Capitalism Will Ruin the Earth By 2050, Scientists Say

Vice.com- A spate of new scientific research starkly lays out the choice humankind faces in coming decades: 

By 2050, we could retain high levels of GDP, at the price of a world wracked by minerals and materials shortages, catastrophic climate change, and a stuttering clean energy transition —paving the way for a slowly crumbling civilization. 

Or, we could ditch the GDP fetish and enter a world of abundance, with energy consumption safely contained within planetary boundaries, and high-tech economies that support jobs, health and education for everyone without costing the earth. ContinueReading

Iceland equal pay law set to end gender pay gap

usatoday.com-

Until now women in Iceland have earned an average 19% less than their male colleagues. But those days are over. A new law makes equal pay for equal work a must in the country — irrespective of gender, ethnicity, sexuality or nationality.

The new law, which went into effect New Year's Day, covers about 150,000 workers in the country. The measure applies to 1,200 companies in Iceland that have at least 25 workers, and the firms will have to publish their wage scales.

There are courses to help the companies implement the new pay scales. Upon completion, the companies get a certificate that have to be renewed every three years.

The measure intends to close the gender pay gap by 2022. Although other countries have made similar moves, for now Iceland is the global pioneer.

"The legislation is basically a mechanism that companies and organizations ... evaluate every job that's being done, and then they get a certification after they confirm the process if they are paying men and women equally," Dagny Osk Aradottir Pind of the Icelandic Women's Rights Association, told Al Jazeera. ContinueReading

Further Reading: Introduction to how capitalism works

“Equal Pay for Equal Work” – socialist or capitalist?

Feminism is incompatible with capitalism

PM elect Jacinda Ardern: ‘Capitalism has failed New Zealanders’

theaustralian.com.au - New Zealand prime-minister-elect Jacinda Ardern has said she is prepared to pull out of the Trans Pacific Partnership while outlining her goals for her first 100 days in office.

Ms Ardern, who has been on a weekend media blitz, also warned the Turnbull government she would retaliate if Australia moved to restrict tertiary entry for New Zealanders.

Ms Ardern has cited New Zealand’s poverty and homelessness among her top priorities, yesterday calling capitalism a “blatant failure” in her country. Today, she doubled down.

“There is no point gloating about the economic growth of a nation if you have some of the highest rates of homelessness in the developed world,” local media quoted Ms Ardern as saying.

“My view is there a role for us to play where we are being much more proactive and intervening where there are signs the market is failing our people.”

Said she was not concerned her comments might trigger a “winter of discontent” with the New Zealand business community.

“Not at all ... I intend to work in partnership [with business] Ours will be a government of partnership.”

However, the 37-year-old Labour leader said she was prepared to pull out of the TPP trade agreement if it precluded her government from restricting foreign ownership for housing.

“Our view has been that there has to be a balance between delivering for our exporters but also making sure we can protect the ability of New Zealanders to buy homes, our view is we can do both.”

Raising the minimum wage to $NZ16.50 is also on her 100-day agenda, the New Zealand Herald reports.

She said she planned to visit Australia “as soon as I am able” and urged the Turnbull government not to follow through with a shelved plan to increase tertiary fees for Kiwi students and other permanent residents. She warned her government would reciprocate if it did.

“I hope we have the mutual access that we had in the past so I certainly hope that it doesn’t come to that,” Ms Ardern told Sky News on Sunday.

“But if we do find that New Zealanders aren’t able to access tertiary education in the same way as Australian students currently do then there will be flow-on effects here.”

In her first major TV interview since her elevation on Thursday, Ms Ardern said New Zealanders were not feeling the benefits of prosperity. Asked if capitalism had failed New Zealanders on low incomes, the prime minister-elect was blunt: “If you have hundreds of thousands of children living in homes without enough to survive, that’s a blatant failure. What else could you describe it as?”

“When you have a market economy, it all comes down to whether or not you acknowledge where the market has failed and where intervention is required. Has it failed our people in recent times? Yes.

“Wages are not keeping up with inflation (and) and how can you claim you’ve been successful when you have growth at roughly 3 per cent, but you have the worst homelessness in the developed world?”

Real measures that the public can rate the government on are important, Miss Ardern said, citing improved waterways, child poverty, homelessness and building 10,000 new homes every year to judge them on.

Ms Ardern said the biggest difference between National and the incoming coalition government would be change, vowing the Labour-NZ First-Greens coalition would be active and “won’t leave anything to chance”.

She also said there would be compromise on Labour’s desire for the minimum wage to be raised to NZ$16.50 and New Zealand’s First to have it at NZ$20.

“We have common ground and you will see change in this area.” Ms Ardern said despite there being three parties in a coalition, things have come a long way since MMP began in 1996, and there was confidence this would be an “effective and efficient” government. (ontinueReading

Further Reading:

Big biz leaders say capitalism needs to be reformed

New Zealand: New Prime Minister, New Direction

How America Hates Socialism without Knowing Why

What is Labor Day? Why Congress Made Labor Day a National Holiday

Time.com- Nowadays, many think of the Labor Day holiday in the U.S., which falls on the first Monday in September, as a day for cookouts or shopping deals. But its origins date back to two gatherings of another, more politically motivated sort.

One was a “monster labor festival” featuring of a parade of unions and accompanying picnic, which took place on Sept. 5, 1882, in a New York City park. That gathering is thought to have attracted as many as 10,000 marchers, according to Linda Stinson, a former Department of Labor historian. They listened to speeches in support of workers' rights, and — in lighthearted activities more in the spirit of what goes on today — people drank beer, danced and set off fireworks.

The other event was a darker one. On May 11, 1894, in a company town outside Chicago, employees of the railway sleeping car mastermind George Pullman went on strike when their wages didn't go up after the economy tanked. In a show of solidarity, the American Railway Union — said to have boasted 150,000 members at the time and led by famous socialist Eugene Debs — refused to operate Pullman train cars, snarling mail delivery and prompting President Grover Cleveland to send in federal troops to break up the strike. Rioting and arson broke out, and it evolved into what's now considered one of the bloodiest episodes in American labor history.

Some experts say Cleveland supported the idea of such a holiday, which already existed in several states, in an effort to make peace with the unions before he ran for re-election. (He would lose anyway.) But perhaps one of the most eloquent explanations of why the federal government saw fit to declare the holiday can be found in a Congressional committee report on the matter.

