The 10 Largest Employers in America

[dorminWS]

1. Walmart - more than 1.3 million employees in the United States - pretty much low-pay dead-end jobs in most cases.

2. Yum! Brands - Total employees: 523,000 - owner of KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut - pretty much low-pay dead-end jobs in most cases.

3. McDonald's - Total employees: 440,000 - pretty much low-pay dead-end jobs in most cases.

4. IBM - Total employees: 434,246 - IBM is retrenching and laying off some people due to lack of demand for servers (also, no doubt, the displacement of the desktop and laptop by tablets and handhelds).

5. United Parcel Service - Total employees: 399,000 - At the end of last year, 46% of UPS’s 328,000 hourly employees, as well as 36% of management personnel were employed part time.

6. Target - Total employees: 361,000 – better than WalMart and McDonald’s, but still a retail job.

7. Kroger - Total employees: 343,000 – higher salaries, but slipping in market share and growing mostly by acquisition. Competitiveness hampered by union workforce.

8. Home Depot - Total employees: 340,000 - vast majority working either hourly or only on a temporary basis, but improving pay and benefits to improve customer service.

9. Hewlett-Packard - Total employees: 331,800 - The company, however, is in the midst of massive job cuts and has other financial difficulties to face.

10. General Electric - Total employees: 305,000 – Pretty solid prospects – Maybe still a beneficiary of Obamanomics crony capitalism deals.

All in all, not a particularly inspiring story, is it?


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-larges ... tml?page=1

[trailrunner]

All in all, not a particularly inspiring story, is it?

The story is sort of negative on IBM, HP, and GE. GE is "maybe...a beneficiary of Obamanomics crony capitalism deals"? What the hell does that mean? Is that your analysis? Or the article's analysis?

Actually, it's sort of negative in general. But so what? So what if the largest employers are mostly retailers and if their employees are mostly hourly? Who says this is representative of our economy (or anything), the current state of our employment prospects, or anything else? If you don't want an hourly job, then don't work for Wal Mart, Target, or Yum foods. Go work for America's 8,459th employer instead.

In some ways, the fact that IBM, HP, and GE are still in business is a minor miracle in itself. Each of these companies has a different path of how it has evolved and survived several generations of technology changes, but they are still here.

[tommy610]

You would be happier if they employed fewer people? I don't get it.

[WFarm]

In the past, this list was populated by companies such as GM, Chrysler, US Steel. One thing they had in common was they manufactured a product, which created wealth and a vibrant middle class.

Some failed because they were their own worst enemy and were poorly managed, some failed for other reasons. Some are still around but I think the point may be that without such a manufacturing base the wealth associated with it is gone.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ShotgunBlast]

Not sure when this listed was created, but temp agency Kelly Services has jumped to the number two employer in America with 560,000 employees.

Temp jobs made up about 10 percent of the jobs lost during the Great Recession, and because of high turnover (the average length of temp employment is 3 months before a worker moves on to a permanent job), one in 10 non-farm workers were employed by a US staffing firm at some point during the past year, according to ASA.

So much for recovery. It's the new part-time / temp economy.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/recovery- ... le/2532778

[Kreutz]

In the past, this list was populated by companies such as GM, Chrysler, US Steel. One thing they had in common was they manufactured a product, which created wealth and a vibrant middle class.

Some failed because they were their own worst enemy and were poorly managed, some failed for other reasons. Some are still around but I think the point may be that without such a manufacturing base the wealth associated with it is gone

Free trade FTW!

[ShotgunBlast]

In the past, this list was populated by companies such as GM, Chrysler, US Steel. One thing they had in common was they manufactured a product, which created wealth and a vibrant middle class.

Some failed because they were their own worst enemy and were poorly managed, some failed for other reasons. Some are still around but I think the point may be that without such a manufacturing base the wealth associated with it is gone

Free trade FTW!

I don't know if this is sarcasm or not, but this is not the fault of free trade. Free trade benefits everyone, from the manufacturer who is able to get a lower price on supplies to make their goods, to the consumers who ultimately purchase the product. All manufacturers ultimately want lower prices because then they can sell more goods.

Government intervention through protectionist acts like import tariffs or subsidies, along with artificially increasing prices through wage laws and higher taxes is ultimately what drives industry away from an area. Obviously the widgets are still being made and purchased; we've just drove all widget making away through government intervention.

[MarcSpaz]

Not sure when this listed was created, but temp agency Kelly Services has jumped to the number two employer in America with 560,000 employees....

I was wondering when the list was made too. The United State Postal Service had 522,144 employees in 2012. And that's following a steady decline from the over 800,000 employees in 2000.

I'm thinking that story is not a reliable source of info.

[Kreutz]

I don't know if this is sarcasm or not, but this is not the fault of free trade. Free trade benefits everyone, from the manufacturer who is able to get a lower price on supplies to make their goods, to the consumers who ultimately purchase the product. All manufacturers ultimately want lower prices because then they can sell more goods.

Government intervention through protectionist acts like import tariffs or subsidies, along with artificially increasing prices through wage laws and higher taxes is ultimately what drives industry away from an area. Obviously the widgets are still being made and purchased; we've just drove all widget making away through government intervention.

