Reclaim Democracy!

  • Home
  • Issues
    • The Right to Vote
      • U.S. Voting History
      • 50+ Ways to Disenfranchise or Suppress Voters
    • Corporate Personhood
    • Citizens United
    • Direct Democracy
    • All Topics
  • Resources
    • Ed Board Meetings
    • Letters to the Editor
    • Op-eds
    • Presentations & Workshops
    • Talk Radio
    • Tools for Activism
  • Donate
  • About
  • Contact

The Multiplier Effect of Local Independent Business

January 3, 2021 by Brittany Trushel

By Jeff Milchen, with thanks to Stacy Mitchell.

Clearly communicating the importance of the local economic multiplier effect or “local premium” is a key part of effective “buy local” public education campaigns. The multiplier results from the fact that independent locally owned businesses recirculate a far greater percentage of revenue compared to absentee-owned businesses (or locally owned franchises). In other words, going local creates more local wealth and jobs.

The multiplier consists of three elements — the direct, indirect, and induced impacts.

  • Direct impact is spending done by a business in the local economy to operate the business, such as inventory, utilities, equipment, and employee pay.
  • Indirect impact happens as dollars the local business spent at other area businesses.
  • Induced impact refers to the additional consumer spending that happens as employees, business owners, and others spend their income in the local economy.

Private research firm Civic Economics has executed many studies quantifying the difference in local economic return between local independents and chain businesses. One such study in Austin, Texas showed an independent bookseller and music seller returned 3x as much money to the local economy as a proposed Borders Books and Music outlet would. The Austin Independent Business Alliance successfully used the study to rally opposition against a City-planned subsidy to attract a Borders Books and Music store.

Those results have been mirrored by subsequent studies (ten years of studies are summarized here), each showing a much greater local multiplier for spending at independent businesses than chains. These studies measured the direct and indirect impacts to determine the base level local economic activity of a purchase made at a chain and a local independent business.

On average, 48% of each purchase at local independent businesses was recirculated locally, compared to less than 14% of purchases at chain stores.

Civic Economics: Benefits of local business vs chains
Civic Economics: Benefits of local vs chains

The Institute for Local Self-Reliance conducted a study of the local multiplier effect in several small Maine communities in 2003. The study examined how much of a dollar spent at a local independent store is re-spent in the local area as payroll, goods/services purchased from area businesses, profits spent locally by owners, and donations to area charities. The study found that every $100 spent locally generated $45 of secondary local spending, compared to only $14 for a big-box chains — nearly identical to later results across the decade of Civic Economics studies.


Key Points

One study by Civic Economics has been the source of much confusion misrepresentation, to the detriment of many organizations. The study of Chicago’s Andersonville neighborhood found a total economic impact (i.e., direct, indirect, and induced) of $0.68 for each dollar spent at 10 local independents, compared to $0.43 for chain competitors. However, the projection of indirect and induced impacts does not mean $0.68 of each dollar spent at a local independent “stays” in the local economy, a widely spread inaccurate claim. It means $0.68 of additional local economic return is generated after additional spending cycles. Citing the higher numbers without including an explanation is wrong.

The Andersonville study examines just 10 businesses in one neighborhood of a large city, so we discourage extrapolating its findings too broadly. Businesses in smaller cities and towns typically have less ability to source many goods and services locally.

Be careful not to undermine the credibility of your group or campaign by presenting apples as oranges or statistically insignificant samples as a general truth! To gain respect as an authoritative voice within your community, we suggest you guard your credibility by checking your materials to ensure they convey verifiable, accurately worded information and only rely on primary sources. 


Stickiness

In addition to being accurate, make sure your message is memorable. Saying, “Independent retailers return more than 3x as much money per dollar of sales than chain competitors,” is more memorable than talking in terms of percentages or comparing $0.48 to $0.15. For restaurants, consider messages such as, “Per dollar of revenue, locally owned independent restaurants return twice as much to our local economy than chain restaurants.”

Buying remotely on the web creates almost no local benefit, only minutes of work for a delivery person. Calculating the added local wealth that would be generated by a 10% shift to local independents is one tactic successfully employed by several communities.

