Behold!! The cancerous growth of Wal Mart!!!

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://projects.flowingdata.com/walmart/?a=b

[SteamWake]

Behold the amazing growth of a sucessful buisness model. ;)

[Onkel Neal]

I love Wal-Mart. Saves me money on common stuff. Mom and Pop were gouging, sad to see them go but that's competition.

[tater]

ObWalMart link: http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/

I'm not a walmart fan, but that was fascinating, actually. I had no idea they only got into the NE in the mid 1990s (I've been in NM for so long).

That said, it certainly doesn't bother me. The same animation for Starbucks would be cool, actually.

[SteamWake]

Starbucks is shrinking not growing.

LOL they built a brand new one here it was open for two months before they closed it. :haha:

In a bad economy pepole buy their coffee from Wal Mart ;)

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm not a big Walmart fan either but where else can you go for a power drill and underwear in one stop? :hmmm:

[ReallyDedPoet]

Behold the amazing growth of a sucessful buisness model. ;)

Depends on what you define as successful:

A Substantial Number of Wal-Mart Associates earn below the federal poverty line


In 2008, the average full time Associate (34 hours per week) earns $10.84 hourly for an annual income of $19,165. That’s $2,000 below the Federal Poverty Line for a family of four. [http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/08poverty.shtml]



Last year, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott earned $29.7 million in total compensation, or 1,551 times the annual income of the average full time Wal-Mart Associate. [http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/20/business/fi-briefs20.6]

[SteamWake]

Going by those numbers I live below the poverty line as well.

[August]

Depends on what you define as successful:

Well they're a little more successful than is implied in the article you quoted. Full time is 40 hours a week, not 34. That brings an associates annual salary up to about $2500 above the poverty line.

Also a Walmart Associates job was never intended to support a family of four.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Well they're a little more successful than is implied in the article you quoted. Full time is 40 hours a week, not 34. That brings an associates annual salary up to about $2500 above the poverty line.


Nothing to write home about considering the profits that Walmart makes. Anyway 40 hours is debatable. From wikipedia:

Definitions by country

The most common full-time workweek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek) in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) is between 32–40 hours. In France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) it is a government-mandated 35 hours per week (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35-hour_workweek). In Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) it is between 35–40 hours per week, and in Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark) it is 37 hours per week. In Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia) it is around 38-40 hours per week, and in the U.K. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.K.), whilst there is no formal definition, it is generally considered to be 35 hours a week or more. A person working more than full-time is working overtime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtime), and is entitled to extra per-hour wages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wages) (but not salary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary)).


Also a Walmart Associates job was never intended to support a family of four.

Whatever their intentions, and it is difficult to tell at times with them, their wages are a joke.

[Sailor Steve]

Don't forget that Wal-Mart associates also get discounts there, and that includes everything from groceries to power drills. I worked there for awhile. If it had been more than seasonal I'd still be there. It's not bad, as jobs go, and if no one else will hire you it could be a lot worse.

[August]

Anyway 40 hours is debatable.

I've been in the American work force since the early 1970's and it's been my experience that any job less than 40 hours is considered a part time job.

Whatever their intentions, and it is difficult to tell at times with them, their wages are a joke.

That is very true, but again, jobs like that are not intended to be careers that you raise a family on.

[razark]

I've been in the American work force since the early 1970's and it's been my experience that any job less than 40 hours is considered a part time job.

I was told at one place that they couldn't give me more than 30 hours a week, because I'd then be "full-time". So, yes, you can be full time at less than 40 hours. My guess is that it's a matter of company policy.

[ReallyDedPoet]

This is the result of a free market society and I am fine with it in that sense compared to the alternative :dead::dead:

At it's core I am a little more disappointed with big businesses swallowing up smaller ones and with that local ownership. By not having local ownership more dollars leave the community and are replaced with lower paying jobs, etc. On the surface it looks fine, more jobs created...., but the larger portion of the dollars ( profits ) do not stay within the community.

[August]

I was told at one place that they couldn't give me more than 30 hours a week, because I'd then be "full-time". So, yes, you can be full time at less than 40 hours. My guess is that it's a matter of company policy.

Could be, or maybe state law.

[Skybird]

WalMart is okay as long as it stays on it'S side of the Atlantic. :DL In Germany, their business model did not work - they ignored too many local habits and customs and demands here, and tried too long to implement american habits. Even well-meant service offers like the young man helping to pack your bags earned them rised eye-brows - Germans simply do not want that and consider that to be "aufdringlich". Like the salesman in a bookstore, you just want to look around and he immediately dives down on you and asks "What are you looking for?" Hehe, I do not want a salesman by my side as long as I do not ask for one.

Spying on their employees' private sphere and gagging them by working treaties, also reports on bad payment, did not help to make WalMart more popular here. Customers started to avoid them, business did not run, and they had to give up. They are not missed.

A real explanation all that is not, becasue we have chain stores and discounters where all this happens, too, bad working conditions, spying, etc. But they stay in business, and expand. Maybe WalMart simply was not liked for being WalMart.

[Onkel Neal]

Going by those numbers I live below the poverty line as well.


Me too!

[SteamWake]

Maybe WalMart simply was not liked for being WalMart.

This..

[Zachstar]

I have to admit I am both sides on the walmart issue.

On one side their anti-union crusade leaves a bad taste in the mouth not to mention their constant use of china made products and not even offering the same type of product from an American made source.

On the other hand tho without wal mart there would likely be many many many more people in true poverty today. Atleast with the crap you buy there you can maintain a basic standard of living and they do provide boatloads of jobs that mom and pops just cant support.

mom and pops do not need to be selling general merchandise anyway. They need to sell local made stuff.

Its a sad crappy situation but its not going to change anytime soon.

[tater]

Depends on what you define as successful:

You seem to be unclear on the concept.

One, what employees make doesn't matter in the least.

Two, assuming that anyone employed by WalMart has to be the sole support for a family of 4 is absurd. Most PROFESSIONALS I know have both spouses working. Why would someone making 10-60 times less per hour not also have a working spouse? Two such average WM employees would make around 40k a year. You'd do quite well on that in the interior of the US, actually. A single parent... should not have churned out so many kids to need to support 3 with an unskilled job (parenthood is a CHOICE, period).

[tater]

This is the result of a free market society and I am fine with it in that sense compared to the alternative :dead::dead:

At it's core I am a little more disappointed with big businesses swallowing up smaller ones and with that local ownership. By not having local ownership more dollars leave the community and are replaced with lower paying jobs, etc. On the surface it looks fine, more jobs created...., but the larger portion of the dollars ( profits ) do not stay within the community.

That calculus is far more complex than you make it out to be. It;s not like a mom and pop store makes the goods they sell. They in effect sell the exact same goods, but at a higher cost of sales. Mom and pop stores likely pay LESS, and certainly employ fewer people. How can a mom and pop store pay considerably more for goods because they buy in FAR lower quantity, AND afford to pay wages higher than 10.whatever bucks an hour to sales clerks and stay afloat?

Since they pay more for goods, their margin is lower. The margin sort of stays in town—to the extent mom and pop exclusively buy local gods themselves—but the bulk goes to their wholesaler anyway (likely out of town).

I'm not seeing the "keeps the money in the community" advantage vs many jobs.

That doesn't even consider that the money SAVED by the consumer is also staying "in the community."

You might be right, but I'd need to "see the math" to judge properly, it's by no means close to being self-evident.

[Zachstar]

The only real advantage was they bought more American products. But most retail stores these days will atleast make a small effort to sell local product.

To be perfectly honest tho. We don't really stand a chance in hell of making it manufacturing. The only real future for our economy is resource extraction in my opinion. We still have many trillions in gold, copper, iron, etc...

[Platapus]

Sure wish I could have gotten a slice of Walmart stock back then. :damn:

[Platapus]

I'm not a big Walmart fan either but where else can you go for a power drill and underwear in one stop? :hmmm:

In your area do they have a "Fleet Farm" store? That store had pretty much everything! :yeah:

[GoldenRivet]

About wal mart employees being well below the poverty line...

i have this to say:

hold on i have to get something out of the way first.

:har::haha::har::haha::har::haha::har::haha::har:

ok here goes:

Try being a regional airline pilot on a whole $18,500 per year :salute:

It aint just Wal Mart friends.

[Platapus]

Nothing to write home about considering the profits that Walmart makes. Anyway 40 hours is debatable.

In my company, full time is also defined by when you receive full benefits. In my company full time is 38 hours. Anyone less than 38 is a part-timer and get reduced/no benefits.

[Platapus]

Try being a regional airline pilot on a whole $18,500 per year :salute:


That's a pretty low salary. :(

[GoldenRivet]

That's a pretty low salary. :(

Yup, and while wal mart doesnt particularly take a high level of training and education... the pilot job does... yet the pay is about the same for that 20 something "kid" steering your connecting flight toward your destination at 300+ mph

nice thought eh? :nope:

[Zachstar]

The absurdly low pilot pay as well as the fact that the TSA goons that harrass you at the airport get paid more is one of the reasons I will always take the Bus or train.

