Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How does employee turnover relate to pay at Walmart versus competitors?
Executive Summary
Walmart’s higher reported employee turnover correlates with lower average pay and heavier supervisory loads compared with several competitors, and the company has responded by raising compensation and benefits to reduce churn. Data points and analyses differ: some sources put Walmart turnover as extremely high (around 70% annually) and retention scores low, while corporate reporting and recent policy moves emphasize pay increases, bonuses, and training as remedies [1] [2] [3].
1. Why turnover looks worse at Walmart — the numbers and scores that jump out
Multiple analyses characterize Walmart’s retention and turnover as problematic: a retention score of 62/100 and a C- grade places Walmart in the lower tier among peers, suggesting comparatively weaker employee retention [2]. Independent industry commentary and some reports assert very high annual turnover rates—claims near 70%—though those specific figures derive from secondary reporting and are contested by corporate disclosures [1] [3]. The contrast with peers is stark in some datasets: Costco and other retailers report far lower turnover and higher retention metrics, which analysts link to higher base pay and better benefits at those firms. These numerical disparities form the empirical core of the claim that lower relative pay and weaker retention correlate at Walmart [2] [1].
2. Pay as a driver: compensation comparisons and managerial burdens
Compensation appears central to the turnover story: analyses show Walmart historically paid lower average hourly wages than several competitors and that store managers at Walmart oversee higher employee-to-manager ratios, increasing workload [4] [3]. Revelio Labs links elevated manager attrition to a combination of heavier spans of control and lower comparable pay, prompting Walmart to offer substantially higher total compensation packages for managers—up to $400,000 in some reports—to retain leadership [4]. Corporate initiatives—annual bonuses, expanded education benefits, stock grants, and technician pipelines—aim to narrow pay and benefits gaps, indicating management accepts a pay-turnover linkage and is adjusting labor policy accordingly [3].
3. Competing explanations: monopsony claims, automation, and local labor impacts
Economists and policy analysts offer alternative mechanisms that interact with pay to affect turnover. Research characterizes Walmart’s expansion and low‑wage strategy as potentially monopsonistic, depressing local wages and employment outcomes in affected communities, which can both raise turnover and constrain alternative opportunities [1]. Competitors like Amazon have pursued automation to lower labor dependence and sometimes improve retention among higher-skilled roles, while firms such as Costco emphasize full-time roles and higher pay that support lower churn. These dynamics show that turnover is not solely a wage number but a product of market power, operating model, and role mix [1] [5].
4. Walmart’s response: concrete pay and retention moves, and what’s left unquantified
Walmart’s recent measures—wage increases since 2015, periodic pay raises for certain roles, retention bonuses, widened benefits, and training pipelines—signal a strategic pivot to reduce churn [5] [3]. These steps align with internal strategy documents emphasizing retention through compensation and upskilling, and public announcements detail bonuses up to $1,000 and technician pay bands to attract more stable labor [3]. However, several summaries and articles note that independent, transparent turnover metrics tied directly to these pay changes are limited; sources announcing perks often lack contemporaneous, company‑wide turnover rate data, leaving the precise elasticity of turnover to pay somewhat indeterminate [3] [6].
5. The big picture: competing narratives, agendas, and what a careful reader should take away
The evidence forms two consistent threads: independent analyses and retention scores paint a picture of higher turnover linked to lower relative pay and managerial workload, while Walmart’s public actions and some corporate analyses emphasize investment in pay and benefits to lower churn [4] [3]. Be mindful of agendas: advocacy research highlights negative local labor impacts and monopsony concerns [1], whereas corporate summaries stress strategic investments and operational context [7] [3]. To reconcile these views, the most defensible conclusion is that pay is a central but not sole determinant of turnover at Walmart versus competitors, and recent pay and benefit increases are explicit responses intended to close retention gaps even as transparent, comparable turnover statistics remain uneven across sources [2] [3].