How much of each $100 stays in your community?
The local benefit of an online, remote sale depends on local driver wage, the size of the area (number of stops per hour), and distance to processing centers.

Study Variants

The size of the local premium varies depending on the type of business. Restaurants and service providers generate a large multiplier because they are labor-intensive and more of each dollar of revenue goes to local payroll. Most retailers, unless they source an exceptionally high percentage of their goods locally, also create a more modest multiplier than restaurants.

This is not to say restaurants are better for economic development than retail. May retailers have sizable revenue and professional job opportunities, which are important to any local economy. It’s just helpful to be aware of these differences because the mix of businesses involved in a particular study will influence the results.

Land Use

In 2009, Stay Local! in New Orleans commissioned Civic Economics to evaluate economic return per square foot of retail space used by both local merchants and Target Corporation. The local merchants studied generated twice as much sales activity per square foot and nearly quadrupled the local economic return per square foot compared to projections for Target. 

Quantifying Shifts in Spending

To gauge the overall impact on your local economy of shifting 10% of purchasing from absentee-owned to locally owned businesses, you would need to know the local multiplier for each category of spending and the percentage of peoples’ spending in each category. (e.g., 20% goes to groceries and the grocery multiplier is 0.15 or 5% goes to books and the local multiplier is 0.32).

Filed Under: Food, Health & Environment, Independent Business, Labor and Economics Tagged With: independent business, local business, local self-reliance

What We Can Learn About Corporations From the Man Who Sold Shares in Himself

April 11, 2013 by staff

Mike Merrill

Wired.com recently published an article about Mike Merrill, a man who sold shares in himself in exchange for a cut of his future earnings and for the right to make decisions about his life — that is to say, the shares were voting shares.

The story recounts some entertaining/troubling consequences. For example, when Merrill brought the question of whether to have a vasectomy to his shareholders, his girlfriend became apoplectic. In another instance, one of the biggest shareholders, who didn’t know Merrill personally, successfully pushed him to try a regimented and inconvenient polyphasic sleep schedule. His girlfriend objected, but Merrill felt beholden to his shareholders and carried on anyway. She left him.

The piece’s point (if there is one other than amusement) apparently is to reveal what works for companies doesn’t necessarily work for individuals. But reading it, I was struck by the opposite thought: the problems of Merrill’s system are identical to the problems of real publicly traded companies.

Shareholder interests regularly differ from the interests of employees, customers, and other stakeholders (Merrill’s girlfriend, by analogy here), and shareholders often prevail. The presence of absentee owners creates another conflict of interest (on top of conflicts between management and employees), upping the chance that someone – usually the (relatively powerless) employees, customers, or the public – will get screwed.

This dynamic is so dominant that these latter groups are, in general, permanently, systemically and ubiquitously screwed across the US, which, some argue, is the core reason for our country’s dramatic inequality.

The only difference between public corporations and Mike Merrill is that we’ve come to accept the consequences of absentee ownership as “normal” in the context of publicly traded companies, so we’re blind to their pathologies. When the same thing happens in an unusual context, it’s easy to see what’s wrong with it.

Any dysfunction can seem perfectly normal if we’re sufficiently used to it. But that doesn’t mean the world wouldn’t be a much better place if we woke up to the problem and fixed it.

By Nick Bentley
Organizer, Reclaim Democracy

Filed Under: Corporate Accountability, Labor and Economics

Black Friday Now Black Thursday, But Don’t Expect the Best Bargains on Either

November 1, 2012 by staff

The competition for Black Friday "deals" is getting ridiculousInstead of spending time with their families on Thanksgiving this year, employees for Walmart, Target and other chains get to give thanks by selling consumerism to people who think they’re getting great deals (often they aren’t–more below). Yes, more big box chains now are opening their doors for “Black Friday” sales on Thursday, Thanksgiving Day, which means employees of retail chains now must work on one of the only three days they traditionally haven’t had to work. Employees who don’t want to join risk drifting into part-timer purgatory or worse.