[Ducimus]

Behold the amazing growth of a sucessful buisness model. ;)

While at the same time screwing over the American working class.

This would be funny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKv6RcXa2UI) if it were not true. I hate walmart, their as bad as CEO's outsourcing your job overseas. Everytime you go in there, it feels like your supporting the chinese economy because every god damn thing is made in china.

From what i heard, originally walmart would buy american when they could. When Walton kicked off and his two boys took over, they went all out for chinese made crap.

[Platapus]

Yup, and while wal mart doesnt particularly take a high level of training and education... the pilot job does... yet the pay is about the same for that 20 something "kid" steering your connecting flight toward your destination at 300+ mph

nice thought eh? :nope:


I remember when I was an Intermediate EMT considering going for my EMT-P. We discovered that an 18 year old telemarketer made more money than a paramedic after about 5 years of schoolin. We were in the wrong line of work!

[tater]

We virtually never go in walmart, actually. Usually Target.

Target is less scummy, more milf, less morbid obesity :)

[Sailor Steve]

...every god damn thing is made in china.
Well, not the food.

Nalley's Chili
Local grocery: $1.79
Wal-Mart: $0.88

Aspartame sweetener, 200-packet box.
LG: 4.49
WM: $2.14

5-pound ham
LG: $9.50
WM: $5.95

I just bought a pair of jeans for $8.00.

Oh, and I hope you don't own a PS3. If you do, look on the box. "May be made in Japan, Korea, Malaysia or China."

In fact every major brand-name 'American' electronic device is now made in China, including my Motorola cell phone.

@ tater: More 'milf'? :rotfl2:

[ReallyDedPoet]

You seem to be unclear on the concept.



You get that from my two brief posts in the thread :06:

[Torvald Von Mansee]

ObWalMart link: http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/

I'm not a walmart fan, but that was fascinating, actually. I had no idea they only got into the NE in the mid 1990s (I've been in NM for so long).

That said, it certainly doesn't bother me. The same animation for Starbucks would be cool, actually.

I always find it amusing to go into what I call the anti-Wal Mart: the Barnes & Noble in Bethesda, MD. It's the major chain bookstore closest to the wealthiest area of the best-educated county in the United States. I always have this bet w/a friend when we go there: how many hot Asian chicks, wearing tee or sweatshirts from prestigious colleges and universities, will be inside studying on their laptops? It's not a matter of IF!!!

(Hmmm...I think I may have written a post very much like this at some point in the past.)

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Me too!

So...why do you guys seem to go to bat to defend the wealthy? Do you think they became that way by being nice? On balance, do you think they care about you?

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Well they're a little more successful than is implied in the article you quoted. Full time is 40 hours a week, not 34. That brings an associates annual salary up to about $2500 above the poverty line.

Also a Walmart Associates job was never intended to support a family of four.

Except, of course, Wal Mart makes a point of never making anyone full time if they can avoid it so they don't have to give them benefits.

[ReallyDedPoet]

I'm not seeing the "keeps the money in the community" advantage vs many jobs.



Why not both, keep the jobs and the money in the community.

Studies in Iowa showed that some small towns lost up to 47% of their retail trade after 10 years of a Wal-Mart store moving in nearby in the mid 1990's. [Kenneth E. Stone, "Impact of the Wal-Mart Phenomenon on Rural Communities," 1997] In Virginia, for example, 60 cents of every dollar spent downtown, stays downtown--compared to just six cents for every dollar spent at a big-box stores like Wal-Mart. [Rocky Mountain Institute]

[Torvald Von Mansee]

We virtually never go in walmart, actually. Usually Target.

Target is less scummy, more milf, less morbid obesity :)

CostCo is also good.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I wish I had a tumor that netted me $14 billion annually and directly provided over 2 million jobs. In fact, I bet entire nations wish they had such a thing.

As a forewarning, I should tell all of you that I'm about to go on another long-winded economics rant so I encourage those of you who are tired of such things to just skip to the next post. I feel the need to post this rant because of a longstanding and as yet unresolved argument with my business ethics professor who, coincidentally, claimed that Wal-Mart was "evil" this morning.

I have personally worked for Wal-Mart as a night-shift stockboy. I did so because I was laid off from my railroad job and I needed the cash. The recession resulted in the longest and most comprehensive layoff in US railroad history since Chinese immigrants finished building the first trans-continental network.

Many claim that Wal-Mart is a "corporation without a conscience", or as my BE professor puts it, a "corporation". To him, they are one and the same. I didn't find that to be true at all during my employment. Wal-Mart graciously offered me $8.50 per hour (75 cents above the standard wage they pay) to put cans and boxes on shelves for them. They were most reasonable in the negotiation process (asked for $9.00/hr, originally) and very fair in the way they treated me during my tenure. My supervisors were generally quite agreeable, and employee morale was about as high as it could get when you've got a bunch of people working for around $8.00/hr. Plus, they have a reasonable health insurance program. It's expensive for someone on such a low wage, but it is fairly efficient. They also have a tuition program for employees so they can get a better education. Seeing as how nobody with a half-decent education is going to work for Wal-Mart unless they are desperate, does that sound like the actions of a heartless mega-corporation?

The most common complaint about Wal-Mart's domestic operations is that the jobs don't pay enough. Really? How much is any entry-level work done at Wal-Mart worth? How much is any common idiot who can stack cans worth? I posed the question to my BE professor, who adamantly defends the position that Wal-Mart should pay federal union wages. Of course, since most Wal-Mart stores operate at a fairly low profit margin, and their main expenditure is labor costs, that would require them to raise prices. As Neal pointed out, people shop at Wal-Mart to get low prices on goods they want and need. If prices were higher, nobody would shop there, and there would be 2 million less jobs and $404 billion less dollars worth of productivity in the US.

What's more is that Wal-Mart knows it provides crappy jobs to most employees, and it compensates for that to an acceptable degree. Stores with high turnover rates are not penalized by HQ. The employee training program is designed to be easy and simple so that new employees can enter easily, and more experienced employees are free to leave. One co-worker of mine who decided to quit was told "Just stay as long as you need to." They didn't even require two weeks' notice. He quit the next day for a better-paying job at Gamestop accross the street.

Personally, I was layed off by Wal-Mart just shortly before the closure of the Sam's Club stores. Corporate had determined that there was simply too little profit at my store to justify all the extra employees that had been hired. The store was getting dangerously close to costing the company money. I was one of thirteen that was cut, though that was my own fault. I told the representatives that I did not intend to stay with Wal-Mart if the railroad recaled me, and that I did not intend to pursue career advancement in management. After all, I have a union job with the railroad, and they pay me to not work while I'm layed off. When they hire me back, I'll easily be making five times what I made at Wal-Mart. The only reason I took the job was because it payed slightly more than railroad unemployment did. In essence, I told Wal-Mart that I had no intention to work for them for the rest of my life, so they cut me. I'm not offended or disgraced in any way. The entirety of my employment and my subsequent termination was the result of a mutually beneficial transaction. They paid me to do work for them at a wage I found acceptable until they needed to cut labor costs, at which point we had an honest discussion about my worth as an employee in the future. Since I was likely to quit, they gave my job to another employee who had longer-term aspirations within the company. That's it. How that makes Wal-Mart "evil" is unbeknownst to me.

My BE professor also maintains the argument that the wages Wal-Mart pays are ".....an insult to human dignity". He was actually much more verbose with the point, and made strong arguments for what is called "stakeholder theory"(non-governmental socialism) but that was the essence of it. I disagree completely. IMO, Wal-Mart has the ethical responsibility to remain profitable, refrain from fraud, coercion, and theft, and do whatever the hell it wants to beyond that. In short, it must maintain voluntary transactions at all times. My professor feels differently. He says that Wal-Mart has a duty to provide for its' workers (more than they already do) and encourage (fiscally, of course) domestic industries that produce the goods they sell. That all sounds completely wrong to me. What my professor is suggesting is that Wal-Mart and the people who make it are somehow more liable for the welfare of society than anyone else.

I have spent many days considering his argument and reading text on the subject. As an aside, required reading for the class is A Brief History Of Globalization by Alex McGillvaray, a historian and author who also has a Master's degree in environmental science and who wrote a book about the book Silent Spring. He's also a member of the New Economics Foundation and the Institue for Social and Ethical Accountability. He's also a fierce proponent of stakeholder theory.