Sen. James Henderson Kyle of South Dakota introduced a bill, S. 730, to Congress shortly after the Pullman strike, proposing Labor Day be the first Monday in September. Here's how Rep. Lawrence McGann (D-IL), who sat on the Committee on Labor, argued for the holiday in a report submitted on May 15, 1894:

 - The use of national holidays is to emphasize some great event or principle in the minds of the people by giving them a day of rest and recreation, a day of enjoyment, in commemoration of it. By making one day in each year a public holiday for the benefit of workingmen the equality and dignity of labor is emphasized. Nothing is more important to the public weal than that the nobility of labor be maintained. So long as the laboring man can feel that he holds an honorable as well as useful place in the body politic, so long will he be a loyal and faithful citizen.

The celebration of Labor Day as a national holiday will in time naturally lead to an honorable emulation among the different crafts beneficial to them and to the whole public. It will tend to increase the feeling of common brotherhood among men of all crafts and callings, and at the same time kindle an honorable desire in each craft to surpass the rest.

There can be no substantial objection to making one day in the year a national holiday for the benefit of labor. The labor organizations of the whole country, representing the great body of our artisan population, request it. They are the ones most interested. They desire it and should have it. If the farmers, manufacturers, and professional men are indifferent to the measure, or even oppose it, which there is no reason to believe, that still would constitute no good objection, for their work can be continued on holidays as well as on other days if they so desire it. Workingmen should have one day in the year peculiarly their own. Nor will their employers lose anything by it. Workingmen are benefited by a reasonable amount of rest and recreation. Whatever makes a workingman more of a man makes him more useful as a craftsman.

Cleveland signed the bill into law on June 28, 1894.

Now, more than a century later, Labor Day is firmly entrenched on the American calendar — but it does still come with at least one, much smaller, controversy: the old fashion debate over whether it's taboo to wear white after Labor Day.
(ontinueReading

Electric cars win? Britain to ban new petrol and diesel cars from 2040

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2040 in an attempt to reduce air pollution that could herald the end of over a century of reliance on the internal combustion engine.

Britain's step, which follows France, amounts to a victory for electric cars that if copied globally could hit the wealth of oil producers, as well as transform car industry jobs and one of the icons of 20th Century capitalism: the automobile itself.

The mayors of Paris, Madrid, Mexico City and Athens have said they plan to ban diesel vehicles from city centers by 2025, while the French government also aims to end the sale of new gasoline and diesel vehicles by 2040.

The British government has been under pressure to take steps to reduce air pollution after losing legal cases brought by campaign groups. Prime Minister Theresa May's Conservatives had pledged to make "almost every car and van" zero-emission by 2050.

"There should be no new diesel or petrol vehicles by 2040," environment minister Michael Gove told BBC Radio. The ban would only apply to conventional rather than hybrid vehicles that have both an electric and combustion engine, Gove's ministry said.

There is a mountain to climb, however.

Electric cars currently account for less than 5 percent of new car registrations in Britain, with drivers concerned about the cost and limited availability of charging points and manufacturers worried about making expensive investments before the demand is there.

"We could undermine the UK’s successful automotive sector if we don’t allow enough time for the industry to adjust," warned Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

Hawes said there were only 12,000 public charging points in Britain and new power infrastructure would be needed, as well as steps to ensure the power network could cope with large numbers of people seeking to charge vehicles at the same time. (ontinueReading

With Whole Foods, Amazon on collision course with Wal-Mart

Reuters - When Wal-Mart Stores Inc bought online retailer Jet.com for $3 billion last year, it marked a crucial moment - the world's largest brick-and-mortar retailer, after years of ceding e-commerce leadership to arch rival Amazon, intended to compete.

On Friday, Amazon.com Inc countered. With its $14 billion purchase of grocery chain Whole Foods Market Inc, the largest e-commerce company announced its intention to take on Wal-Mart in the brick-and-mortar world.

The two deals make it clear that the lines that divided traditional retail from e-commerce are disappearing and sector dominance will no longer be bound by e-commerce or brick-and-mortar, but by who is better at both.

Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods also brings disruption to the $700 billion U.S. grocery sector, a traditional area of retailing that stands on the precipice of a ferocious price war. German discounters Aldi and Lidl are battling Wal-Mart, which controls 22 percent of the U.S. grocery market, with each vowing to undercut whatever price the others offer.

The stakes are highest for Wal-Mart. Amazon's move aims at the heart of the Bentonville, Arkansas-based retail giant's business - groceries, which account for 56 percent of Wal-Mart's $486 billion in revenue for the year ending Jan. 31. With the deal, Whole Foods’ more than 460 stores become a test bed with which Amazon can learn how to compete with Wal-Mart’s 4,700 stores with a large grocery offering that are also within 10 miles (16 km) of 90 percent of the U.S. population.

Amazon is expected to lower Whole Foods' notoriously high prices, enabling it to pursue Wal-Mart's customers. The push comes as Wal-Mart is headed in the opposite direction - going after Amazon's higher-income shoppers with a recent string of acquisitions of online brands such as Moosejaw and Modcloth and on Friday, menswear e-tailer Bonobos. (ontinueReading

Amazon moves into real-world stores with $13.7 billion Whole Foods deal

Reuters - Amazon.com Inc said on Friday June 16 it would buy grocer Whole Foods Market Inc for $13.7 billion in a move that gives the online retailer a physical network of stores to distribute fresh food and other goods to millennials and wealthy consumers.

Amazon, which is known for squeezing suppliers and has been experimenting with its own outlets, will take over a natural and organic grocer pioneer brimming with 456 stores and high-end shoppers but struggling to rein in prices and integrate technology.

The deal sent shockwaves across the food distribution market and beyond. Shares of grocer Kroger Co swooned 11 percent, while Wal-Mart Stores Inc fell 5 percent, signaling fears that Amazon could cut prices and broaden Whole Foods' product mix, turning it into a much broader retailer.[]

Amazon's shares were up 3 percent at $993.40, adding more than $14 billion to its market capitalization.

"Supermarkets will now have to contend with not only competition with each other and non-traditional grocers like Wal-Mart Stores Inc and Target Corp, but with a retailer like Amazon which has the financial capacity to price aggressively," said Mickey Chadha, vice president and senior credit officer at Moody's Investors Service.

"We expect this transaction to further accelerate the consolidation within the supermarket space."

Amazon has agreed to pay $42 per share in cash for Whole Foods, a 27 percent premium on the Austin, Texas-based grocer's closing share price on Thursday. Whole Foods shares were trading just above that level on Friday, as investors saw negligible regulatory risk to the deal closing.