The corporate media and chain marketing campaigns again are doing their best to whip up a frenzy over supposedly great deals while encouraging people to sacrifice family time. But before rushing through dessert to ditch grandma and the kids, consider research commissioned recently by the Wall Street Journal. The headline with which it reported the results tells the story succinctly: The Myth of the Black Friday Deal (applies equally to Black Thursday). As you may surmise, you’re just as likely to save money on most items at other times in the year.

Of course, the corporate push to replace a day traditionally dedicated to family with consumerism is predictable, but here’s one ray of hope: chain employees and disgusted citizens are starting to fight back, a group of Walmart employees is planning to strike – almost unheard of in the U.S – and Target employees are protesting.

If you’d like to help defeat  the latest corporate encroachment, consider these actions:

  • Enjoy friends and family on Black Thursday/Friday and shop without the frenzy;
  • Choose locally-owned independent businesses for your purchases when you do holiday shopping;
  • Consider these ideas for Great Gifts Don’t Have to Be “Stuff,” almost all of which bypass the corporate production chain;
  • Encourage friends and loved ones to make similar choices by planning other activities for Thursday and Friday.

But if you happen to participate in this madness, pause for a moment when handing over your cash and look for a moment at one of those bills. Just take a glance at George Washington’s face, or Honest Abe’s. What do you suppose those guys would think of our collective madness? We’re lucky dollar bills can’t cry.

Photo courtesy David Blackwell

Filed Under: Corporate Personhood, Labor and Economics, Walmart

Why Privatizing Social Security Would Weaken Our Republic

February 7, 2005 by staff

By Benjamin Barber 
First published by the LA Times, January 27, 2005

Social Security privatization has been vigorously challenged on both economic and technical grounds. It has been said again and again that privatization increases risk for prospective retirees without solving the long-term Social Security financing shortfall (if there actually is one). It has been argued that privatization is merely a scheme to divert money from the Social Security trust fund for speculative stock market investments. And it has been noted that it creates new costs (portfolio management, government oversight) without being able to guarantee workers future retirement benefits.

Yet the most profound cost of privatization has been wholly ignored: the systemic cost to our public way of life. By turning a public social insurance and pension policy into a private bet in which personal and private decisions determine who does well and who does badly, we do irreparable harm to our democratic “common ground.” After all, one of this nation’s greatest public goods has been its promise to give every working family a guarantee of support at retirement, or in case of disability or death. This promise, offered to all citizens, wipes away all the distorting traces of class, race and gender that often play out so dismayingly in the private realm. You cannot simply take justice out of the public realm and put it into the private realm without fundamentally weakening the democracy on which the very possibility of justice depends.

Conservatives ought to recognize even more quickly than liberals that privatization – whether of education, housing or Social Security – makes us less of a public. It diminishes the republic – the res publica, or public things that define our commonweal. It turns the common “we” into a collection of private “me’s.” It opts for market Darwinism, in which smart investors prosper but others lose, rather than social justice as its organizing principle. It demeans the “us” by turning “us” into “it” – the big, bad, faceless government bureaucracy. And it privileges the private and individual by appealing to market liberty, as if people could really be free one by one or as consumers alone.

Private market liberty is not political liberty; it is only personal choice. It may generate private benefits (“I want an SUV!” or “Give me 100 shares of EBay!”) but offers nothing for the common good (a fuel conservation policy, for instance). It is as citizens that we pay our Social Security taxes, and it should be as citizens that we enjoy the fruits of our labor.

Yet privatization tries to convince us that the consumer is simply another, more efficient, form of the citizen. The citizen who votes with her dollars rather than her ballots. But dollars don’t deliberate. They don’t seek common ground. They are not bearers of empathy and imagination. As education consumers in Chicago or Washington, we can select the “best schools” for our children, but as citizens we need public schools that help make us all public citizens. As consumers in Los Angeles, we can choose among hundreds of automobile models, but only as citizens can we make the choices that create a public transportation system serving all.

Privatization is a kind of reverse social contract: It dissolves the bonds that tie us together. The social contract takes us out of the state of nature; it asks us to give up a part of our private liberty to do whatever we want in order to secure common liberty for all. Privatization puts us back in the state of nature where we possess the natural power to get whatever we can but lose the common power to secure everything to which we have a natural right.