The argument for stakeholder theory is that all corporations must be responsible for the welfare of everyone they affect. IMO, this is complete nonsense, and it is also impossible. Corporations must, indeed, be responsible for any costs incurred upon others, including pollution-related costs, and they must adhere to mutually beneficial business transactions, but making them liable for the welfare of others is ridiculous, and again, impossible. If corporations in the US adopted this silly model, they'd be as bankrupt as our government within a year. In fact, they'd be even more bankrupt because they can't print money and they can't lean on firms that actually produce viable income.

What people like my BE proffesor see in Wal-Mart and similar firms, apparently, is a rich organization that has means to help the poor and disadvantaged, but does not do so because it is greedy and irresponsible. What I see is a so-called "educator" who has no knowledge, experience in , or appreciation of economics, bashing on a perfectly legitimate firm that billions of people approve of on a daily basis.

The other main argument againt Wal-Mart is that it exports jobs and maltreats foreign workers. It is true that Wal-Mart exports crappy jobs that have absolutely no business being in this world-leading nation, unless you consult a narrow-minded worker or union boss that has a professed interest in making their uncompetitive and therefore worthless industry viable through political action, but it is not true that Wal-Mart maltreats foreign workers. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

There was a time in the US when factory workers, especially in the textile industry, were treated to horrible working conditions and low wages. A simple reading of muckracking journalists' findings provides ample evidence of ths fact. One can even make a case for foreign workers performing outsourced jobs in the modern era as an indictment against capitalism. Workers in China's SEZ's (Special Economic Zones) make a tiny fraction of what US workers employed in the most menial jobs make.

What people like my BE professor forget, however, is that people working in these industries are a hell of a lot better off than they were when they were resorting to labor-intensive economic or subsistence agriculture. China's factory laborers may be living a crappy life by our stanards, but to them the employment is a golden chance for opportunity for themselves and their children. The same was true in the US at one time. Eventually, as their economy grows, Chinese in the SEZ's will rival or even surpass the standard of living in the US, barring more destructive influence from the Chinese Communist Party.

My BE professor is entirely ignorant of the fact that economic prosperity is a gradual process that takes generations to realize. He believes that some kind of redistribution of wealth will somehow revolutionize the welfare of humanity. In his own words; "If wealth were distributed evenly,everyone on the planet would have a $20,000 income per year. That may be true, but it completely ignores everything that generates that income. He has little appreciation for market dynamics, and even less for capitalist theory. He fails to realize that the reason the disparity of wealth in the world exists is due more to states than to companies, and that the disparity in capitalist sytems is not nearly as concerning because the standard of living is higher.

What I really see in the opinions of people like this is the opinion of a bunch of lazy, unproductive, manipulative, worthless asses who want productive people to give them stuff for free. Those people are so prevalent in the academia that it makes me want to vomit every time I write some pandering, horse$hit paper to satisfy the class requirements.

Getting back to Wal-Mart, the outrage against it is completely unjustified. Wal-Mart provides exceptional goods and service for the prices they ask. They do so by the voluntary efforts employes and their own fiscal prudence. The conditions which foreign workers experience may not be good by US standards, but it beats the hell out of life on the farm, which is precisely why there are so many of them and why they work so cheaply. Just as with domestic jobs, Wal-mart gives people a rung on the economic ladder which they can use to climb higher. It isn't a high rung, but it's better than none.

It is not Wal-Mart's responsibility to improve America's or any other country's economic lot, or pay high wages, or take a stake in the welfare of the world (though they do this to some degree anyway through charitable contributions and normal transactions.) Wal-Mart's responsibility is to remain profitable, and sell products and provide wages that are agreeable enough for people to buy their products and work in their stores, respectively. That's it, and that's all we should ever ask them to do.

Wal-Mart is not a piggy bank for socialists to raid to further their agendas. It's a legitimate business that provides a valuable framework for hundreds of millions of consumers, over 2 million employees, and thousands of international companies to operate and generate wealth within. I offer the same advice to those who bash Wal-Mart that I do to people who want federalized health care: If you're so intelligent and magnanimous, go start your own morally responsible and charitable firm; hopefully I'll at least get some good deals during your "Going Out of Business" sale.

[SteamWake]

more milf, less morbid obesity :)

Oh my gawd... dude it took me a half an hour to clean up the soda spew eruption.... Very very funny ! :salute:

[Bubblehead1980]

I wish I had a tumor that netted me $14 billion annually and directly provided over 2 million jobs. In fact, I bet entire nations wish they had such a thing.

As a forewarning, I should tell all of you that I'm about to go on another long-winded economics rant so I encourage those of you who are tired of such things to just skip to the next post. I feel the need to post this rant because of a longstanding and as yet unresolved argument with my business ethics professor who, coincidentally, claimed that Wal-Mart was "evil" this morning.

I have personally worked for Wal-Mart as a night-shift stockboy. I did so because I was laid off from my railroad job and I needed the cash. The recession resulted in the longest and most comprehensive layoff in US railroad history since Chinese immigrants finished building the first trans-continental network.

Many claim that Wal-Mart is a "corporation without a conscience", or as my BE professor puts it, a "corporation". To him, they are one and the same. I didn't find that to be true at all during my employment. Wal-Mart graciously offered me $8.50 per hour (75 cents above the standard wage they pay) to put cans and boxes on shelves for them. They were most reasonable in the negotiation process (asked for $9.00/hr, originally) and very fair in the way they treated me during my tenure. My supervisors were generally quite agreeable, and employee morale was about as high as it could get when you've got a bunch of people working for around $8.00/hr. Plus, they have a reasonable health insurance program. It's expensive for someone on such a low wage, but it is fairly efficient. They also have a tuition program for employees so they can get a better education. Seeing as how nobody with a half-decent education is going to work for Wal-Mart unless they are desperate, does that sound like the actions of a heartless mega-corporation?

The most common complaint about Wal-Mart's domestic operations is that the jobs don't pay enough. Really? How much is any entry-level work done at Wal-Mart worth? How much is any common idiot who can stack cans worth? I posed the question to my BE professor, who adamantly defends the position that Wal-Mart should pay federal union wages. Of course, since most Wal-Mart stores operate at a fairly low profit margin, and their main expenditure is labor costs, that would require them to raise prices. As Neal pointed out, people shop at Wal-Mart to get low prices on goods they want and need. If prices were higher, nobody would shop there, and there would be 2 million less jobs and $404 billion less dollars worth of productivity in the US.

What's more is that Wal-Mart knows it provides crappy jobs to most employees, and it compensates for that to an acceptable degree. Stores with high turnover rates are not penalized by HQ. The employee training program is designed to be easy and simple so that new employees can enter easily, and more experienced employees are free to leave. One co-worker of mine who decided to quit was told "Just stay as long as you need to." They didn't even require two weeks' notice. He quit the next day for a better-paying job at Gamestop accross the street.

Personally, I was layed off by Wal-Mart just shortly before the closure of the Sam's Club stores. Corporate had determined that there was simply too little profit at my store to justify all the extra employees that had been hired. The store was getting dangerously close to costing the company money. I was one of thirteen that was cut, though that was my own fault. I told the representatives that I did not intend to stay with Wal-Mart if the railroad recaled me, and that I did not intend to pursue career advancement in management. After all, I have a union job with the railroad, and they pay me to not work while I'm layed off. When they hire me back, I'll easily be making five times what I made at Wal-Mart. The only reason I took the job was because it payed slightly more than railroad unemployment did. In essence, I told Wal-Mart that I had no intention to work for them for the rest of my life, so they cut me. I'm not offended or disgraced in any way. The entirety of my employment and my subsequent termination was the result of a mutually beneficial transaction. They paid me to do work for them at a wage I found acceptable until they needed to cut labor costs, at which point we had an honest discussion about my worth as an employee in the future. Since I was likely to quit, they gave my job to another employee who had longer-term aspirations within the company. That's it. How that makes Wal-Mart "evil" is unbeknownst to me.

My BE professor also maintains the argument that the wages Wal-Mart pays are ".....an insult to human dignity". He was actually much more verbose with the point, and made strong arguments for what is called "stakeholder theory"(non-governmental socialism) but that was the essence of it. I disagree completely. IMO, Wal-Mart has the ethical responsibility to remain profitable, refrain from fraud, coercion, and theft, and do whatever the hell it wants to beyond that. In short, it must maintain voluntary transactions at all times. My professor feels differently. He says that Wal-Mart has a duty to provide for its' workers (more than they already do) and encourage (fiscally, of course) domestic industries that produce the goods they sell. That all sounds completely wrong to me. What my professor is suggesting is that Wal-Mart and the people who make it are somehow more liable for the welfare of society than anyone else.

I have spent many days considering his argument and reading text on the subject. As an aside, required reading for the class is A Brief History Of Globalization by Alex McGillvaray, a historian and author who also has a Master's degree in environmental science and who wrote a book about the book Silent Spring. He's also a member of the New Economics Foundation and the Institue for Social and Ethical Accountability. He's also a fierce proponent of stakeholder theory.