Things sure seemed better before NAFTA and WTO.

[ShotgunBlast]

I don't know if this is sarcasm or not, but this is not the fault of free trade. Free trade benefits everyone, from the manufacturer who is able to get a lower price on supplies to make their goods, to the consumers who ultimately purchase the product. All manufacturers ultimately want lower prices because then they can sell more goods.

Government intervention through protectionist acts like import tariffs or subsidies, along with artificially increasing prices through wage laws and higher taxes is ultimately what drives industry away from an area. Obviously the widgets are still being made and purchased; we've just drove all widget making away through government intervention.

Things sure seemed better before NAFTA and WTO.

But that's only because our government solved half the problem in getting lower prices to the consumer. They got rid of the import tariffs so that American consumers could get inexpensive foreign goods, but they did nothing about the high cost of American labor, regulations, and taxes that results in the high prices of American goods. It's no surprise that our trade deficit is so out of balance. Mexico was happy to get 700,000 American jobs that left the US since NAFTA has been around, and American companies were able to better compete in a global market by moving their factories to Mexico at a lower cost and not worry about paying any import costs to get it back to the US.

Even Obama recently said during a South Korean trade agreement that he wants to see Koreans driving Chevys and Fords just like Americans are driving Hyundais and Kias. He doesn't see (or fails to admit) that the reason Americans are driving Hyundais and Kias is because they are a better bang for the buck because there's no UAW tax.

We will continue to be a struggling economy made up of service sector jobs and consumerism as long as "MADE IN THE USA" is too expensive to compete in the global market.

[dmharvey]

No automakers make the top ten list?

[Reverenddel]

As soon as you have "REAL" Free trade again? With less "Fascists" Rules by the government?

We'll be on top again.

Granted some of the EPA/OSHA/FDA rules were put into place to "save" Americans, but with the advent of the social media, public pressure MIGHT work better than regulation.

My opinion only, but if it's not true, why do most corporations hire people to "google" there names all day, and hunt the "negative" media exposure.

[Kreutz]

But that's only because our government solved half the problem in getting lower prices to the consumer. They got rid of the import tariffs so that American consumers could get inexpensive foreign goods, but they did nothing about the high cost of American labor, regulations, and taxes that results in the high prices of American goods. It's no surprise that our trade deficit is so out of balance. Mexico was happy to get 700,000 American jobs that left the US since NAFTA has been around, and American companies were able to better compete in a global market by moving their factories to Mexico at a lower cost and not worry about paying any import costs to get it back to the US.

Even Obama recently said during a South Korean trade agreement that he wants to see Koreans driving Chevys and Fords just like Americans are driving Hyundais and Kias. He doesn't see (or fails to admit) that the reason Americans are driving Hyundais and Kias is because they are a better bang for the buck because there's no UAW tax.

We will continue to be a struggling economy made up of service sector jobs and consumerism as long as "MADE IN THE USA" is too expensive to compete in the global market.

But when made in the USA was largely only purchased in the USA...things were still better.

[Reverenddel]

My question has always been, when did employement become entitlement?

I'm employed by my company, certain actions, behaviors, and outcomes are expected. I know what those are to be. If I don't like them? I leave.

I'm not "entitled" to have things my way. Ain't my company.

[ShotgunBlast]

But when made in the USA was largely only purchased in the USA...things were still better.

I think we're just going to disagree on this. There are a lot of factors to determine a better quality of life for back in the day, including the pension system, sending war vets to college through the GI bill, good old-fashioned parenting, and only having one generation used to the idea of government handouts and welfare programs. Pensions didn't go away because of free trade - they went away because funding them was unsustainable. Our social program safety net didn't bounce people out of poverty - it kept them trapped like a fly on a spider web only to raise the next generation on the same programs. The GI's went to college and then worked at a good paying job or started a business, but the next generation stumbled and failed to do the same. Kids aren't educated or parented anymore. They are sent to our public babysitters and then come home to sit in front of the television. The greatest generation is called that for a reason. There was a lot of hard work and sacrifice, but whether it was fighting a world war abroad or rebuilding a country back home, they laced up their boots and got to work. They passed the baton off to the next generation and it got dropped in a mud hole and we've been looking for it ever since.

Hong Kong, a place with no natural resources to make anything, has used their open ports and free trade to create a bustling economy and despite it's close proximity to China, is one of the free-est places in the world to live. You may think of sweatshops when you think of HK (and there are), but a lot of people use those jobs to get into the game and learn skills and then move on to better jobs. There is a good bit of income mobility in HK, all because the government stays out of the way. China, a big benefactor from free trade, with its huge population has enjoyed low unemployment numbers even during the 2008 recession. When people think of China they think of some poor rice farmer living in squaller, and there's no denying that doesn't exist. They fail to see the growing middle class that is starting to rival what we would expect as a good quality of life. All built on hard work, low government intervention, and free trade.