Private choices rest on individual power and skills and on personal luck. Public choices rest on civic rights and common responsibilities. With privatization, this administration is trying to seduce us back into the state of nature, where the strong dominate the weak and anarchy ultimately dominates the strong and the weak, undermining security for both. Under these conditions, Thomas Hobbes reminds us, we are perfectly free to do as we choose, but as a consequence we live lives that are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Not an ideal recipe for social security.

The Social Security entitlement should not be toyed with and altered in accord with today’s economic fashions. It is an emblem of civic membership and a reflection of the benefits that come with the responsibilities of citizenship.

For us as individuals, privatizing Social Security is probably a bad bet on technical grounds. But for us as citizens, it is a certain disaster. As prospective retirees and private consumers we may want to argue about it, but as citizens, if we care about our democratic republic, we are bound to condemn it.

Benjamin R. Barber, a professor of political science at the University of Maryland, is the author of “Jihad vs. McWorld” (Ballantine, 1996) and other books.

© 2005 Los Angeles Times

Filed Under: Civil Rights and Liberties, Labor and Economics

Will Corporate Theft from Workers Be Taken As Seriously as Swindling Investors?

April 16, 2004 by staff

By Steven Greenhouse
First published by The New York Times, April 4, 2004

Editor’s note: We’ve known the problem documented here is widespread because we’ve received numerous e-mails and calls testifying to the problem over the past few years, but we lacked the resources to investigate. We’re encouraged that a major media outlet finally has done one adequate, albeit superficial, report. Now we will see whether the story gets the follow-up it deserves from the media and the justice system.

As you read, note that there is no mention of any significant legal consequences to prevent corporate executives from engaging in these crimes. As a subsequent letter to the Timeseditor noted, “The toothlessness of the law is the reason for its constant violation. Regardless of the size of the offense, the culprits return to their business, a bit lighter in the pocketbook but not much the worse for the attempt.”

NY Times title: Altering of Worker Time Cards Spurs Growing Number of Suits

As a former member of the Air Force military police, as a play-by-the-rules guy, Drew Pooters said he was stunned by what he found his manager doing in the Toys “R” Us store in Albuquerque.

Inside a cramped office, he said, his manager was sitting at a computer and altering workers’ time records, secretly deleting hours to cut their paychecks and fatten his store’s bottom line.

“I told him, `That’s not exactly legal,’ ” said Mr. Pooters, who ran the store’s electronics department. “Then he out-and-out threatened me not to talk about what I saw.”

Mr. Pooters quit, landing a job in 2002 managing a Family Dollar store, one of 5,100 in that discount chain. Top managers there ordered him not to let employees’ total hours exceed a certain amount each week, and one day, he said, his district manager told him to use a trick to cut payroll: delete some employee hours electronically.

“I told her, `I’m not going to get involved in this,’ ” Mr. Pooters recalled, saying that when he refused, the district manager erased the hours herself.

Experts on compensation say that the illegal doctoring of hourly employees’ time records is far more prevalent than most Americans believe. The practice, commonly called shaving time, is easily done and hard to detect – a simple matter of computer keystrokes – and has spurred a growing number of lawsuits and settlements against a wide range of businesses.

Workers have sued Family Dollar and Pep Boys, the auto parts and repair chain, accusing managers of deleting hours. A jury found that Taco Bell managers in Oregon had routinely erased workers’ time. More than a dozen former Wal-Mart employees said in interviews and depositions that managers had altered time records to shortchange employees. The Department of Labor recently reached two back-pay settlements with Kinko’s photocopy centers, totaling $56,600, after finding that managers in Ithaca, N.Y., and Hyannis, Mass., had erased time for 13 employees.

“There are a lot of incentives for store managers to cut costs in illegal ways,” said David Lewin, a professor of management who teaches a course on compensation at the University of California, Los Angeles. “You hope that would be contrary to company practices, but sometimes these practices become so ingrained that they become the dominant practice.”

Officials at Toys “R” Us, Family Dollar, Pep Boys, Wal-Mart and Taco Bell say they prohibit manipulation of time records, but many acknowledge that it sometimes happens.