The argument for stakeholder theory is that all corporations must be responsible for the welfare of everyone they affect. IMO, this is complete nonsense, and it is also impossible. Corporations must, indeed, be responsible for any costs incurred upon others, including pollution-related costs, and they must adhere to mutually beneficial business transactions, but making them liable for the welfare of others is ridiculous, and again, impossible. If corporations in the US adopted this silly model, they'd be as bankrupt as our government within a year. In fact, they'd be even more bankrupt because they can't print money and they can't lean on firms that actually produce viable income.

What people like my BE proffesor see in Wal-Mart and similar firms, apparently, is a rich organization that has means to help the poor and disadvantaged, but does not do so because it is greedy and irresponsible. What I see is a so-called "educator" who has no knowledge, experience in , or appreciation of economics, bashing on a perfectly legitimate firm that billions of people approve of on a daily basis.

The other main argument againt Wal-Mart is that it exports jobs and maltreats foreign workers. It is true that Wal-Mart exports crappy jobs that have absolutely no business being in this world-leading nation, unless you consult a narrow-minded worker or union boss that has a professed interest in making their uncompetitive and therefore worthless industry viable through political action, but it is not true that Wal-Mart maltreats foreign workers. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

There was a time in the US when factory workers, especially in the textile industry, were treated to horrible working conditions and low wages. A simple reading of muckracking journalists' findings provides ample evidence of ths fact. One can even make a case for foreign workers performing outsourced jobs in the modern era as an indictment against capitalism. Workers in China's SEZ's (Special Economic Zones) make a tiny fraction of what US workers employed in the most menial jobs make.

What people like my BE professor forget, however, is that people working in these industries are a hell of a lot better off than they were when they were resorting to labor-intensive economic or subsistence agriculture. China's factory laborers may be living a crappy life by our stanards, but to them the employment is a golden chance for opportunity for themselves and their children. The same was true in the US at one time. Eventually, as their economy grows, Chinese in the SEZ's will rival or even surpass the standard of living in the US, barring more destructive influence from the Chinese Communist Party.

My BE professor is entirely ignorant of the fact that economic prosperity is a gradual process that takes generations to realize. He believes that some kind of redistribution of wealth will somehow revolutionize the welfare of humanity. In his own words; "If wealth were distributed evenly,everyone on the planet would have a $20,000 income per year. That may be true, but it completely ignores everything that generates that income. He has little appreciation for market dynamics, and even less for capitalist theory. He fails to realize that the reason the disparity of wealth in the world exists is due more to states than to companies, and that the disparity in capitalist sytems is not nearly as concerning because the standard of living is higher.

What I really see in the opinions of people like this is the opinion of a bunch of lazy, unproductive, manipulative, worthless asses who want productive people to give them stuff for free. Those people are so prevalent in the academia that it makes me want to vomit every time I write some pandering, horse$hit paper to satisfy the class requirements.

Getting back to Wal-Mart, the outrage against it is completely unjustified. Wal-Mart provides exceptional goods and service for the prices they ask. They do so by the voluntary efforts employes and their own fiscal prudence. The conditions which foreign workers experience may not be good by US standards, but it beats the hell out of life on the farm, which is precisely why there are so many of them and why they work so cheaply. Just as with domestic jobs, Wal-mart gives people a rung on the economic ladder which they can use to climb higher. It isn't a high rung, but it's better than none.

It is not Wal-Mart's responsibility to improve America's or any other country's economic lot, or pay high wages, or take a stake in the welfare of the world (though they do this to some degree anyway through charitable contributions and normal transactions.) Wal-Mart's responsibility is to remain profitable, and sell products and provide wages that are agreeable enough for people to buy their products and work in their stores, respectively. That's it, and that's all we should ever ask them to do.

Wal-Mart is not a piggy bank for socialists to raid to further their agendas. It's a legitimate business that provides a valuable framework for hundreds of millions of consumers, over 2 million employees, and thousands of international companies to operate and generate wealth within. I offer the same advice to those who bash Wal-Mart that I do to people who want federalized health care: If you're so intelligent and magnanimous, go start your own morally responsible and charitable firm; hopefully I'll at least get some good deals during your "Going Out of Business" sale.


I was going to go on a long rant myself but you said it all for most part, good job man:salute:

[tater]

I simply don't buy the "staying in the community" numbers.

There is no possible way 60% stays in the community. No way. That figure is CLEARLY absurd.

$0.60 per dollar? You believe that?

Most stores mark stuff up around 100%. Meaning they buy something for $1, and sell it for $2. Maybe, they might be able to get it a little cheaper. They'd have to buy their stuff at 40% of retail, and have no other cost of sales that leaves "downtown" for them to make $0.60/$1.00.

So right off the bat I doubt that figure.

Basically, the idea is presumably that every penny not spent on product stays in town as wages for the employees, and the owners (the profit). The owners, of course, would only really spend their salary, and invest the rest, so only the owner salaries stay in town. Dunno what the excess is there, that's hard to characterize.

With WalMart, I think you'd need to sum all the wages, and other stuff that "stays downtown" for the mom and pop, AND add in the total savings for the volume of sales vs mom and pop.

Ie: The total sales of the WalMart is 10M$. The same goods, had they been sold by mom and pop would have cost maybe 12M$. So WalMart kept ~1M$ "downtown" in the hands of consumers (2M$, minus mom and pop's cost of sales).

I used to be reflexively anti-walmart, but I've moderated. Bottom line is that the only legitimate way to beat walmart is to beat them in the marketplace some how. If walmart can't do that, they deserve to fold. Frankly, they'd be in trouble now anyway, if not walmart, the internet would have creamed them (look at local bookstores).

That said, we buy as much as possible from local merchants. Those that remain have changed to higher-end stuff, and a more customer service oriented approach.

So...why do you guys seem to go to bat to defend the wealthy? Do you think they became that way by being nice? On balance, do you think they care about you?

What is it that you want? Presumably you want "the wealthy" to be liberated of their wealth at gunpoint? Cept of course the government's guns—and everything else—are paid for by a tiny handful of taxpayers at the top.

Neal (below) is spot on. Why should I care? Their job is the same as mine, take care of MY family. It;s not their job to help me, it's not my job to help THEM. I'll help them by being a customer only if it is in my best interest to do so.

The nice thing about people acting in self-interest is that it makes sense all around. Altruism is nonsense, and only funtions in small family sized groups, or at gunpoint (in which case it's not altruism anyway).

[Onkel Neal]

Except, of course, Wal Mart makes a point of never making anyone full time if they can avoid it so they don't have to give them benefits.

Not exactly sure but I bet no one is pointing a gun a people and saying " You go to work for Wal-Mart, or else". Still a free country.... for now.


So...why do you guys seem to go to bat to defend the wealthy? Do you think they became that way by being nice? On balance, do you think they care about you?

Why should I care "who they care about", they ain't my daddy. :O: I defend anyone who is successful with honest work and smart thinking. That's the American Way (in case everyone already forgot).

[Buddahaid]

I can stay out of the Mall-Wart easily as there isn't one in my county. :O: Anyway, I try to buy from the locally owned stores and find that gets harder as the years pass and they close down as the Home Depots move in. In fact Home Depot bought out a local hardware chain, remodeled the stores, and then closed them in the space of about 1-2 years. Gee, thanks Home Depot!

That said, I would rather work for Wal-Mart than flip burgers any day.

[Ducimus]

I wish I had a tumor that netted me $14 billion annually

That's great if your an executive, or board member. Go go gadget suspender man.
http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/90055897.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=6C4008C0FD9EB5A5B345B1434E47982D34B536DA70EB9E42 BD35F2761EBB84AA


and directly provided over 2 million jobs.

Yeah, i wonder how many people Wallmart put out of work in one way or another. If there is one thing we aren't very short of is dead end McJobs in a world of the steady decline of the middle class.
http://francisanderson.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/pk_wal-mart_ap.jpg



I stopped reading there. Not gonna read a 2 page essay on why we should be thankful for the results of Sam Walton's scumbag progeny.

[tater]

Ducimus, if walmart didn't do it, the net would have, frankly.

The market is the market. I don't shop walmart, but what was the alternative, BANNING walmart?

Mom and pop needed to evolve or lose. Those that have weathered walmart—least here in NM—seem to be doing well. They picked a sub market, and deliver better products and service since they cannot hope to compete on mass produced stuff (and crap) with price point.

Price is all that matters for MANY consumers, but there are enough that want quality that mom and pop can survive, IMO, and long as their goal isn't to fight walmart's fight.

IMO the stores done in by walmart were selling the same crap that walmart sells, only for a lot more money. Why is it better for consumers to pay more for CRAP? :)

Worse to me (since I don't shop walmart) was what REI did to all the local hiking/outdoor eqp stores. REI is OK, but they don't offer as much higher end stuff. We had 3-4 in ABQ, now only REI. There are 2 stores still in Santa Fe, and they have REI now, so we'll see how long they last.