A person familiar with Amazon's strategy said the company believed customers wanted a combination of online and real-world buying options.

Amazon has been looking at stores that could allow traditional in-store purchase, online ordering with on-site pickup, and home delivery, using the store's warehouse as a distribution point.

Still, Amazon is playing catch-up in the grocery business. Wal-Mart Stores Inc already offers in-store pickup. Amazon announced a similar service called AmazonFresh Pickup at two locations. Amazon also has dealt with technology problems at a prototype store inside its corporate office in Seattle, called Amazon Go, where sensors and tech-savvy cameras detect what shoppers pull off the shelves and charge their Amazon accounts when they leave, people familiar with the matter said. That has delayed opening the store to the general public, they added.

And while some analysts expected Amazon to bring vast buying power to Whole Foods, Amazon's heft in the food market is far smaller than in other areas, and high demand for organic products gives farmers unusual bargaining power.

Whole Foods has posted seven straight quarterly sales declines at established stores and had overhauled its board of directors in the face of pressure from activist hedge fund Jana Partners LLC.

"I think that this takes all of the pressure off Whole Foods and gives Whole Foods the opportunity to revitalize that business and, of course, it stems the criticism from all of these activist investors," said Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData Retail in New York.

The deal is for $13.4 billion in cash and the remainder in debt.

The acquisition price implies a trailing 12-month price-to-earnings multiple for Whole Foods of 31 times, versus a 14.4 average for the S&P 500 Food Retail index.

Amazon and Whole Foods expect to close the deal during the second half of 2017.

The grocer will continue to operate stores under the Whole Foods Market brand and John Mackey will remain as its chief executive officer, the companies said. Whole Foods' headquarters will still be in Austin. (Source)

No full-time minimum-wage worker can afford a 2-bedroom apartment in any US state

cnbc.com - The absolute least that an employer is legally allowed to pay an employee for an hour's work varies across the country, but one fact remains constant: In no state does working 40 hours a week for minimum wage enable a person to rent a two-bedroom apartment.

That's according to new research by the National Low Income Housing Coalition covered by The Washington Post. Across the country, it reports, even full-time workers would have to make about or more than twice as much to afford a home.

In states such as Alaska, Washington, Colorado, Florida, Virginia, Illinois and most of the Northeast, workers would have to make over $20 an hour. Workers in California, D.C. and Hawaii are the hardest hit by the price of housing: They need to earn a whopping $30, $33 or $35 an hour, respectively, to afford a two-bedroom apartment.

The federal minimum wage is $7.25.

Not all workers are subject to the federal minimum wage. Some are, as five states, including Mississippi and Louisiana, have no official minimum wage, and two more, Georgia and Wyoming, have a minimum wage of $5.15, or about $10 less an hour than full-time employees would need to make to be able to afford a two-bedroom. In those places, the federal minimum wage applies, with a general exception for workers who receive tips.

By contrast, states such as Connecticut and California mandate that even entry-level workers receive about $10 an hour, while cities and, increasingly, states such as Illinois and New York are phasing in a new minimum wage of $15 an hour. That minimum supersedes the federal one.

The Fight for $15, a worldwide effort to raise wages and strengthen unions, has successfully led to better pay in many places since its launch in 2012, and a proposed federal minimum wage of $15 an hour is now part of the Democratic Party platform. According to these numbers, however, even that wouldn't make housing affordable.

As things stand, an American making the federal minimum wage of $7.25 would have to work 94.5 hours a week, or more than two full-time jobs, to afford a two-bedroom rental.

The Post notes that "many of the occupations projected to add the most jobs by 2024 pay too little to cover rent. These are customer service representatives, personal care aides, nursing assistants, home health aides, retail salespeople, home health and food service workers who make, on average, between $10 and $16 an hour. ... as a result, more than 11.2 million families end up spending more than half their paychecks on housing," money they could otherwise direct toward transportation, education, food, clothing or savings. (ontinueReading
* * * *

Related: A Wealthy Capitalist on Why Money Doesn’t Trickle Down

American capitalism has failed us: We’re overworked, underemployed and more powerless than ever before

Wal-Mart employees can now deliver your online orders on their way home from work

cnbc.com -Walmart. com and Jet. com shoppers in three U.S. cities now have a new delivery person, and it's not employees of one of the major shipping companies like FedEx or UPS or a delivery start-up like Instacart or Deliv.

It's a Wal-Mart store employee.

"Unlike crowdsourced delivery, where the driver has to travel (often out of the way) to pick up the package, then drive the full distance to deliver it, our associates are starting at the same place as the packages," said Marc Lore, president and CEO of Walmart eCommerce U.S., in a blog post for the retailer.

It all works through a proprietary app the retailer built for this test.

The app matches online order delivery addresses with employees' driving routes home from work, built to minimize any more driving than what the employee would do anyway to get home. Delivering is completely voluntary, and the employees can choose when they want to deliver, how many packages they can take and what size.

"Once they're done working at the store for the day, they pick up the packages from the backroom, load them into their vehicle, enter the delivery addresses into the GPS on their phone and head towards home," Lore said.

Wal-Mart compensates the employees for it but declined to elaborate how it works.

The discount retailer said the test has only been in progress for a month but so far "hundreds" of deliveries have been completed in two locations in New Jersey and one in Arkansas.

So far, "the response from associates and customers has been great," Lore said.

Its locations and labor — some 4,700 U.S. stores with 1.3 million employees — are quite an asset that Lore has been working on further integrating with its digital operations. The retailer says 90 percent of the country's population live within 10 miles of a Walmart store.

While the retailer does not provide a delivery cost breakdown, it's the last leg — commonly referred to as the "last mile" — that is the most expensive when it comes to fulfilling and shipping online orders.

Consultant group McKinsey & Company estimates "the last mile" can sometimes be more than half of an item's total delivery cost.

Last month, Wal-Mart Stores said it would offer shoppers a discount for 10,000 online-only orders that are picked up by shoppers in store rather than delivered to their homes. The discount, Marc Lore said, is "meant to be equivalent to what the last-mile delivery costs are," which in most cases averages to about a 4 percent discount per item.

The store pickup option saves Wal-Mart delivery costs, which it passes on to shoppers in the form of discounts, but the new employees-as-delivery-service test does not offer shoppers a discount. Wal-Mart said the benefit is that most orders are delivered the next day. (ontinueReading

CEOs got biggest raise since 2013 as stock gains boost compensation

- The typical CEO at the biggest U.S. companies got an 8.5 percent raise last year, raking in $11.5 million in salary, stock and other compensation, according to a study by executive data firm Equilar for The Associated Press. That’s the biggest raise in three years.

