Socialism = Lies, Ignorance & Envy
-
Uncreative — 1 month ago(February 05, 2026 12:54 AM)
Wal Mart has about 2 million employees and made $20b in profits last year. The year before that they made $15b. The year before that was $11b. A little bit of profit sharing, which isn't socialism because there are companies who do it, would barely touch their bottom line but make a huge difference to low wage retail staff.
-
Uncreative — 1 month ago(February 05, 2026 04:42 AM)
It's not an exact science. I'm sure there's economists who could give some ideal balance.
Now here's a question for you. How are the Wal Marts of the world any good for capitalism? They literally tell their workers to apply for government benefits to compensate for the ****ty Wal Mart paychecks. The whole idea of capitalism and free markets depends on competition. That's what forces companies to offer better products and prices or better wages and benefits for their employees or more of that innovation that everyone loves using as a buzz word.
We've been headed in the opposite direction for 40 years now in almost every industry. Democrats haven't even been much better than Republicans at stopping it. Everyone's favorite Republican Teddy Roosevelt broke up the Wal Marts and Googles of his day. They put his face on the side of a mountain for it. Can you imagine anything like that happening now? -
Soul_Venom — 1 month ago(February 05, 2026 04:50 AM)
It's not an exact science
Translation: I thought it sounded good to say but don't ask for figures because I don't actually know what the **** I am talking about.
At least you were smart enough not to try and bullshit some numbers. I figured you'd use the rope to hang yourself.
Trump is still your President. Charlie Kirk still Wins! -
Uncreative — 1 month ago(February 05, 2026 04:53 AM)
So you're going to completely side step everything else until you go through some ChatGPT trial and error that gives you the answer you want?
Also after looking it up a normal profit sharing amount for companies that do it is in the 3-5% range. I probably would have said 10 if I was pulling a number out of my ass which is on the high end of normal but not unheard of. Good to know my ass has decent instincts. -
Soul_Venom — 1 month ago(February 05, 2026 05:18 AM)
A pin prick to the pride hurts worse than a kick in the nuts doesn't it?
Certainly seems to work on you. One pin and you grabbed the rope and hung yourself.
The “barely touch their bottom line” part depends entirely on what you mean by “a little bit.”
The factual bits (profits + headcount)
Employees: Walmart is about ~2.1 million associates worldwide (and ~1.6M in the U.S.).
“Profits” (net income): In Walmart’s fiscal years ended Jan 31:
FY2025: $20.157B consolidated net income (about $19.436B attributable to Walmart)
FY2024: $16.270B consolidated net income (about $15.511B attributable to Walmart)
FY2023: $11.292B consolidated net income (about $11.680B attributable to Walmart)
So “$20b last year, $15b the year before, $11b the year before” is close, though the more exact sequence is ~$20.2B, ~$16.3B, ~$11.3B (consolidated net income).
Does “a little bit of profit sharing” barely affect the bottom line?
Here’s what it looks like if you spread profit-sharing across ~2.1M employees:
1% of $20.2B ≈ $202M → about $96/employee/year
5% ≈ $1.0B → about $480/employee/year
10% ≈ $2.0B → about $960/employee/year
25% ≈ $5.0B → about $2,400/employee/year
So:
If “a little bit” = 1–5% of profits, yeah, it’s not enormous to Walmart’s net income, and it’s non-trivial money to many hourly workers.
If “a little bit” = 10%+, that’s not “barely touching” the bottom line anymore (it’s billions off net income / EPS).
Also: profit-sharing isn’t the same as “free money”
Any real plan has to define:
who qualifies (hourly only? full-time? tenure requirement?),
whether it’s equal per head or proportional to hours/pay,
whether it replaces/offsets other bonuses or wage increases.
Verdict:
True that Walmart is ~2M employees and profits are in the ~$11B → ~$16B → ~$20B range (depending on which net-income line you cite).
“Barely touch their bottom line” is conditionally true only for small percentages; otherwise false/overstated.
Trump is still your President. Charlie Kirk still Wins! -
Uncreative — 1 month ago(February 05, 2026 05:26 AM)
20% would bring their profits down to roughly the level it was the year before, which up to that point was their most profitable year ever. Whether you consider that as barely touching the bottom line or not is up to you. Either way you've still addressed 0% of what I asked because I genuinely want to know your thoughts. Unfortunately you people never have an answer.