[Platapus]

This is where I put on my capitalist hat.

As a capitalist, I want the best quality for the lowest price. :yep:

If a US company can't compete, too bad, so sad. As a capitalist, I am not going to pay more for less quality simply because it is "made in America". :nope:

Buying a product with less quality and more expensive simply because it is an American company smacks of socialism.

Sounds kinda harsh don't it. Well the next time someone is talking about how great capitalism is, remember that it was capitalism that shut down the American industries because we could get better stuff cheaper from overseas.

This is why I am a moderate capitalist. Extremism in capitalism is not good for my country.

[August]

Except, of course, Wal Mart makes a point of never making anyone full time if they can avoid it so they don't have to give them benefits.

Yeah so? Sounds like good business sense to me. Again, stock boy isn't intended to be a career.

[Aramike]

Yeah so? Sounds like good business sense to me. Again, stock boy isn't intended to be a career.Careful, August. You're making too much sense.

I guess it would make more sense to a liberal to say that Walmart should give everyone benefits, and therefore drive up costs, and therefore cease to exist as the Walmart as we know it, and therefore not provide any jobs for liberals to bitch about in the first place.

[tater]

The mom and pop stores, BTW, are not likely to provide benefits for anyone but mom and pop.

Just as a reality check.

[August]

The mom and pop stores, BTW, are not likely to provide benefits for anyone but mom and pop.

Just as a reality check.

Yep and by law no less. Having only a few employees exempts a business from having to provide health care.

[tater]

Yep and by law no less. Having only a few employees exempts a business from having to provide health care.

Or for OSHA to cut in.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I stopped reading there. Not gonna read a 2 page essay on why we should be thankful for the results of Sam Walton's scumbag progeny.

I totally agree. Why read some essay on the benefits of Wal-Mart or develop some semblance of economic education when bashing a legitimate organization for being successful is so much easier?

In fact, I encourage you to maintain your perspective because it makes things so much easier for all us greedy capitalist investors. There's nothing better than an anti-capitalist ideology when it comes to predicting and gaining from market trends. It makes it so easy to take advantage of all the non-prosperity.

I was going to go on with the sarcastic crap, but I realized I was just being an ass, and I am sorry for that.

You do make a good point about Wal-Mart costing jobs, Ducimus, but it is not as cut-and-dried as you may think. Wal-Mart drives many small companies out of business, but it also creates a lot of jobs, and not just by employing people in its retail stores. Wal-Mart's low prices create demand where none would normally exist in the absolute best place to create demand, the US. The huge market that Wal-Mart has tapped has created millions of jobs around the world; jobs that will eventually enable people to attain a higher standard of living, if conditions are right and the government doesn't steal all their wealth.

At the beginning of this post, I was being sarcastic, but I am being quite serious now. Rejection of free-market economics will cost you in the long run. Societies that are poor are at the mercy of societies that are rich. I'm amazed that the UK hasn't completely learned this lesson yet. There was a time when Britain ruled most of the known world, and the sun never set upon the British Empire. Now, because of interventionist foreign policies and decades of socialist policy, the British Empire no longer exists. It took less than a century for Britain to go from master of the globe to sidelined second-rate power. The world economy, for better or worse, now belongs to the US, and it will soon belong to other nations if we continue to restrict the market. It is economic freedom that determines the wealth of nations, not the well-intentioned wishes of those who seek to control and/or re-distribute that wealth without creating it themselves.

Wal-Mart may seem harmful to you, but it remains a global entity that creates wealth rather than destroying it. There is no disputing this fact, as the company is profitable. You might disagree with the way the company operates, but that does nothing to change the reality that billions of people agree with how Wal-Mart operates and willingly engage in business transactions with it every day.

Of course, you have a right to protest Wal-Mart's practices. Your objections are actually a good thing, to some extent. Socially-concious people like yourself influence the business models of large corporations, as those same corporations have a vested interest in avoiding negative publicity and satisfying consumer demands. What does not follow, however, are the attempts of many to control market dynamics. It simply cannot be done. There is no person on this planet who has such a comprehensive knowledge of economics that they can truthfully determine the validity of the existence or non-existence of any industry or company, whatever their motivation.

Business cannot be stopped, and the progress of commercial development cannot be reversed or controlled. There is simply no way to effectively dictate the market decisions of 6 billion individuals through any socio-political structure. By trying to do so, you are only harming yourself and those around you. What you are essentially doing is trying to force your beliefs upon others and damaging the market in the process. Praise be to God that you're not a politician, lest the effects of such beliefs become more profound.

[Skybird]

a compoany is not only successful when maximising its profits,. It is embedded in a communal and social context which in parts even assist it financially and with infrastructure, a pool of school-qualified employees, etc. So, success also is defined by what a company gives back to society. Low wages and part time jobs are part of the busines spattern today, and this spells longterm desaster for the social structure of society, becasue the less people earn, the less they can save for their own age and future when they cannot work anymore. In Germany, discounters and low-wage companies like to point out that they create jobs. But job must be understood as the opportunity for the employee to work a reasonable ammount of hours and get a fair wage for that that allows him to support his family without aid from the state and to secure his fiances for the time when he stopped working at higher age.

And this simply is not the case.

The social balance and stability in the long run get seroded that way. Business success accieved today this way - is the reason for civil unrest and revolution in the future.

what I also know from German example is that the increase in mini-jobs (jobs with low payment and reduced number of hours), destroy regularjobs by the hundreds of thousands. Becasue by insane Germ,an legislation two such minijobs have become cheaper than getting their work doine with one regular employee. The regular employee is able to invest into his future financial security, and to help the economy by coinsumming. Two mini-jobbers cannot do neither the one, nor the other. Go figure.

the extreme we have is the one-euro-job. That are unemployed people who do not get a job, get social wellfare (do not consider that to be much money - it has been massively reduced in recent years) and are allowed to work a certain number of hours in jobs where they get only one Euro per hour. This is paradise for entrepreneurs: you have a pool of employees that will worfik for you, and their wages almost completely get payed by the state/the community. You must not even pay taxes and healthcare for them!

The financial security basis of the community gets eroded that way. But who cares, let's do not spoil a successful businessmodel by picking out unimportant details. and the statistics say that the number of unemployed went down, so everyone could be happy, right?

[Skybird]

Not exactly sure but I bet no one is pointing a gun a people and saying " You go to work for Wal-Mart, or else". Still a free country.... for now.
Only valid if you jhave alternative and better jobs in needed quantities. Do you think people work in such jobs for fun? for some time, I worked amongst such people, and I therefore tell you that those working there did so becasue they had no other choice. There are not as many jobs anymore, and so many must take what they can get, even if it is miserable by working conditions and/or wages. the freedom you are claiming only exists where there is a sufficient diversity of jobs, and only low or no pressure by family realities in the background.

[CaptainHaplo]

the extreme we have is the one-euro-job. That are unemployed people who do not get a job, get social wellfare (do not consider that to be much money - it has been massively reduced in recent years) and are allowed to work a certain number of hours in jobs where they get only one Euro per hour. This is paradise for entrepreneurs: you have a pool of employees that will worfik for you, and their wages almost completely get payed by the state/the community. You must not even pay taxes and healthcare for them!

So that is the fault of the entrepreneur? Seems to me that it is - being a social welfare program - its the fault of the government that created and supervises to program. Is it a benefit for the entrepreneur? Sure - but is it his or her fault that such a program exists? No. Put the blame where it lays - the government.

the freedom you are claiming only exists where there is a sufficient diversity of jobs, and only low or no pressure by family realities in the background.

Ok - so its fault of big business that someone can't go pick there dream job and have it handed to them? Its the fault of business that the employee could not keep their pants on or skirt down and now has a bunch of kids to support? The business is creating jobs - granted not the best - but with the regulations some want - it would create none. So whats better - a crappy job or none at all? As for the "family obligations" - the term says it all - its the obligation of the family - not of the business - to provide for them. The business didn't make em, they don't have the responsibility to support them.

Government needs to lay out baseline regulation and then get out of the way. Businesses need to conform to those regulations - and decide if they wish to foster additional community goodwill by going beyond them. People need to start taking responsibility for thier own actions instead of expecting government - or business - to provide for them out of some "moralistic duty".

[Skybird]

So that is the fault of the entrepreneur? Seems to me that it is - being a social welfare program - its the fault of the government that created and supervises to program. Is it a benefit for the entrepreneur? Sure - but is it his or her fault that such a program exists? No. Put the blame where it lays - the government.
Fact is that economic and job structures get created by the economy by masively influencing political decision making ( to a much wider degree than voters ever can hope to accieve in our corrupot Mafia-scoieties we call europe today). these economic structures base on these one-euro-jobs being available. "Jobs" get created only by depending on employers beign available who will cost the company only one Euro. Scrapping such a damaging job system then will be objected because the business structures starting to depend on these low wage workers being available claim to be no more "competitive" if they suddenly would be demanded to employ people that get payed with regular, responsible wages.

