certainly wouldn't see those numbers being proportional as a sign Walmart engages in things like surge pricing.

You're right, nobody should ever be given pay rises, and if employees provide value they should have it siphoned off for shareholders.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I want you to think about yourself and consider how unsustainable a practice it would be to try to just eat inflation yourself without increased income. 25% margin is an impressively high number, but even with that, if Walmart decided to not increase prices for 10 years of perfectly average inflation, they'd be solidly in the red by the end.

 

[Silvanus]

I think that would be the simplest explanation. There are certainly multiple ways to reach that end state, but in the absence of anything more specific, especially for retail, I would assume their business model operates on selling at cost + margin% and their costs went up. I certainly wouldn't see those numbers being proportional as a sign Walmart engages in things like surge pricing.

Right, so in short 'in the absence of anything else'. Now add that the price has demonstrably increased above inflation. This isn't hypothetical-- its demonstrably true.

We can assume their existing operating costs or material costs increased above inflation, but we have no reason to. Or we can assume that they made new/elective expenditures. With the fact that they also chose to increase shareholder payments by >5billion, the latter seems far more likely to me. They made vast extra expenditures and vast extra shareholder payments and the consumer paid for them through price rises above inflation.

They already made >145 billion without the price increase. They could have paid that cost without doing so without any significant pain.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I want you to think about yourself and consider how unsustainable a practice it would be to try to just eat inflation yourself without increased income. 25% margin is an impressively high number, but even with that, if Walmart decided to not increase prices for 10 years of perfectly average inflation, they'd be solidly in the red by the end.

You've created a false binary here. 'Not increase prices for 10 years of inflation' vs 'increasing prices above inflation'. Don't reckon there might be a middle ground, afforded by the fact they're making over 150 billion in profit each year?

 

[tstorm823]

Right, so in short 'in the absence of anything else'. Now add that the price has demonstrably increased above inflation. This isn't hypothetical-- its demonstrably true.

We can assume their existing operating costs or material costs increased above inflation, but we have no reason to. Or we can assume that they made new/elective expenditures. With the fact that they also chose to increase shareholder payments by >5billion, the latter seems far more likely to me. They made vast extra expenditures and vast extra shareholder payments and the consumer paid for them through price rises above inflation.

Payments to shareholders are reported as profits, that's not part of expenditure.

You're still not acknowledging that the "increase above inflation" is over one year, and if you widen your range back to their year when inflation was almost 9% and they "grew" more like 3%. Their growth actually lagged behind inflation by a year or two. Your argument leads to the conclusion that it'd be more acceptable if they raised prices more aggressively, as then their annual increase would have matched inflation rather than be well under one year and well over the next.

You've created a false binary here. 'Not increase prices for 10 years of inflation' vs 'increasing prices above inflation'. Don't reckon there might be a middle ground, afforded by the fact they're making over 150 billion in profit each year?

If it's always wrong to increase above inflation, than the company eventually dies. There is no middle ground to that. Nobody can perfectly track and predict inflation in real time, sometimes you'd be below that number, sometimes you'd be higher. If you're never allowed to be higher, you can only be less than or equal, which over time means inevitable death of the company.

 

[Silvanus]

Payments to shareholders are reported as profits, that's not part of expenditure.

I know. I'm saying that the fact they massively increased shareholder payments is an indication that any additional expenditures were elective.

You're still not acknowledging that the "increase above inflation" is over one year, and if you widen your range back to their year when inflation was almost 9% and they "grew" more like 3%.

Because i don't see the relevance. They raised prices less before, so a huge increase now is fine? So what? Its a fucking cost of living crisis and they have more than enough profit to just not.

If it's always wrong to increase above inflation, than the company eventually dies. There is no middle ground to that.

Absolute bollocks. They're bringing in 157 billion in profit and sending ever more billions to shareholders. The very notion of bringing in the company's very survival to justify enormous price rises is asinine.

 

[tstorm823]

I know. I'm saying that the fact they massively increased shareholder payments is an indication that any additional expenditures were elective.

Why? Their profit increased, dividends also increasing isn't even necessarily a decision that was actively made, it's just the natural consequence.

Absolute bollocks. They're bringing in 157 billion in profit and sending ever more billions to shareholders. The very notion of bringing in the company's very survival to justify enormous price rises is asinine.

You're really just whining, you know that?

 

[Silvanus]

Why? Their profit increased, dividends also increasing isn't even necessarily a decision that was actively made, it's just the natural consequence.

If a company's profit increases and it doesn't even consider using that leeway to do anything whatsoever for its employees, customers, or even investment-- just funnel it immediately and unthinkingly to the billionaires-- then that's a toxic fucking culture.

You're really just whining, you know that?

And you're really just licking the boot. The company's survival isn't at risk, as it rakes in another 150 billion. That was an utterly ludicrous line to take.