The bump reflects how well stocks have done under their watch. Boards of directors increasingly require that CEOs push their stock price higher to collect their maximum possible payout, and the Standard & Poor’s 500 index returned 12 percent last year.

Over the past five years, median CEO pay in the survey has jumped by 19.6 percent, not accounting for inflation. That’s nearly double the 10.9 percent rise in the typical weekly paycheck for full-time employees across the country.

But CEO pay did fall for one group of companies last year: those where investors complained the loudest about executive pay. Compensation dropped for nine of the 10 companies scoring the lowest on “Say on Pay” votes, where shareholders give thumbs up or down on top executives’ earnings.

Other measures that would highlight the income gap between CEOs and typical workers are on the way, but governance watchdogs worry that Congress will kill or dilute their strength.

“It’s all out of whack right now,” said Heather Slavkin Corzo, director of the AFL-CIO Office of Investment, which says CEOs for major U.S. companies make 347 times more than the average worker.

The AP’s CEO compensation study includes pay data for 346 executives at S&P 500 companies who have served two full consecutive fiscal years at their respective companies that filed proxy statements between Jan. 1 and May 1.

The highest-paid executive in the survey was Thomas Rutledge of Charter Communications, which absorbed Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks last year to become the nation’s second-largest cable operator.

His compensation totaled $98 million, about $88 million of that from stock and option awards included as part of a new five-year employment agreement. For Rutledge to collect the full amount, Charter’s share price will need to rise 155 percent over six years.

CEOs typically got more than half their total compensation from stock and option grants last year.

No. 2 was Leslie Moonves at CBS, who made $68.6 million. That included $63.9 million in bonus and stock awards the company’s board said he received for presiding over a 36.6 percent return for CBS shares in 2016 and for keeping CBS the top-rated network in the 2015-16 season, among other performance measures.

The highest-paid executive in North Texas — and the state of Texas — was AT&T’s Randall Stephenson, who collected compensation worth $28.4 million, according to a Star-Telegram analysis.

Next came Rex Tillerson, the retired Exxon Mobil chief who is now secretary of state, who was paid $27.4 million in his final year atop the oil giant.

Another former CEO, Gregg Tanner of Dallas-based Dean Foods, was next at $22.4 million, while D.R. Horton founder and Chairman Donald Horton earned $17.8 million.

Eighteen North Texas executives collected more than $10 million, and more than 40 were paid in excess of $5 million. (ontinueReading

Gander Mountain, popular gun and hunting store, closing nationwide

CharlotteObserver.com - Gander Mountain, a popular gun and hunting store, is closing all of its stores nationwide, the retailer announced.

The company filed for bankruptcy in March, and announced it would close 32 under-performing stores, including a location in south Charlotte.

Under the current move, all 126 stores will close from the chain, including locations in Gastonia and Monroe. It wasn’t immediately clear when the stores will close.

In a statement on its website, the company said it was acquired by Camping World Holdings Inc. last week. Gander Mountain said the move means it will continue to be a part of the “specialty outdoor market,” though it’s unclear from the statement how it will continue to serve customers.


Gander Mountain has been in business for 57 years and has locations in 26 states. The company sells guns, hunting equipment, camping gear and other items for outdoor activities.

The company’s closing is yet another reminder of the current climate in retail, where companies have competed with the growth of online shopping and customers flock to juggernauts like Amazon.

At the local level, Gander Mountain joins stores like Macy’s, J.C. Penney, Kmart and Hollister to close locations in the Charlotte area.

The company said all sales are final and there will be no refunds. Gift cards are being accepted until May 18. (ontinueReading

Strength!: France is the weakest of Europe's big 3 economies

cnnmoney.com - France is stuck in a major rut.

Europe's third biggest economy has suffered years of anemic growth, high unemployment and budget deficits, while neighbors such as Germany and the U.K. have enjoyed a stronger recovery from the global financial crisis.

The country's economic malaise is a major issue in presidential elections scheduled for Sunday.

The contest has become a four-way race between candidates from across the political spectrum. Two of the front runners -- far right politician Marine Le Pen and socialist Jean-Luc Melenchon -- have radical ideas on how to improve the economy.

Both candidates oppose free trade agreements and are highly critical of the euro.

"The lackluster growth and high unemployment of recent years are fertile ground for the populist and eurosceptic Marine Le Pen," said Jessica Hinds, European economist at Capital Economics.

The two candidates with the biggest share of Sunday's vote will advance to a runoff scheduled for May 7. But will they have the right prescription to cure France?

After years of slow growth, the country's GDP figures are finally turning higher. But they remain at very low levels.

The French economy expanded by 1.2% in 2016, according to the International Monetary Fund. The two larger economies in Europe -- Germany and the U.K. -- posted growth of 1.8% over the same period. (ontinueReading

Happy Tax Day! Here's How Corporations Plan to screw You Over

theintercept.com - FEW THINGS TRANSFORM us into frustrated baboons like navigating Turbotax each year. It’s incredible any computers physically survive April.

First there’s the maddening fact, when all is said and done, that the U.S. has something approaching a flat tax system. It’s true that, as right-wing think tanks constantly bleat, the top 1 percent pay a much higher rate than everyone else in federal income tax. But most people pay higher rates than the rich do in payroll and state and local taxes. Add everything together, and everyone from the middle class on up is paying about the same percentage in taxes overall.

Then there’s the grim reality that a big chunk of our money goes to buy things like 21,000-pound bombs, which we drop on, say, Afghanistan, a country with an economy one-one thousandth the size of ours.

And then there’s the process of paying taxes itself, which is mind-numbingly baroque — and for absolutely no reason. After all, the government already has copies of all of your tax forms. Countries like Denmark, Sweden and Spain use that information to fill out your return and send it to you. If it looks good, you sign it and you’re done (or if you think you see a mistake, you can change it). The sole reason we don’t have such a system is that the current disaster makes billions of dollars for tax software companies, which then use a slice of that to relentlessly lobby Congress to keep the status quo.

But if those are the only things turning you into a rage monkey this Tax Day, you’re not paying attention. As an extensive new report from Oxfam America explains, the biggest U.S. multinational corporations have positioned themselves for a political victory that will not just slash their taxes and leave regular people to pick up the bill, but also will set the stage for further corporate tax cuts in the future.

Corporate America has three main goals when it comes to taxes:

• Bring their “overseas” profits home. The top statutory tax rate for American corporations is 35 percent, on profits earned anywhere on earth. However, taxes aren’t assessed on profits from outside the U.S. until the money is brought back here.