“Our policy is to pay hourly associates for every minute they work,” said Mona Williams, vice president for communications at Wal-Mart. “With a company this large, there will inevitably be instances of managers doing the wrong thing. Our policy is if a manager deliberately deletes time, they’re dismissed.”

Compensation experts say that many managers, whether at discount stores or fast-food restaurants, fear losing their jobs if they fail to keep costs down.

“A lot of this is that district managers might fire you as soon as look at you,” said William Rutzick, a lawyer who reached a $1.5 million settlement with Taco Bell last year after a jury found the chain’s managers guilty of erasing time and requiring off-the-clock work. “The store managers have a toehold in the lower middle class. They’re being paid $20,000, $30,000. They’re in management. They get medical. They have no job security at all, and they want to keep their toehold in the lower middle class, and they’ll often do whatever is necessary to do it.”

Another reason managers shave time, experts say, is that an increasing part of their compensation comes in bonuses based on minimizing costs or maximizing profits.

“The pressures are just unbelievable to control costs and improve productivity,” said George Milkovich, a longtime Cornell University professor of industrial relations and co-author of the leading textbook on compensation. “All this manipulation of payroll may be the unintended consequence of increasing the emphasis on bonuses.”

Beth Terrell, a Seattle lawyer who has sued Wal-Mart, accusing its managers of doctoring time records, said: “Many of these employees are making $8 an hour. These employees can scarcely afford to have time deleted. They’re barely paying their bills already.”

In the punch-card era, managers would have had to conspire with payroll clerks or accountants to manipulate records. But now it is far easier for individual managers to accomplish this secretly with computers, payroll experts say.

Mr. Pooters, a father of five who left the Air Force in 1997 for a career in retailing, talks with disgust about photocopied Toys “R” Us records that he said showed how his manager made it appear that he had clocked out much earlier than he had.

“Unless you keep track of your time and keep records of when you punch in and punch out, there’s no way to stop this,” he said.

After leaving Toys “R” Us and Family Dollar, Mr. Pooters moved to Indiana and took a job as an account manager with Rentway, a chain that leases furniture and electronics. There, he and a co-worker, William Coombs, said, the workload was so intense that they typically missed four lunch breaks a week. Nonetheless, they said, their manager inserted a half-hour for lunch into their time records every day, reducing their pay accordingly.

“They told us to sign the payroll printouts to confirm it was right,” Mr. Pooters said, describing a confrontation last November. “When we protested about what happened with our lunch hours, the manager said, `If you don’t sign, you’re not going to get paid.’ ”

Mr. Coombs said: “They removed our lunch hours all the time. We were told if we didn’t sign the payroll sheets, we’d be terminated.”

Larry Gorski, Rentway’s vice president for human resources, said his company strictly prohibited erasing time. “As soon as we hear this is going on, we jump all over it,” he said.

Shannon Priller, who worked at a Family Dollar store in Rio Rancho, N.M., sheepishly acknowledged that she sometimes watched her district manager erase her hours. “The manager and I would sit there and go over everybody’s time cards,” she said. “We were told not to go over payroll, or we would lose our jobs. If we were over, my hours would get shaved.”

Some weeks, she said, she lost 10 or 15 hours, and her 6 a.m. clock-in time became 9 a.m. Patricia Bauer, a clerk at the store, said her paycheck was sometimes cut to under 30 hours on weeks when she worked 40.

Like Mr. Pooters, these women have joined a lawsuit that accuses Family Dollar of erasing time and requiring off-the-clock work. “It needs to stop,” said Ms. Priller, who now cleans houses.

Kim Danner said that when she ran a Family Dollar store with eight employees in Minneapolis, her district manager urged her to erase hours so that she never paid overtime or exceeded her allotted payroll. Federal law generally requires paying time-and-a-half to nonmanagerial employees who work more than 40 hours a week.

Ms. Danner said her employees could not do all the unloading, stocking, cashier work and pricing of merchandise in the hours allotted. “The message from the district manager was, basically, `I don’t care how you do it, just get it done,’ ” she said.

So she altered clock-out times and inserted half-hour lunch breaks even when employees had worked through them. “I felt horrible that I was doing this,” she said. “I felt pressured, absolutely. If I refused, I would have been terminated easily.”