 

[tstorm823]

If a company's profit increases and it doesn't even consider using that leeway to do anything whatsoever for its employees, customers, or even investment-- just funnel it immediately and unthinkingly to the billionaires-- then that's a toxic fucking culture.

Why do you say they did nothing for anyone else? They increased wages by a higher percent than their profit increased.

And you're really just licking the boot. The company's survival isn't at risk, as it rakes in another 150 billion. That was an utterly ludicrous line to take.

The company's survival isn't at risk, rather it would be at risk if they acted in a way you found acceptable.

 

[Silvanus]

Why do you say they did nothing for anyone else? They increased wages by a higher percent than their profit increased.

Can I get a source on that? I can see a very modest increase in Jan 2023 (still leaving wages behind competitors), and a starting wage cut for new starters.

The company's survival isn't at risk, rather it would be at risk if they acted in a way you found acceptable.

Complete nonsense. They could more than comfortably fund inflation-level prices, wage increases etc, and still have enormous annual profits.

 

[tstorm823]

Can I get a source on that? I can see a very modest increase in Jan 2023 (still leaving wages behind competitors), and a starting wage cut for new starters.

Why are you lying? That "modest" increase was a 16% increase of their minimum. I'm sure you also ran into the 10% raise for store managers too in your googling.

Complete nonsense. They could more than comfortably fund inflation-level prices, wage increases etc, and still have enormous annual profits.

Do you actually not understand? If your revenue and profits grow slower than inflation, your company is actually shrinking. Your criticism of a single year increase greater than inflation is a criticism of growth itself.

 

[Silvanus]

Why are you lying? That "modest" increase was a 16% increase of their minimum. I'm sure you also ran into the 10% raise for store managers too in your googling.

Yes, increases stated as percentages will look impressive when starting from a low number. $14 means it rests below most of its competitors.

Do you actually not understand? If your revenue and profits grow slower than inflation, your company is actually shrinking.

Do you not understand that a lower rate of growth is still growth? The rate of growth literally cannot increase without end.

Say they take that $5billion extra shareholder dividend and use it to finance lower price-rises instead. They've still spent the same money, the same chunk of their profit-- just spending it on something that helps ordinary people afford groceries, rather than increasing a handful of billionaires' bank balances. You're here arguing that spending it on the former would somehow imperil the company, whereas doing the latter is "natural" and shouldn't even be questioned.

 

[tstorm823]

Do you not understand that a lower rate of growth is still growth? The rate of growth literally cannot increase without end.

Holy crap, you actually don't understand inflation.

Imagine a business that made $100. And for that hundred dollars, they could buy 100 widgets. Next year, they make $102, they "grew" 2%. But inflation happened. The cost of widgets increased from $1 to $1.03, so now that $102 can only buy 99 widgets. Even though the business grew 2% in dollars, it's real buying power actually shrunk. The lower rate of growth wasn't actually growth.

And I know, without hesitation, if you applied this to yourself you'd understand. Imagine getting a 2% pay increase for your annual raise. You'd correctly identify "that's less than inflation, my income is actually decreasing." Imagine someone saying to you "you expect to get a bigger raise than inflation? You can't have infinite growth like that!"

Say they take that $5billion extra shareholder dividend and use it to finance lower price-rises instead.

You're designing a charity, which takes away the incentive to own anything, which leads to everything going to crap. Sure, you could cut prices at the expense of your own profits, but until they make no profit, you're going to continue to complain about it, because the principle on which you build your complaint has no limit. It's just "entity has money, they should have less money".

 

[Silvanus]

Holy crap, you actually don't understand inflation.

Imagine a business that made $100. And for that hundred dollars, they could buy 100 widgets. Next year, they make $102, they "grew" 2%. But inflation happened. The cost of widgets increased from $1 to $1.03, so now that $102 can only buy 99 widgets. Even though the business grew 2% in dollars, it's real buying power actually shrunk. The lower rate of growth wasn't actually growth.

And I know, without hesitation, if you applied this to yourself you'd understand. Imagine getting a 2% pay increase for your annual raise. You'd correctly identify "that's less than inflation, my income is actually decreasing." Imagine someone saying to you "you expect to get a bigger raise than inflation? You can't have infinite growth like that!"

I know you think inflation is a silver bullet for any criticism of corporate growth strategy, but it isn't. Because the fact is Walmart's growth outstripped the rate of inflation comfortably in 2023. Inflation looks to be about the same in 2024 so far, at least for the US; but you're telling me that not only does Walmart need to continue to grow, but it depends for its survival on the rate of growth exponentially rising, even as inflation doesn't.

Can you not see how this goes so far beyond the actual economic necessities of inflation?

You're designing a charity, which takes away the incentive to own anything, which leads to everything going to crap.