This creates a huge incentive for companies to engage in complicated financial machinations to make it appear that as much of their profits as possible have been “earned” in other countries. They then leave the cash overseas in hopes of arranging a tax holiday allowing them to bring it back at a much lower rate. This already happened once, in 2004, when companies were assessed taxes at 5 percent on repatriated profits.

Oxfam determined that as of the 2015 tax year, the 50 largest U.S. multinational corporations have a gargantuan $1.6 trillion stashed in other countries. That’s about one-tenth the size of the entire U.S. economy.

Even more remarkably, Oxfam found the tally was up $200 billion from the year before. Tim Cook — CEO of Apple, which has more money overseas than any other company — said before last year’s election that he was “optimistic” there would be a new tax holiday no matter who was president. That jump in overseas profits suggests corporate lawyers and accountants throughout the business world were making a special effort to prepare for such an optimistic future.

Oxfam calculated that the top 50 companies spent $2.5 billion lobbying from 2009 to 2015, or about $46 million per member of Congress. The report also tracked the plethora of front groups set up by corporations to make the case for their kind of tax “reform.” The 50 companies belong to two such organizations on average, while eight of the 50 are members of four or more.

In public, the front groups claim that if big corporations can bring their money home at a special low tax rate, they’ll go on a hiring spree in the U.S. and pour money into investments here. In private, when discussing the subject with Wall Street analysts and investors, they explain that they’ll actually spend it on mergers and stock buybacks. An analysis by Goldman Sachs last November said the same thing, predicting that three-fourths of profits brought back to the U.S. would be used for buybacks.

• Bring down the corporate tax rate as far as possible. Read the Wall Street Journal op-ed page on any day or watch five minutes of CNBC, and you’ll learn that America’s 35 percent statutory corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world.

Corporate America would dearly love to lower that as far as possible, and if that’s all you hear about the subject it sounds like it makes sense.

However, the effective U.S. corporate tax rate — what companies actually pay after taking advantage of every deduction and loophole — is much lower. A2014 Congressional Research Service report found the effective U.S. rate was 27.1 percent, slightly lower than the 27.7 percent weighted average of the rest of the Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development, made up of most of the world’s richest countries. The 2015 Economic Report of the President, covering a more recent period, calculated that the effective marginal tax rate in the U.S. was 23.9 percent, compared to a weighted average of 20.6 percent for Japan, France, Germany, Canada, Italy and the UK.

Looked at another way, in 2014 OECD members raised an average of 2.8 percent of their GDP in revenue from corporate taxes. That same year the U.S. raised significantly less, at 2.2 percent.

In other words, there’s little sign U.S. companies are overtaxed by world standards.

• Use lowered U.S. tax rates to ratchet down rates everywhere else – and then come back for more here. The most important thing to understand about this issue is that multinational corporations will not be satisfied with a one-time tax cut. Instead, their goal is to use any reduction in U.S. taxes to force taxes down in the rest of the world, and then start complaining again that U.S. rates are too high.

This process is already well underway around the globe. The Oxfam report points out that in 1990 the average corporate tax rate in the world’s 20 major countries was 40 percent; by 2015 it had fallen to 28.7 percent. Moreover, the average 2.8 percent of GDP that OECD companies raised via corporate taxes in 2014 was significantly down from the 3.6 percent they raised just seven years before in 2007.

Politicians acutely feel pressure to bring down rates to make their countries “competitive.” Speaking last September, Bill Clinton explained that he didn’t mind a 35 percent corporate rate when he was president because at that point “it was precisely in the middle of the OECD countries” — but “it isn’t anymore,” so “we should try to get it as close to the international average as we can.”

Likewise, soon after Donald Trump won the election while calling for a top corporate tax rate of 15 percent, British Prime Minister Theresa May declared that her goal was for the UK to reduce its corporate tax from 20 percent to “the lowest corporate tax rate in the G20.”

The logical endpoint of this beggar-thy-neighbor dynamic is that eventually corporations will pay nothing in taxes, at which point everyone will in fact be beggars. “Rather than competing to win a race to the bottom,” says Robert Silverman, the main author of the Oxfam report, “international tax reform needs to be built on a new framework of cross-border cooperation, transparency and accountability.”

AT THIS POINT, both the good news and the bad news on this subject is that Donald Trump is president. On the one hand, he animatedly vowed during last year’s debates that “I’ll be reducing taxes tremendously” on corporations and that “it’s going to be a beautiful thing to watch.” With a Republican Congress, the years of lobbying and payoffs by big business should be set to bear not just fruit but an entire orchard. But on the other hand, Trump is so lazy and incompetent he probably couldn’t get Congress to pass a resolution endorsing the American Revolution.

So as of now, Trump appears set to enjoy the same rousing success with taxes as he did with healthcare. He’s apparently thrown out the tax plan on which he campaigned and is starting over again from scratch.

Obamacare, however, was a subject of only tangential interest to corporate America. By contrast, a new and improved tax code could be worth trillions of dollars to them. With the stars so seemingly aligned, it’s unlikely that they’ll let their dream be deferred without a significant fight.

So as you sign your tax return, save some screeching and hooting for this infuriating topic. Regular people think about taxes as little as possible because we have no control over them, and the core unfairness of the U.S. system brings us nothing but vexation. But big corporations think about taxes every day — because they know that sooner or later, one way or another, they’ll get what they want.

Kraft withdraws offer to merge with Unilever

msnnews - U.S. food company Kraft Heinz Co withdrew its proposal for a $143-billion merger with larger rival Unilever Plc, the companies said on Sunday, raising questions about Kraft's next steps and whether it could turn its focus to another target.

Kraft had made a surprise offer for Unilever in a bid to build a global consumer goods behemoth that was flatly rejected on Friday by Unilever, the maker of Lipton tea and Dove soap.

Kraft withdrew its offer because it felt it was too difficult to negotiate a deal following the public disclosure of its bid so early following its approach to Unilever, according to people familiar with the matter who requested anonymity to discuss confidential deliberations.

Some key concerns raised during talks included potential UK government scrutiny as well as differences between the companies' cultures and business models, one of the people said.

Kraft was forced to publicly disclose its offer to Unilever on Friday to comply with Britain's takeover regulations, after rumors of its approach to Unilever circulated among stock traders.

Under U.K. takeover rules, Kraft's public withdrawal of its offer precludes it from reviving takeover talks with Unilever for six months.