After five months, she quit.

Sandra Wilkenloh, Family Dollar’s communications director, declined to respond to the lawsuit, but said, “Family Dollar’s policy is to fully comply with all wage and hour laws and to take appropriate disciplinary action in any case where we determine that such policy has been violated.”

She said Family Dollar maintained a hot line that employees could call anonymously to report wage violations.

Rosann Wilks, who was an assistant manager at a Pep Boys in Nashville, said she was fired in 2001 after refusing to delete time. She said her district manager told her, “Under no circumstances at all is overtime allowed, and if so, then you need to shave time.”

At first, she bowed to orders and erased hours. Some employees began asking questions, she said, but they refused to confront management. “They took it lying down,” she said. “They didn’t want to lose their job. Jobs are hard to find.”

When she started feeling guilty and confronted her district manager, she said, “It all came to a boil. He fired me.”

Bill Furtkevic, Pep Boys’ spokesman, said his company did not tolerate deleting time.

“Pep Boys’ policy dictates, and record demonstrates, that any store manager found to have shaved any amount of employee time be terminated,” he said. He added that the company’s investigation “revealed no more than 21 instances over the past five years where time shaving” had occurred.

More than a dozen former Wal-Mart employees said time records were altered in numerous ways. Some said that when they clocked more than 40 hours a week, managers transferred extra hours to the following week, to avoid paying overtime. Federal law bars moving hours from one week to another.

Wal-Mart executives acknowledged that one common practice, the “one-minute clock-out,” had cheated employees for years. It involved workers who clocked out for lunch and forgot to clock back in before finishing the day. In such situations, many managers altered records to show such workers clocking out for the day one minute after their lunch breaks began – at 12:01 p.m., for example. That way a worker’s day was often three hours and one minute, instead of seven hours.

Ms. Williams, the Wal-Mart spokeswoman, said Wal-Mart had broadcast a video to store managers last April telling them to halt all one-minute clock-outs. Under the new policy, when workers fail to clock in after lunch, managers must do their best to determine what their true workday was.

In interviews, five former Wal-Mart managers acknowledged erasing time to cut costs. Victor Mitchell said that as an assistant manager in Hazlehurst, Miss., in 1997, he frequently shaved time.

“We were told we can’t have any overtime,” he said. “It’s what the other assistant managers were doing, and I went along with it.”

Mr. Mitchell said the store’s manager ordered them to stop. But he said that in 2002, after becoming manager of a Wal-Mart in Bogalusa, La., a new district manager ordered him to erase overtime. He said he refused.

Ms. Williams said Wal-Mart had increased efforts to stop managers from shaving time or allowing off-the-clock work.

Wal-Mart has circulated a “payroll integrity” memo, saying that any worker, “hourly or salaried, who knowingly falsifies payroll records is subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination.”

Employees at Wal-Mart and other companies complain that they receive no paper time records, making it hard to challenge management when their paychecks are inexplicably low.

Ms. Danner, the former Family Dollar manager, praised the system at the McDonald’s restaurant she managed for seven years. At day’s end, she said, employees received a printout detailing total hours worked and when they clocked in and out.

“We never had any problems like this at McDonald’s,” she said.

The Times followed this story with the following “correction”: A front-page article on Sunday about doctoring of payroll time records misstated Wal-Mart’s response to claims by some former employees that managers had sometimes altered the records of workers who forgot to clock back in after lunch, to make it appear that their workday ended at lunchtime. Although Wal-Mart acknowledged the practice, called the “one-minute clock-out,” it said the intent was to draw the workers’ attention to problems with their time records, not to cheat employees.

© 2004 New York. Times Co.

More articles and studies on Wal-Mart

More articles on Corporate Accountability

Filed Under: Corporate Accountability, Labor and Economics

Costco’s Dilemma: Is Treating Employees Well Unacceptable for a Publicly-Traded Corporation?

April 4, 2004 by staff

By Ann Zimmerman 
First published by the Wall St. Journal, March 26, 2004

Editor’s note: This article illustrates the challenges that face any corporate executives who attempt to resist market pressures to cut employee pay and, indirectly, why “corporate responsibility” initiatives have severely limited potential. Please see our article “Inherent Rules of Corporate Behavior” if you’d like to explore this topic further. 