Low wages are a crime that leads far beyond the individual fate. They are a crime against society and a crime against the state, damaging both for the company's interest.

The pattern was implemented by the government to encourage and legalise options for unemployed people to seek even bad jobs, hoping they would get regular contracts there sooner or later once they got a foot into the door and showed to work reliably, and so enabling them to leave social wellfare payments and live by their hand's work again. We now know that it does not work that way. that people find entrance into new regular working contracts by accepting to work for one Euro for some months, is not the rule, but a rare exception from the rule. The companies take the free offer for free working forces, fire their regular staff, create a higher number of low-wage-jobs and 1-Euro-jobs, and get their workload done and the txpayer financing the wages and the jobbing people earning to little to live too much to die. the get the same or even more work done, but pay much lesser wages, and sometimes almost none, externalsiing these costs and letting the taxpayer come up for it. that is the taxpayer that desperately tries to find a reasonably payed job and more and more often cannot find such a job (Neal'S big freedom utopia) and so has to work underpayed or even for the symbolic payment of a slave salery.

working for a piece of sh!t, btw, also is criplling to a man'S self-assessment and dignity. I tell you that people get seriously sick from it, for sure. This is also something that statstics show very clearly. First comes the psychological fall, and than the phyysical consequence of that. I have done some badly payed, unpleasant jobs in my life. I needed the money and for the time being did not find better jobs. nobody tells me utopic nonsens about freedom of choice here. I am happy that now i have the luck and the freedom to have left this time behind. I say I had luck. Many have not.

Implementing these new job schemes was both naive thinking by some politics and corrupted thinkling by other poltics with close ties to economic lobby groups, and it resulted in intentional massive abuse by employers with crushing damage for society.


Ok - so its fault of big business that someone can't go pick there dream job and have it handed to them? Its the fault of business that the employee could not keep their pants on or skirt down and now has a bunch of kids to support? The business is creating jobs - granted not the best - but with the regulations some want - it would create none. So whats better - a crappy job or none at all? As for the "family obligations" - the term says it all - its the obligation of the family - not of the business - to provide for them. The business didn't make em, they don't have the responsibility to support them.

I refuse to answer anymore to extreme black-white painting schemes. If you need to give such statements claiming extreme examples that are ignoring the rule, then I take from that that the other guy has run out of arfguments and can continue only by falling back to presenting right this: extremes.

And I am very very tired of this.

Government needs to lay out baseline regulation and then get out of the way.

whenever this gets noted, you or Lance or people of your opinion camp immediately cry wolf for that even the most minimal regulation alreayd is far too much regulation. Also, you guys constantly ignore thzat politics gets massively lobbied, interferred and manipulated by big business to serve it's interests at the cost of the community, and to form legislation decisions that serves not communal but company interests. You claim the corruption of politics, but you are totally ignorrant of the corrptuoin of economics and how they made politics going corrupt.

Why do you think this job pattern I described has been implemented? Do you think it was by independant "socialist" thinking? It was not. It was announced after months and years of massive economic lobbying and attempts to lower wages and additional costs (social insurrances), arguing that Germany needs lower wages in order to regain competitiveness. the winners here are according companies. The loosers are the employees, and the state itself. Germany'S middle class is shrinking, massively, due to two factors: shrinking effective incomes of the normal population, and rising costs for health and social insurrance. At the same time, the group of top earners with top incomes has become smaller, but since the individuals in this club earn more and more, more and more financial power and thus: influence is accumulated in this shrinking group at the top. More and more wealth and power in few and fewer hands. The social low class on the other hand is exploding in size. This together means: the state's financial fundament gets eroded, important things like education, universities, and thus creating a new generation of qualified experts for the high qualification jobs Germany claims to need can no longer be "supplied" since financial funding is missing. privbate households earn less and lesser real income to comepnsate for the state falling out of the suplly shceme by using their own money for education, for example - the real income of german households in the middleclass is shrinking since longer time, and the middleclass itself is shrinking, too. A growing social underclass means additional follow-up costs for health care due to bad education, meaning worse health conditions by for example unhealthy food habits (a massive factor, don't laugh, with food-related health issues we talk about a cost facor in the range of high billions). It means growing costs for maintaining even the already massively reduced social security net - ten years ago, that sector and the interest payments for it consummed one third of Germany's budget, today, only ten years later, it already consumes more than the half of the fiscal budget, although spendings per individual have been massively cut. Stressing the budget even more by inviting undiscriminatory migration of uneducated social low class families who the statistics now prove beyond any doubt to cause much more costs for germany than they contribute to the communal income and prosperity, does not help, of course. Now add the shrining population, the growing mean age, the shrinking abi8lity of the indiovudual to save money for the high age with the social system collapsing due to failing financial support, add the demographic change and the chnage in social and cultural structures by islamic migration, and finally the spiral into which world economy itself is falling, inetnsifying competition beyond what is constructive and vitalising for all. We cannot afford to maintain our high tech industries, specilies, well-educatedf acadmeical people leave germany in groiwng numbers (brain drain), and the Asians are flooding the world market with cheap mass püroduction and an insustry with low wages with which no wetsenr nation can comeote without seeing the population committing suicide.

That's the recipe for national revolutions followed by big wars. We've been there, we go there again. Halleluja!

[antikristuseke]

I've been in the American work force since the early 1970's and it's been my experience that any job less than 40 hours is considered a part time job.


Same here, full time has always been considered 8 hours 5 days a week. Though When I actually had a job I worked closer to 50 hours a week, not because I needed the extra money but because we had orders to fill, and I make it a point to get **** done on time, even if it takes extra effort.

Now having been unemployed for a bit over a year, I'm finally having to coscider going on social welfare since I am skint.

[Onkel Neal]

Only valid if you jhave alternative and better jobs in needed quantities. Do you think people work in such jobs for fun? for some time, I worked amongst such people, and I therefore tell you that those working there did so becasue they had no other choice. There are not as many jobs anymore, and so many must take what they can get, even if it is miserable by working conditions and/or wages. the freedom you are claiming only exists where there is a sufficient diversity of jobs, and only low or no pressure by family realities in the background.


"alternative and better jobs in needed quantities" is not Wal-Mart's problem.

[August]

It comes as a shock to many of my younger students when they realize all that time they spent screwing off in public school has severely limited their career opportunities as an adult.

[Onkel Neal]

And college! :haha: Somehow, texting in class instead of taking notes and listening to the lecture is not helpful in passing the exams.

I have several group projects coming due in a few days and guess who did 90% of the work?

[Skybird]

"alternative and better jobs in needed quantities" is not Wal-Mart's problem.
It's a problem with your reference to that holy and all-healing "freedom" of people to just pick a better job if they do not like the current one. The freedom to chose another job means not much if that other job is not available - because it got killed by splitting it into several low-wage- jobs, for example. ;)

No company and no economy works and functions in a vacuum, disconnected from the social context that raised it, that funded it, built it and supported it. Total freedom of institutions or individuals only exist if said individuals or institutions exist all alone on a planet that they have all for themselves, with nobody else being there.

Or in other words, this often made demand for total freedom - often is just a foul excuse for total egoism.

[August]

I have several group projects coming due in a few days and guess who did 90% of the work?

The one who won't be stocking shelves at the local Walmart? :DL

[Torvald Von Mansee]

And college! :haha: Somehow, texting in class instead of taking notes and listening to the lecture is not helpful in passing the exams.

I have several group projects coming due in a few days and guess who did 90% of the work?

You know what's funny? Not "ha ha" funny, mind you, but when I was in high school, when I had a lab partner of a certain demographic, they expected me to do all the work because I was in another demographic.

I wonder where they are, today? They could only play a certain card so much.

[tater]

No one has a "natural right" to some arbitrary hourly wage. If you don;t make enough at $10/hr, get another job (a 2d job). Everyone I know who makes more substantial wages also works a helluva lot more than 40 hours a week.

It has been stated that WalMart or other companies took higher paying jobs and split them into lower paying jobs. Is there any basis for that statement? I've known many small business owners over the years, and aside from the owners, and the high-level employees, they paid pretty normal wages.

The only small businesses that pretty much universally pay good wages and provide benefits in my experience have been healthcare providers.

BTW, do we really want a permanent structural unemployment rate on par with Europe, anyway?

Anyone looking for work should consider going into nursing, lol, always a shortage. As an aside, we were talking last night, and my wife said she realized that a bunch of the techs and nurses she operates with are eastern european DOCTORS. No kidding, she was scrubbed in and her anesthesiologist was talking in Russian (he was a linguist in the US Army before med school) with the tech and the nurse—both of whom were physicians in their home countries (she said all of a sudden she realized they were all talking and she didn't understand them—they switched to German as a joke, but my wife is fluent, so much of the rest of the case was in German, lol).