The companies did not provide details of the reason for ending the discussion in a statement.
A combination would be the third-biggest takeover in history and the largest acquisition of a UK-based company, according to Thomson Reuters data. The combined entity would have $82 billion in sales.

A merger would have been put under the microscope by UK regulators.

This weekend, Prime Minister Theresa May ordered top officials to investigate the proposed deal to see if it posed any potential threats to the country's economic interests, the Financial Times reported.

May has been adamant that the government should play a more active role in vetting proposed foreign acquisitions of UK companies. She had previously singled out Kraft's 2010 acquisition of another British household name, Cadbury Plc, as an example of a deal that should have been blocked.

A deal for Unilever would have marked the next installment of Brazilian private equity firm 3G Capital Management Inc's longstanding strategy of buying up food companies and slashing costs.

In 2013, 3G teamed up with billionaire investor Warren Buffett to acquire Heinz and then purchased Kraft two years later. It is now the second-largest shareholder in Kraft, behind Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

Under 3G, Kraft's margins have widened to among the highest in the industry. They are around 30 percent, compared to 15 percent at Unilever.

The breakdown in deal talks sparked speculation among analysts and investors about whether Kraft might attempt to purchase another large consumer goods company as a backup plan.

Its bid for Unilever, where more than 60 percent of sales come from home and personal care products, signals a willingness to make big buys outside of its historic area of focus - food - said Sanford Bernstein analyst Ali Dibadj.

He cited Colgate-Palmolive Co as one potential target, noting that its stock popped 4 percent Friday on news that Kraft was eyeing Unilever.

(ontinueReading

Failed Sears, Kmart join other retailers in dropping Trump-branded items

washingtonpost.com - The list of companies dropping products that carry the Trump name grew this weekend, with two major U.S. retailers announcing that they’re no longer selling Trump Home items online.

Reuters reported Saturday that Sears Holdings and subsidiary Kmart will discontinue online sales of 31 items from the Trump Home collection, which includes lines of living room and bedroom furniture, lamps and chandeliers.

Brian Hanover, a spokesman for Illinois-based Sears Holdings, said the decision was made “amid a streamlining effort,” Reuters reported.

“As part of the company’s initiative to optimize its online product assortment, we constantly refine that assortment to focus on our most profitable items,” Hanover said, adding that neither Sears nor Kmart carry Trump Home products in their retail stores.

Hanover didn’t respond to a call and email from The Washington Post on Sunday. The Trump Organization also has not responded to an inquiry from The Post.

It’s unclear which 31 Trump Home items will be removed from the companies’ online stores.

As of Sunday, 14 Trump Home products sold by third-party vendors remain on the Sears website, all but one listed with discounted prices. A US$942 Trump Home mirror is being sold for US$628. Another mirror with an original selling price of US$818 is now at US$598.

Only two Trump Home lamps, also sold by third-party vendors, are on Kmart’s website Sunday, both with significantly lower prices.

The news comes shortly after other retailers decided to partially or completely distance themselves from the Trump brand.

In the past week or so, Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus and Belk stopped selling Ivanka Trump’s name-branded line of clothing, shoes and jewelry amid an aggressive campaign to boycott the Trump brand.

The companies did not directly address the campaign, called Grab Your Wallet, which has been urging shoppers to boycott retailers that carry products with the Trump name. But their statements suggest that the move was driven by consumer feedback and how well the products sell.

Nordstrom, for instance, said the company’s decision was based on the products’ performance, not politics. (ontinueReading

What if every worker received minimum wage?

Here is the thought question for today:

   Via marshallbrain.com - What if every worker in the United States got paid minimum wage for the work they do?
It doesn't matter who you are or what you do. Whether you are working in McDonald's mopping the floor or you are the CEO of McDonald's. Whether you deliver the mail for the President or you are the President of the United States. No matter who you are, you make $5.15 an hour for the work you do, and everyone's total income is capped at $11,000 per year. What would happen if we did that?
The reason why we might choose to do that is because the wages of most workers are headed in that direction anyway. Corporations all over the nation have been pushing worker wages down to the minimum wage level:

We all know about the burger places. They have created a burger assembly line where millions of restaurant workers now make minimum wage.

In the 1990s, HMOs started pushing the wages paid to physicians downward for the first time ever. Minimum wage can't be far away for doctors.

Southwest Airlines built a new discount travel model by paying pilots and flight attendants less than industry norms for the work they do. Now the whole industry is following Southwest's lead because they have no choice if they want to compete. Wages across the airline industry are falling. Once that becomes the norm, someone else will come along to beat Southwest and cut wages again. Many commuter airline pilots make near minimum wage already. It's just a matter of time before everyone in the airline industry is making minimum wage.

Wal-Mart took away business from the small town downtown and hired all those store owners for minimum wage.

Wages everywhere are under pressure and headed toward minimum wage anyway. Why don't we simply short circuit the process and take everyone down to minimum wage now, in one fell swoop? It would be a lot less painful that way. And let's include CEOs, executives and politicians in the process. If a major corporation cannot afford to pay a clerk more than minimum wage because of pressure from competitors, then there is certainly no way the same corporation can afford to pay the CEO and other executives $10 million a year. The practicalities and realities of our business environment should apply to every part of the business, not just to one segment of the workers. Everyone, from the CEO on down, should make minimum wage to maximize the corporation's competitiveness.
No one is spared: The president of the United States, all the politicians and bureaucrats, CEOs and executives, business owners, lawyers, doctors and dentists… everyone. If you get a paycheck, you get minimum wage. No exceptions.

What would happen if we did that?

Perhaps most importantly, it would save the economy a lot of money. According to the New York Times Almanac, businesses hire 105 million people per year and pay them just over $3 trillion per year (the figure does not include government employees), for an average wage of roughly $30,000 per year. At $5.15 an hour and 40 hours a week, all 105 million of these employees would start making a uniform $10,700 per year at minimum wage. By doing that, the $3 trillion figure would fall to $1 trillion. The economy would save $2 trillion every year. The drop in prices would be spectacular, because $2 trillion represents $20,000 per U.S. household. Something that costs $10 today might see its price drop to $4.00 or less. Even though we would all be making minimum wage, that wage would buy far more in the economy than it does today. Everyone in the country would be able to live a comfortable middle class lifestyle.