When it comes to workers, companies can be accused of not paying enough — or paying too much.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc.’s parsimonious approach to employee compensation has made the world’s largest retailer a frequent target of labor unions and even Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, who has accused the Bentonville, Ark., chain of failing to offer its employees affordable health-care coverage.

Unions and employees alike often cite a lack of trust as a major issue in the workplace, particularly when it comes to compensation and benefits. Building trust between management and employees is essential for creating a positive and healthy work environment. By creating open lines of communication and providing transparency in decision-making processes, employers can demonstrate their commitment to their employees’ well-being and create a culture of trust. Companies can also invest in training and resources to help managers learn how to build trust with their teams, which can ultimately lead to higher job satisfaction and better performance.

In contrast, rival Costco Wholesale Corp. often is held up as a retailer that does it right, paying well and offering generous benefits.

But Costco’s kind-hearted philosophy toward its 100,000 cashiers, shelf-stockers and other workers is drawing criticism from Wall Street. Some analysts and investors contend that the Issaquah, Wash., warehouse-club operator actually is too good to employees, with Costco shareholders suffering as a result.

“From the perspective of investors, Costco’s benefits are overly generous,” says Bill Dreher, retailing analyst with Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. “Public companies need to care for shareholders first. Costco runs its business like it is a private company.”

Costco appears to pay a penalty for its largesse to workers. The company’s shares trade at about 20 times projected per-share earnings for 2004, compared with about 24 for Wal-Mart. Mr. Dreher says the unusually high wages and benefits contribute to investor concerns that profit margins at Costco aren’t as high as they should be.

Costco, which opened its first store in 1983 and now has 432 locations, disputes the contention that it takes care of workers at the expense of investors. “The last thing I want people to believe is that I don’t care about the shareholder,” says Jim Sinegal, Costco’s president and chief executive since 1993, who owns about 3.2 million Costco shares valued at $118 million. “But I happen to believe that in order to reward the shareholder in the long term, you have to please your customers and workers.”

Costco vs. Wal-Mart 
Comparing some workplace statistics, as reported by the companies.

Employees covered by company health insurance 
Costco  82%
Wal-Mart 48%

Insurance-enrollment waiting periods (for part-time workers)
Costco 6 months
Wal-Mart  2 years

Portion of health-care premium paid by company 
Costco 92%
Wal-Mart 66%

Annual worker turnover rate 
Costco 24%
Wal-Mart 50%

Worker pay, benefits and job quality have been hot topics in the retail industry. While employees in many fields are worried about generally stagnant job growth and spiraling health-care costs, already-meager retail wages also are threatened by retail-pricing pressure, partly fueled by Wal-Mart’s growing dominance in toys, electronics, groceries and other categories. Grocery workers in California recently waged a brutal four-month strike to protest health-care cuts that large supermarket chains were imposing to stay competitive with Wal-Mart.

Hourly retail pay grew only 1% in the 12 months ended last month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, compared with a 1.7% gain for private-sector jobs overall.

Wal-Mart last year added 99,000 jobs in the U.S., making it the country’s biggest job creator, and nearly all those positions pay by the hour. And since Costco and Wal-Mart’s larger Sam’s Club warehouse chain increasingly are competing head-to-head on everything from turkeys to tires, the companies have to pay close attention to each other.

Editor’s note: Numerous studies show nearly the same number of jobs are eliminated as are created by Wal-Mart. To call the company a “job creator” requires counting only one side of the ledger.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Mona Williams says the company’s “entire package of wages, benefits and career opportunities is at least as good as that offered by Costco,” including bonuses, company-paid life insurance and a discounted Wal-Mart stock-purchase program. Sam’s Club has a “cost advantage” over Costco, she adds, because it can “leverage efficiencies” from Wal-Mart in areas such as merchandise sourcing and logistics, keeping basic membership fees a third cheaper than Costco’s.