Yeah, spending profit on anything but additional billions for billionaires is charity, and charity has no place in America.

 

[tstorm823]

but it depends for its survival on the rate of growth exponentially rising, even as inflation doesn't.

Silvanus, inflation rises exponentially.

The powers that be in charge of the world's monetary policies decided at some point that the proper amount of inflation is about 3%. The reasoning behind this is that inflation actually encourages spending and investing over hoarding as the money loses value (where deflation encourages people to sit on their money and wait), but too much inflation destabilizes exponentially. It's pretty solid reasoning, I think. But even in ideal economic circumstances, inflation rate at 3% per year over X years, total inflation is 1.03^X. Time is the exponent. Any business whose revenue does not increase exponentially over time will eventually lose the race to inflation and the value of the business will shrink to nothing.

This isn't some internet communist conspiracy theory about perpetual growth leading to social collapse. It's just math. If you keep your business exactly static, same facilities, same goods coming in and out, same number of employees, and all you change is that you index your prices and wages to inflation, your revenue and profit will increase exponentially. That profit isn't going to buy you more, since everything for you to spend it on (on average) grew proportionately, but the numbers still go up exponentially. In 24 years, you'll be reporting double the profit without having changed a single meaningful thing or gained any new economic power.

 

[Silvanus]

Silvanus, inflation rises exponentially.

Firstly: I should've said the rate of inflation. Though honestly I thought that was obvious from context.

Inflation is exponential (in most cases). The rate is not. Yet you appear to expect growth not only to increase exponentially, but its rate and the profit margin to do likewise. The former is necessary over long periods to keep pace with inflation. The latter is unachievable.

This isn't some internet communist conspiracy theory about perpetual growth leading to social collapse. It's just math. If you keep your business exactly static, same facilities, same goods coming in and out, same number of employees, and all you change is that you index your prices and wages to inflation, your revenue and profit will increase exponentially. That profit isn't going to buy you more, since everything for you to spend it on (on average) grew proportionately, but the numbers still go up exponentially. In 24 years, you'll be reporting double the profit without having changed a single meaningful thing or gained any new economic power.

Oh no, next year we won't have additional buying power over the excess 157billion we had this year!

 

[tstorm823]

Inflation is exponential (in most cases). The rate is not. Yet you appear to expect growth not only to increase exponentially, but its rate and the profit margin to do likewise. The former is necessary over long periods to keep pace with inflation. The latter is unachievable.

Where on earth did you get that? Our mathing started with me pointing to them having stable profit percentage.

 

[Silvanus]

Where on earth did you get that? Our mathing started with me pointing to them having stable profit percentage.

Hmm... looking back, I think at some point I might have started conflating our conversation with the tandem one I was having with Phoenixmgs. Phoenix said that Walmart was in a less healthy position now, and pointed to the fact the profit margin wasn't growing, even as profits had risen above inflation. My bad. Beers on Friday can't have helped.

 

[tstorm823]

Hmm... looking back, I think at some point I might have started conflating our conversation with the tandem one I was having with Phoenixmgs. Phoenix said that Walmart was in a less healthy position now, and pointed to the fact the profit margin wasn't growing, even as profits had risen above inflation. My bad. Beers on Friday can't have helped.

As someone who may have said "thank you" in church when I was supposed to say "amen" this morning, I can certainly sympathize with getting a couple wires crossed at the moment.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Price fixing.

And proof of this?

So in other words, that's all on you. Good to know you played yourself. And I'm not just talking about every thread you made, I'm talking about the friends you tried to make off topic or go off topic that weren't yours. Think harder next time. Write it on your hand, if you don't trust your head.

WTF you talking about...?

Hmm... looking back, I think at some point I might have started conflating our conversation with the tandem one I was having with Phoenixmgs. Phoenix said that Walmart was in a less healthy position now, and pointed to the fact the profit margin wasn't growing, even as profits had risen above inflation. My bad. Beers on Friday can't have helped.

Walmart's profit margin was bigger like 10 years ago so they were a bit healthier from a business standpoint.

 

[Silvanus]

Walmart's profit margin was bigger like 10 years ago so they were a bit healthier from a business standpoint.

By this rationale, a lemonade stand is "healthier from a business standpoint" than Walmart.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

By this rationale, a lemonade stand is "healthier from a business standpoint" than Walmart.

And...? You've proven nothing showing Walmart is overcharging their customers. For that to be a thing, it would be a massive conspiracy among all retailers, where is the proof? And you're "fix" for this unproven issue is to have Walmart just lower prices just because they make too much. You're essentially arguing Walmart should use immoral business practices to set prices lower than any competitor can, which is exactly what Amazon did to become the behemoth they are that you hate Amazon for doing. You guys can't stick to any one principle and just change your stance depending on the direction of the wind.