[August]

[QUOTE]It has been stated that WalMart or other companies took higher paying jobs and split them into lower paying jobs. Is there any basis for that statement? I've known many small business owners over the years, and aside from the owners, and the high-level employees, they paid pretty normal wages. Net result of this idea is that you have one stock boy rather than several. It's already difficult to find a clerk when you need one and Skybird wants to cut their numbers? :roll:

BTW, do we really want a permanent structural unemployment rate on par with Europe, anyway?Exactly. I just love getting advice from those whose system is worse than ours.

Anyone looking for work should consider going into nursing, lol, always a shortage.

Yep we're running three Medical Assistant classes atm each one full and all have a great placement rate. All our competitor schools are doing the same thing.

[Onkel Neal]

It's a problem with your reference to that holy and all-healing "freedom" of people to just pick a better job if they do not like the current one. The freedom to chose another job means not much if that other job is not available - because it got killed by splitting it into several low-wage- jobs, for example. ;)

No company and no economy works and functions in a vacuum, disconnected from the social context that raised it, that funded it, built it and supported it. Total freedom of institutions or individuals only exist if said individuals or institutions exist all alone on a planet that they have all for themselves, with nobody else being there.

Or in other words, this often made demand for total freedom - often is just a foul excuse for total egoism.



>>holy and all-healing "freedom" of people to just pick a better job

Not sure where you got the hyperbole from, but what do you suggest is the solution? Govt mandated business? You suggesting someone needs to step in and create jobs that pay more but generate less revenue? I love how you like to "educate" me. I know a little about business. :)

You know who is allowing--indeed, promoting-- Wal-mart's job splitting and powerful business model? The people who "vote with their wallets". You may try arguing with them.

[Sailor Steve]

Last year, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott earned $29.7 million in total compensation, or 1,551 times the annual income of the average full time Wal-Mart Associate.
I've been thinking about that fact for awhile, and I've drawn a couple of conclusions. Whenever I hear people complain about "overpaid sports figures" I'm always reminded of the book and movie Eight Men Out. Back in the day athletes were the slaves of the team owners. If they wanted to play they took what they were payed, and they were screwed so often that in 1919 the "couldn't be beat" Chicago White Sox threw the world series because a consortium of gamblers offered them enough money to make it worth their while. Today if a team wants a certain player they have to give him what he wants or look elsewhere. Is he "overpaid"? The people who actually pay him don't think so.

It's the same with a CEO. They pay him what he thinks he's worth because he's the one who can actually make things happen, and bring money into the business. If he doesn't do the job then they find somebody who can.

On another tack, I got to thinking about that $29,700,000, and I did a little research of my own. This is from Walmart's own website:

Walmart employs more than 2.1 million associates worldwide, including more than 1.4 million in the United States. Walmart is not only one of the largest private employers in the U.S., but the largest in Mexico and one of the largest in Canada as well.

If we lower the CEO's salary to match that of the lowest-paid employe, and distribute the money fairly, every single Walmart associate will pick up an extra $14.15. A year. If we do that to every ranking officer all the way down to store managers, i.e. they all make the same wage, they might pick up as much as $500 per year. And then they'll go out of business because no qualified CEO is going to work for that amount.

Want more money? Go to school. I wish I had.

[Skybird]

You know who is allowing--indeed, promoting-- Wal-mart's job splitting and powerful business model? The people who "vote with their wallets". You may try arguing with them.
We can do that. At that opportunity we could ask them if they earn enough money so that they could afford to buy in a more expensive supermarket instead of a discounter.

There is a reason why cheap discounters are booming. ;) At the same time these discounters can only be cheaper, because they offer less service and pay their employees worse. Which leaves you with employed but exploited consumers having less money - and thus many cannot afford to buy in more expensive supermarkets - where the workers get payed fairer wages.

The minimum criterion for a fair wage is that if somebody works fulltime a week in a given job, he needs to be able to make a living by his income that funds his family, pays for raising and educating his children, and secure his life's evening when he has become old and does not work anymore. Else there would be no point in working fulltime.

Steve,

your math is all nice and well, but I say there is no business job in the world that justifies somebody earns 2000 times as much as his workers in the storehouse that also work full time. I also doubt that these overpayed supermen deliver a stressload and workload and workload that is 2000 times above that of a single worker.

Also, highranking CEOs usually are not held responsible if they exploit their position to maximise their profits, if they mess up and bring havoc over their company, if they fail. They do not have to compensate the losses they have caused, and they are not held responsible with their private money. This is hilarious! Every toilet cleaner gets ounsihed wose for incredibly minor failings! We have had many court cases thgat made it to the headlines over the past 12 months. Those at the top can keep all the money, and eventually even get payed more money if they agree to let their contract rest and do NOT work. What a lovely way to get punished for failure! What must I do to get punished like that? Many economy insiders and analysts will confirm that this is a huge problem, it leads to many managers working without having any link and personal interest in the company and it's business branch they work for, they just want to rip it off, and then move on to the next.

early this week I read a report that says that even within almost all of the banks that have messed up completely and took taxpayer's bailout money, the mean income of top bankers whose greed already made us all bleed - in the past 5 years raised by 400% in mean. At the same time their banks were struggling, where firing staff, costed the taxpayer hundreds of billions, caused millions of people being pushed into an existential abyss - becasue of decisions and policies made by those irresponsible gangster at the top.

what you also completely seem to ignore is that within a business, men tend to form what in german is called "Seilschaften", cliques of people knowing each other, supoorting and protecting each other, not hurting each other (dog don't eat dog), and conpirate to maximise their incomes mutually. This is possible becasue there is so much lack of transparency and independant monitoring, and becasue of a very interwoven network of mutual relations and interests. You make decisions that allows the additonal million for this guy, and he makes that decision that allows you your own additional million. It is not only banks. You see it in every major economy branch. Sometimes the profit interest of the whole company - for the benfit of those at it's top - gets mutually pushed like this, then you are dealing with cartels that prevent market regulation of prices. Oil, and energy suppliers as well as coffee importers and pharmaceutical companies are known to practice like this in very extreme ways.

I said it before and I say it again, true capitalism is not interested in free open markets, but in establishing monopolies and cartels. It is not interested in leaving consumers the choice, but in preventing them to have a choice. It wants no competition, but seeks to prevent competition. It wants to dictate the prices, and where it is given the chance and freedom to do so, it does. Gasoline is the most obvious - but by far not the only - example.

[AVGWarhawk]

Also, highranking CEOs usually are not held responsible if they exploit their position to maximise their profits, if they mess up and bring havor over their company, if they fail. They do not have to compensate the losses they have caused, and they are not held responsible with their private money.


Are you sure? Enron Execs?

[Skybird]

Exceptions from the rule, like Madoff. But the vast majority of failing offenders at the top get away with it - and keep all the gold and take it with them. That's what makes getting away with it the rule, and Madoff and Enron the exceptions.

[tater]

A free market is the only "natural" economy for any population larger than an extended family group (small tribe?).

"Black Markets" are 100% unfettered, market economies, and they crop up whenever any population reaches some critical mass, and/or when they are prevented from engaging in free markets by force (governments).

Anything that is made illegal by law exists as a free-market commodity. Guns, drugs, whatever.

"Fair wage" laws are BS. It's arbitrary. What you claim is required to raise a family is arbitrary. Look at housing in the US (we all did with the bubble, didn;t we). Americans live in bigger houses than they did when I was a kid. People seem to have nicer cars, too. Expectations are higher. My family growing up was well off. We lived in an expensive town in Connecticut near NY. My dad was a very high-level executive in the publishing industry. Our house was big—big enough—but guess what, my house now is bigger. We had pretty normal cars growing up. My family now has expensive euro-cars. My family as a kid took vacations that were either sort of low-key (driving trips, motels, etc), or rarely flew places. My kids have never stayed in a hotel without a concierge and turn down service, LOL.

My family may not be entirely typical, but guess what, average square footage of houses is absolutely way up. My dad's house as president of a major publishing company in the 70s and 80s was no bigger than the standard decent neighborhood tract home here in ABQ now—and unlike new homes never had central AC, granite counters, or all kind of other cool perks.

So again, what is the standard for "fair?" Living a frugal lifestyle of someone in the 1970s? Should a "fair wage" allow you to have broadband? Cable TV? heck, TV at all?

Bottom line is people are worth exactly what they are paid in a free market, no more. If you want to make 60 grand a year instead of 30 grand, get another 30k job and work nights—as I said, most people I know that make good wages work well over 60 hours a week, and many might only work 60 now, but did their time working 80+ hours for years (I did for around 10 years).