There are lots of factors that drove American manufacturing (and our prosperity with it) out of this country, but free trade is not the enemy here. In fact, if the government could get its head out of it's arse and remove more barriers to make this country more competitive, free trade could bring back prosperity to this once great country. With the progressive movement looking to get more people on the government dole (and actively looking for people to sign up), I'm not holding my breath.

[ShotgunBlast]

My question has always been, when did employement become entitlement?

I'm employed by my company, certain actions, behaviors, and outcomes are expected. I know what those are to be. If I don't like them? I leave.

I'm not "entitled" to have things my way. Ain't my company.

Just like water washing over a rock for decades and eventually wearing it down, trying to pinpoint a date or time this change in mentality took place is tough.

I never could understand why people would march on Washington with "we need jobs" signs. Washington has nothing to do with creating jobs. Go start a business while you're collecting that unemployment check. Nope, we'll just wait for someone else to start the business and hope they get enough business to where they have to hire someone, even with all of economic conditions telling them they're a fool if they hire someone.

[dorminWS]

Not sure when this listed was created, but temp agency Kelly Services has jumped to the number two employer in America with 560,000 employees.

Temp jobs made up about 10 percent of the jobs lost during the Great Recession, and because of high turnover (the average length of temp employment is 3 months before a worker moves on to a permanent job), one in 10 non-farm workers were employed by a US staffing firm at some point during the past year, according to ASA.

So much for recovery. It's the new part-time / temp economy.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/recovery- ... le/2532778

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This article was posted on the Yahoo page the day I linked to it on this forum and i therefore took it to be a contemprary article. However, i did posty the link clearly identifying the source of the information, and it was offered for what it was worth as an interesting peice of information. I'm not going to try to defend the veracity of Yahoo here. But I would surmise that Kelley and other "temp" services were not included because they do not hire for permanent positions and there is probably no way to determine what employer they will ultimately serve. That would seem to me to have been a reasonable approach to looking at the current state of employment. But your bottom line on this is certainly dead-on.

[dorminWS]

Not sure when this listed was created, but temp agency Kelly Services has jumped to the number two employer in America with 560,000 employees....

I was wondering when the list was made too. The United State Postal Service had 522,144 employees in 2012. And that's following a steady decline from the over 800,000 employees in 2000.

I'm thinking that story is not a reliable source of info.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Again, I am not defending the yahoo story as the gospel. But if I were doing this study, I would have left the USPS out, too. It is a quasi-governmental entity operating under a partial government-granted grant of exclusivity. Those jobs, if they were really in the private sector, would already have been slashed drastically. As a matter of fact, if the USPS were really a privately-held company and operating as it has, UPS and/or FedEx would already have bought them out in a bankruptcy sale.

[dorminWS]

I don't know if this is sarcasm or not, but this is not the fault of free trade. Free trade benefits everyone, from the manufacturer who is able to get a lower price on supplies to make their goods, to the consumers who ultimately purchase the product. All manufacturers ultimately want lower prices because then they can sell more goods.

Government intervention through protectionist acts like import tariffs or subsidies, along with artificially increasing prices through wage laws and higher taxes is ultimately what drives industry away from an area. Obviously the widgets are still being made and purchased; we've just drove all widget making away through government intervention.

Things sure seemed better before NAFTA and WTO.

But that's only because our government solved half the problem in getting lower prices to the consumer. They got rid of the import tariffs so that American consumers could get inexpensive foreign goods, but they did nothing about the high cost of American labor, regulations, and taxes that results in the high prices of American goods. It's no surprise that our trade deficit is so out of balance. Mexico was happy to get 700,000 American jobs that left the US since NAFTA has been around, and American companies were able to better compete in a global market by moving their factories to Mexico at a lower cost and not worry about paying any import costs to get it back to the US.

Even Obama recently said during a South Korean trade agreement that he wants to see Koreans driving Chevys and Fords just like Americans are driving Hyundais and Kias. He doesn't see (or fails to admit) that the reason Americans are driving Hyundais and Kias is because they are a better bang for the buck because there's no UAW tax.

We will continue to be a struggling economy made up of service sector jobs and consumerism as long as "MADE IN THE USA" is too expensive to compete in the global market.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Exactly.
But there is more to it than just the high cost of American labor and the political influence of the labor unions. And the government can't fix it. We are to a large extent victims of our own fantastically high (by global standards) standard of living. Off the top of my head, I can only think of two things that can insulate US employment from this phenomenon in today's global market: (1) the cost of transporting foreign-manufactured goods to the US, and (2) that technology and expertise available only in this country be required to producwe something. Neither one is likely to help much.

[Reverenddel]

It's what I have always said about "being in the middle".

You don't want to take a chance because you could lose what little you've gained.

If you're at the bottom? Nothing to lose.

If you're at the top? You have a back up.

Those in the middle live in fear. And fear kills motivation. Trust me. I hear it, see it, and lived it for awhile. Now? My eyes are open. I am not a Republican anymore, I am not worried about "losing", I would rather try, and fail. It's why I took that promotion after 4 years of being "in the middle". I have to work harder, but I view that as a challenge, not tiring.

You cannot win if you worry about losing.