What would happen to highly paid people like TV/movie stars, corporate executives, sports stars, radio personalities and so on? Their salaries would go from millions of dollars a year to $10,700 a year. Would it be a catastrophe? No. In all likelihood, absolutely nothing would happen. Is Rush Limbaugh going to give up his soapbox if he got paid less? Probably not. I imagine he likes the fame and influence his show gives him. He is going nowhere. Are Peter Jennings, Dan Rather and Tom Brockaw going to quit? Probably not. They like the fame too. The stars of popular TV shows? No… they cannot get into the best restaurants, have adoring fans or get Emmy awards unless they appear on their shows.

But if they do quit, it is not a problem. Johnny Carson left the Tonight Show, and we got Jay Leno. It was not a catastrophe. If Dave Letterman leaves Late Night because he does not like the pay, we'd get another host. It would be OK. There are thousands and thousands of people who would love to have Dave's, Rush's or Jay's jobs.

Would CEOs leave? Maybe. But if they are good CEOs, they love what they are doing building companies and leading people. If they don't want to do it unless they get paid $15 million a year, that probably tells us something about them. We probably don't want them leading a company anyway if they are only in it for the money. If we replace them with people who actually care about the job and the company, we would all be better off. We could have completely avoided Enron, Worldcom, etc. and the resulting stock market collapse if we had had good, honest people filling the CEO roles in those companies.

As you start to think about this new minimum wage reality, you begin to realize something. Most people -- especially the ones who are highly paid today -- would stay in their current jobs. The perks of fame and power would keep them there. So here's the question: Why isn't supply and demand governing the pay of CEOs, TV celebrities, sports stars and supermodels, driving their wages down just like everyone else? (Full Text)

What would happen if stores opened on Christmas Day?

Via retailwire.com Why wait until Dec. 26? Throwing the doors open on Christmas Day for returns and sales appears to be the message to retailers, particularly from Millennials.

When LoyaltyOne Consulting asked 1,267 American consumers nationwide in November what they would do if retailers opened for business at 6 p.m. on Christmas, 18 percent of general population respondents (age 18 to 65 and older) said they would take advantage of the extra time to shop.

Among younger Millennials (age 18-24), 30 percent said they would shop on Christmas. Among older millennials (age 25-34), 27 percent said they would leave hearth and home on Dec. 25 to head for the mall.

Conversely, 24 percent of the general population said they would not shop on Christmas, and would be less likely to shop in the future at a store open on Christmas, or recommend such a store to friends and family.

Moreover, 58 percent of the general population said simply that they would never shop on Christmas. The never-shop-on-Christmas score for young Millennials (age 18-24) fell to 53 percent; for older Millennials (age 25-34), it was 52 percent.

While consumers appear divided on the shop-on-Christmas issue, other answers indicated that some may be open to a day during a holiday when there was less hustle and bustle:

Ninety-four percent of all shoppers surveyed said they expect retailers to take extra measures to keep checkout lines moving during the holiday rush;

Eighty percent of shoppers said they blame the retailer if they have to wait because of another customer's coupons, returns or customer service problems — except in the Millennial demographic, where four out of ten said they resent the other customer, not the store, for making them wait;

Eighty-nine percent of all shoppers said they expect retailers to take extra measures to keep departments orderly, despite the busy season;

When asked why they avoided stores completely during the holiday season, 36 percent of shoppers said their primary reason is waiting too long at the checkout.

18 Percent Of Shoppers Want To Shop On Christmas Day - COLLOQUY

​Walmart's China syndrome: The loss of U.S. jobs

(CBSNews) - One of the economic themes of the last few decades has been the hollowing out of the American manufacturing sector. But how has that happened, and how is the world's largest retailer playing a part?

A new study from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute takes a look at what it calls "the Walmart effect," by which it means the giant retailer's growing trade deficit with China. With Walmart (WMT) importing more cheap goods from China than it exports to that country, the retailer's actions may be implicated in an estimated loss of at least 400,000 U.S. jobs from 2001 to 2013, the study finds.

The issue isn't on Walmart's shoulders alone, of course, given that the total U.S. goods trade deficit with China amounted to $324.2 billion in 2013, of which Walmart represents a fraction of the imbalance. But with Walmart pledging to ramp up purchasing of U.S.-made goods in an effort to boost American manufacturing employment, the report raises questions about how far that pledge can go to offset a much bigger trade issue, and whether it's possible for American companies to bring back some of those lost jobs.

"Walmart has been making increasingly extensive claims it will support 'Made in America' efforts," said Robert E. Scott, the director of trade and manufacturing policy research at EPI. "Frankly the numbers are just tiny compared with reasonable estimates of the jobs displaced by Walmart's China trade."

Walmart, for its part, said in a statement that the EPI study is a "flawed economic analysis that assumes that imports equal job losses and does not take into consideration that countless jobs are added through the global supply chain, distribution and logistics, among other areas of the business."

Its pledge to buy American-made products will create 250,000 direct manufacturing jobs in the U.S., the retailer said, citing data from Boston Consulting Group.

Manufacturing jobs are the secret sauce to creating a strong middle class, especially among workers who lack college degrees. Employers paid workers in manufacturing jobs an average of almost $34 an hour in wages and benefits at the end of 2013, or a premium of almost 9 percent compared with all other jobs, according to the Manufacturing Institute, an affiliate of the National Association of Manufacturers.

But American manufacturing jobs have been gutted during the past four decades, falling from a high point in 1977 when the sector represented 22 percent of nonfarm payroll jobs to about 9 percent today, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Importing cheap goods from China is legal, of course, and Walmart shareholders could argue that the company is acting in the best interests of investors and its own employees: if it failed to take advantage of changes in global trade, then it could find itself displaced in a competitive retailing market. And many of those Chinese-made goods are produced by U.S. corporations with factories there.

Behind Walmart and other retailers' imports of Chinese goods is another, perhaps bigger, issue: the trade policies of both the U.S. and China. (Full Text)

Black Friday crowds thin in subdued start to U.S. holiday shopping

- America's annual Black Friday shopping extravaganza was short on fireworks this year as U.S. retailers' discounts on electronics, clothing and other holiday gifts failed to draw big crowds to stores and shopping malls.

Major retail stocks including Best Buy and Wal-Mart closed lower while Target, picked out by one analyst for its promotion strategy, saw its shares tick up.

Bargain hunters found relatively little competition compared with previous years. Some had already shopped Thursday evening, reflecting a new normal of U.S. holiday shopping, where stores open up with deals on Thanksgiving itself, rather than waiting until Black Friday.


- Retailers "have taken the sense of urgency out for consumers by spreading their promotions throughout the year and what we are seeing is a result of that," said Jeff Simpson, director of the retail practice at Deloitte. Traffic in stores was light on Friday, while Thursday missed his expectations, he said.