Costco has won a reputation for having the best benefits in retail, a sector where labor costs account for about 80% of a typical company’s total expenses. [Editor’s note: we’re unsure of the source for this claim, but we question its accuracy] Costco pays starting employees at least $10 an hour, and with regular raises a full-time hourly worker can make $40,000 annually within 3½ years. Cashiers are paid $10.50 to $17.50 an hour.

Wal-Mart doesn’t disclose its wage rates, since they vary by location. According to a recent study funded by Wal-Mart, cashiers at its Supercenters in Las Vegas were paid $7.65 to $11.45 an hour. Supercenters are Wal-Mart’s discount grocery and general-merchandise stores.

Costco also pays 92% of its employees’ health-insurance premiums, much higher than the 80% average at large U.S. companies. Wal-Mart pays two-thirds of health-benefit costs for its workers. Costco’s health plan offers a broader range of care than Wal-Mart’s does, and part-time Costco workers qualify for coverage in six months, compared with two years for Wal-Mart part-timers.

“From day one, we’ve run the company with the philosophy that if we pay better than average, provide a salary people can live on, have a positive environment and good benefits, we’ll be able to hire better people, they’ll stay longer and be more efficient,” says Richard Galanti, Costco’s chief financial officer.

Costco has several advantages over Wal-Mart that help it extend such unusually generous pay and benefits. Costco has a more-upscale reputation than Sam’s Club, helping it attract shoppers with higher incomes. The average Costco store rings up $115 million in annual sales, almost double the Sam’s Club average. And Costco, which charges $45 to $100 for yearly memberships, doesn’t spend any money on advertising.

Costco says its higher pay boosts loyalty: Its employee turnover rate is 24% a year. Wal-Mart’s overall employee turnover rate is 50%, about in line with the retail-industry average. Wal-Mart doesn’t break out turnover rates at Sam’s Club. High turnover creates added expense for retailers because new workers have to be trained and are not as efficient.

Some critics still aren’t convinced that lower turnover is worth what it costs Costco in higher wages and benefits. “Their benefits are amazing, but shareholders get frustrated from a stock perspective,” says Emme Kozloff, a retail analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein LLC.

Surging health-care costs have forced Costco to make more aggressive moves to control expenses. Moreover, Costco last year raised employees’ contribution to about 8% of their health-care costs, up from 4.5%. It was the company’s first rise in employee health premiums in eight years. Mr. Sinegal, the Costco CEO, said the company held off from boosting premiums for as long it could, and didn’t give in until after it had lowered its earnings forecast twice last year.

Costco also is looking to employees for ideas that could improve efficiency. One suggestion that Costco implemented at stores was to install pneumatic tubes at check-out areas to speed the movement of cash to a store’s back office.

Mr. Galanti says company officials want to boost Costco’s pretax income closer to 4% of sales, compared with 3% now and 5% at Wal-Mart, without cutting pay. In its fiscal second quarter ended Feb. 15, Costco’s net income rose 25% to $226.8 million, or 48 cents a share. Revenue rose 14% to $11.55 billion.

Some longtime Costco fans say the company should stick to its generous wages and benefits. “Happy employees make for happy customers, which in the long run is ultimately reflected in the share price,” says John Bowen, an investment manager in Coronado, Calif., who has held Costco shares for eight years.

© 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

The New York Times also published an informative report on this topic.

  • See our huge collection of articles, studies, internal documents and more on Wal-Mart and big box stores.
  • Why those who care about the impacts of their purchases should first look to independent locally-owned businesses.

Filed Under: Labor and Economics, Walmart

Search our website

Our Mission

Reclaim Democracy! works toward a more democratic republic, where citizens play an active role in shaping our communities, states, and nation. We believe a person’s influence should be based on the quality of their ideas, skills, and energy, and not based on wealth, race, gender, or orientation.

We believe every citizen should enjoy an affirmative right to vote and have their vote count equally.

Learn more about our work.

Donate to Our Work

We rely on individual gifts for more than 95% of our funding. Our hard-working volunteers make your gift go a long way. We're grateful for your help, and your donation is tax-deductible.

Join Us on Social Media

  • Facebook
  • X

Weekly Quote

"The great enemy of freedom is the alignment of political power with wealth."

-- Wendell Berry

Copyright © 2025 · Reclaim Democracy!