As much as 20 percent of holiday shopping is expected to be done over the Thanksgiving weekend this year, analysts said. But the four days are not considered a strong indicator for the entire season. A slow start last year led to deeper promotions and a shopping rush in the final ten days of December.

Steve Bratspies, chief merchandising officer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc (WMT.N), told Reuters he was not surprised that a store would see thinner crowds on Friday after it kicked off Black Friday deals on Thursday night.

Suntrust Robinson Humphrey analysts were more blunt, calling Thursday a "bust". "Members of our team who went to the malls first had no problem finding parking or navigating stores," he wrote in a note.

The Macy's store at Water Tower Place mall on a rainy Chicago morning saw thin crowds in the early hours of Friday. Later in the morning, more than 1,000 protesters clogged Chicago's Magnificent Mile shopping corridor.

Nia Darrell, a 23-year-old student, was shopping for coats and handbags at the store with two friends.

"I shopped online yesterday and picked up most of what I wanted," she said." I'm out because Black Friday is more like a tradition, but the discounts are similar even online this year."

While Black Friday may be losing some appeal in the United States, British shoppers have taken to the concept enthusiastically, with reports of large crowds at big stores and malls in the UK.

Shares of Target Corp (TGT.N) gained 0.4 percent, but J.C. Penney (JCP.N) wad down 0.7 percent, and Macy's and Best Buy lost about 1 percent. Wal-Mart dipped 0.6 percent, while Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) was down 0.3 percent.

A broad retail index .DJUSGT was down 0.15 percent in abbreviated trading.

Traffic was better at some retailers. Analysts at Cowen & Co said Target stood out with its "innovative promotions," and teen retailer American Eagle Outfitters Inc (AEO.N) saw more traffic due to store-wide discounts of 40 percent.

Read more at - Reuters.com

These Retailers Are the Worst Offenders Pushing Thanksgiving Day Store Hours

If you hate Thanksgiving shopping, here's where to focus your anger.

(Time) If there’s one clear trend in the 2015 retail holiday season landscape, it’s that most stores seem to have come to the realization that it’s dumb to keep opening earlier and earlier on Thanksgiving Day.

Once upon a time, Black Friday sales actually started on Friday—perhaps as early as 4 a.m., but hey, at least it was technically Friday. Then some store opened the door to midnight openings on Thanksgiving night, which was followed up the next year with sales that launched at 10 p.m. on Thanksgiving, and so on, until retailers like Macy’s and Target were opening at 6 p.m. and Best Buy and Toys R Us decided they needed to open an hour earlier, at the prime Thanksgiving dinner hour of 5 p.m. Michael's has been opening on Thanksgiving at 4 p.m.—because, you know, it’s unconscionable that people might be deprived of crafts and all on the afternoon of a national holiday.

But the so-called “Black Thursday” trend, which has drawn boycott threats and online campaigns among people who want to protect Thanksgiving as a sacred day for family time unencumbered by rampant consumerism, has mostly plateaued this year. All of the retailers mentioned above are opening on Thanksgiving Day at the same times they did on the holiday last year, rather than expanding holiday store hours like they have in the past. Taking the backlash a step further, the outdoor specialty store REI is staying closed on Black Friday and Thanksgiving alike, and Staples decided to remain shut on Thanksgiving, after being open on the holiday in prior years.

Then again, if you’re agitated that stores insist on encroaching on Thanksgiving, it’s not much of a victory that most big-box retailers will still be open at a time traditionally reserved for pumpkin pie, touch football, and perhaps a nap on the couch. What’s more, some major retailers (notably, the ones below) are continuing on with their traditions for having especially long store hours on the holiday.

Kmart: 6 A.M. Opening
The bulk of Kmart’s Black Friday doorbuster specials will go on sale in stores at 7 p.m. on Thanksgiving evening, including select Star Wars toys for 50% off, Procter Silex kitchen appliances for $3 (normally $10), 6-foot Dakota Spruce artificial Christmas trees for $15 (list price: $50), and poinsettias for just 89¢ (normally $2.99 and up). But stores will actually be open starting at 6 a.m. on Thanksgiving morning. A separate round of deals for early birds kicks off then, including 50% off Christmas decorations, classic board games for $2.99 (normally $5.99 and up), and 88¢ for 2-liter Pepsi beverages.

If you’re upset that Kmart will be open all day on Thanksgiving starting at the wholly unnecessary hour of 6 a.m., you’ll be even more disappointed with the way the retailer is apparently treating its workers. As Think Progress reported very recently, “In a survey of 40 self-identified Kmart employees in 18 states conducted by Coworker.org and shared with ThinkProgress, 95 percent said they still don’t know their schedules for Thanksgiving Day and Black Friday, and 70 percent say their managers haven’t even told them what the store’s hours will be.”

Meijer: 6 A.M. Opening
A different series of deals is launching on Thanksgiving, Black Friday, and the Saturday that follows at retailer Meijer. The particulars of each day’s sale haven’t been released yet, but we do know that each day stores will open at 6 a.m., including Thanksgiving Day.

Dollar General: 7 A.M. Opening
According to the ad leaked to TheBlackFriday.com, Dollar General stores will feature deals like $1 outdoor mini holiday lights, $7 jeans, $1 cans of Campbell’s Chunky soup, and $34 portable DVD players starting at 7 a.m. on Thanksgiving morning.

J.C. Penney: 3 P.M. Opening
Unlike competitors like Macy’s and Target, which are sticking with the same Thanksgiving hours as last year, J.C. Penney feels compelled to open at 3 p.m., two hours earlier than in 2014—and smack in the heart of what many consider the optimal time to commence Thanksgiving feasts.

Walmart: Open 24/7, including Thanksgiving
This year, Walmart has downplayed Black Friday and Thanksgiving Day deals, opting instead to post longer-lasting sales that start earlier in the season (most are live now) and stick around for weeks. Most of its Thanksgiving-Black Friday specials are in fact available online at 12:01 a.m.on Thursday, November 26 (Thanksgiving), and the in-store doorbusters won’t be launched until 6 p.m. that day. This would all seem to negate any reason for shoppers to hit Walmart during the middle of the day on Thanksgiving—thereby also eliminating any reason for Walmart to be open then. Nonetheless, as usual, most Walmarts are open 24/7, even on holidays like Thanksgiving. (Walmart is closed on Christmas, though, and stores generally shut down at 8 p.m. on Christmas Eve.) (Source)