[Sailor Steve]

We can do that. At that opportunity we could ask them if they earn enough money so that they could afford to buy in a more expensive supermarket instead of a discounter.
I've applied for work at all the supermarkets in town. They all pay about the same.

The minimum criterion for a fair wage is that is somebody works fulltime a week in a given job, he needs to be able to make a living by his income that funds his family, pays for raising and educatijng his children, and secure his life's evening when he has become old and does not work anymore.
As pointed out by others, those wages are expected to be earned by young people just starting out, or by older folks like myself, whose families are grown and gone. Someone with a family of four should already be in a position to demand and recieve more. Walmart assistant managers make more than the rank-and-file, and managers make more still. Walmart also has a policy of promoting from within, so most of the higher-ups started at the bottom.

Steve,

your math is all nice and well, but I say there is no business job in the world that justifies somebody earns 2000 times as much as his workers in the storehouse that work full time. I also doubt that these overpayed supermen dleiver a stressooad and workload and worktime that is 2000 times above that of a single worker.
Does he bring in 2000 times as much revenue as the single worker? Even if he doesn't, my point was that that is a decision to be made by the people who pay him. If they think he is worth it, it's not my place, or yours, to say what is right or wrong. My effort was merely to point out that even if we could force him to take less, it's not going to affect everyone else in the least.

Also, highranking CEOs usually are not held responsible if they exploit their position to maximise their profits, if they mess up and bring havor over their company, if they fail. They do not have to compensate the losses they have caused, and they are not held responsible with their private money.. This is hilarious. they can keep all the money, and eventually even get poaye dmore moeny that they agree to let their contrast rest. What a lovely way to get punished for failure! what must I do to get punished ike that? Many economy insiders and analysts will confirm that this is a zhuge problem,. it leads to many managers working without having any link and personal interest in the company and it's business they work for, they just want to rip it off, and then move on to the next.
Also true, but again if the Board Of Directors don't like it they can replace him. And if they are all ripping off the company then it will fail, and the situation will be investigated, as happened with Enron. In the mean time, it's still not my job to force them to be the way I want them to be.

early this week I read a report that says that even within almost all of the banks that have messed up completely and took taxpayer's bailout money, the mean income on top bankers whose greed already made us all bleed - in the past 5 years raised by 400% in mean. At the same time there banks were struggling, where firing staff, costed the txpayer hundreds of billions, caused millions of people being pushed into an existential abyss.
And that's why I was against the bailout.

wjhat you also completely seem to ignore is tht within a business, men tend to form what in germany is called "Seilschaften", cliques of people knwoiugn each other, not hurting each other (dog don't eat dog), and conpirate to maximise their incomes mutually. This is possible becasue there is so much lack of transparency, and a very intervown netwoprk of mutual relations and interests. You make deicisons that will the additonal million for this guy, and he makes that decision that wills you your own additional million. It is not only banks. You see it in every major economy branch. Sometimes the profit interest of the whole company - for the benfit of those at it's top - gets mutually pushedlike this, then you are dealing with cartels that prevent market regulation of price. Oil, and energy suppliers as well as coffee importers and pharmaceutical companies are known to practice like this in very extreme ways.
And you want to use the government to regulate this. The problem there is that the same thing goes on in the government. Who watches the watchmen? Elected officials have ever-growing staffs, while they do ever less actual work. They get taken to expensive dinners by lobbyists, have taxpayer-provided jets take them on taxpayer-provided vacations. But you want these jerks to 'fix' the evil corporations, and if they don't, complain that they are bought and sold by private interests.

Again, someplace like Walmart is a private concern, and they pay well for people who will maximize profits for the company. And they give a lot of the excess to charities. And provide education programs for employees so they can better themselves within the organization. And you want to put them out of business? Then we can have 2.1 million more people looking for work. And on the government dole. And not paying taxes to support the ever-growing government dole.

I said it before and I say it again, true capitalism is not interted in free open markets, but in establishing monopolies and cartels. It is not interested in leavong consumers the choice, but in preventing them to have a choice. It wants no competition, but seeks to prevent competition. It wants to dictate the prices,a dn where it is given the chance and freedom to do so, it does. Gasoline is the most obvious - but by far not the only - example.
True capitalism is concerned with making money. Yes, we do need enough regulation to keep monopolies from forming, and enough power to break them up. Walmart has competition, and if the government regulators think they have a monopoly they'll look into it.

If you feel so strongly about this, why aren't you a prominent crusader and in the government, instead of posting on a small website in the middle of nowhere?

[Skybird]

I always thought it to be a good idea to have some kind of a legally fixed relation between the lowest income of a worker at the top, and the most senior and responsible leader at the top of a company. Let there be a span of - just as an example - a factor of 25. the man on top earns 20 times as much, at maximum! - than the man at the bottom. All other jobs in that company gets scaled according to how much qualification you need, how much responsibility you have to take, how exgausting and time-intensive and how ridden with certain stress factors the job in question is. that means the worker at the bottom of the hierarchy gets let'S say 3000, and the man at the top gets 60000. . If the work of the worker is worth only 1000 for that company, the boss also gets scaled down and still gets 20000.

Something like that, with the relation between the upper and lower limit being legally binding.

what the company has left in profits after paying out it's staff, is money free for modernisation, education, insurrances, expansion. but more improtant than this fixiated insane idea of endless expansion and endless growth is to manage the core business of the company that way that the customers are satisfied and stay with it, and the jobs are safe and are fair, and keeping away foreign desinterested investors who do not know the busines and are not interested in it, only are interested in making quick money. If this balance would be acchieved, what else could there be to wish for? This is the most dominant priority for any responsible management there could be - not this megalomaniac craving for more and more profits for those at the top.

Say, in how many palaces can walk around at the same time? How many private jets are the one jet too much? how many Ferraris can you drive simultaneously?

[ReallyDedPoet]

Bottom line is people are worth exactly what they are paid in a free market, no more. If you want to make 60 grand a year instead of 30 grand, get another 30k job and work nights—as I said, most people I know that make good wages work well over 60 hours a week, and many might only work 60 now, but did their time working 80+ hours for years (I did for around 10 years).

Or get a job that pays you 60 grand and work the same amount of hours.
Be it through getting additional education\certification.

When I was younger I worked a job 80 + hours a week. In the short term it was ok, but long term no thanks.

[Skybird]

A free market is the only "natural" economy for any population larger than an extended family group (small tribe?).


I see it excactly the opposite way, as I have repeatedly pointed out in discussions with Lance. a capitalistic market theory and a truly democratic democracy can only work as intended within relativel small community sizes. The bigger the community, the more complex it becomes, the more "unüberschaubar" (unmanagable, uncheckable, nonfunctional) it becomes, and the more corruption pushes back the original intention behodn the idea. Beyond a critical community size democracy gets turned into right it's own opposite, and free capitalistic market becomes an unfree market driven by monopolies and cartels.

the community must be of that size that every member can fully overwatch it'S expanse and thus witnesses and is aware of any chnage there is taking place, so that no individual can escape accepting responsibility for his/her own deeds and actions, because it is eveident for everybody in how far these actions have effected the community's assets for ther worse or the better.

and that means we talk or relatively small communities. small towns a best.rural places where farmers and family know each other and have personal contact to each other. We talk of small idylls, a fairy-tale world that is unrealistic nowadays. And that'S why I reject the classic anglosaxon economy theory. In a way it describes an utopia, like communism does.

the corruption and degeneration of western democracies and economies for me is directly linked to gian society constructions we have formed. And that leads me to thinking that a truly dmeoicratic global society and globalised economy driven by free market ideas and constuctive capitalistic ideas, is an illusion that is impossible to work. The scaling simply is FUBAR.

[Sailor Steve]

I always thought it to be a good idea to have some kind of a legally fixed relation between the lowest income of a worker at the top, and the most senior and responsible leader at the top of a company. Let there be a span of - just as an example - a factor of 25. the man on top earns 20 times as much, at maximum!...

...If this balance would be acchieved, what else could there be to wish for? This is the most dominant priority for any responsible management there could be - not this megalomaniac craving for more and more profits for those at the top.
And how exactly to you propose to enforce this?

Say, in how many palaces can walk around at the same time? How many private jets are the one jet too much? how many Ferraris can you drive simultaneously?
How many big brothers does it take to make that decision?

I see it excactly the opposite way, as I have repeatedly pointed out in discussions with Lance. a capitalistic market theory and a truly democratic democracy can only work as intended within relativel small community sizes. The bigger the community, the more complex it becomes, the more "unüberschaubar" (unmanagable, uncheckable, nonfunctional) it becomes, and the more corruption pushes back the original intention behodn the idea. Beyond a critical community size democracy gets turned into right it's own opposite, and free capitalistic market becomes an unfree market driven by monopolies and cartels.
But that is also true of governments.

the corruption and degeneration of western democracies and economies for me is directly linked to gian society constructions we have formed. And that leads me to thinking that a truly dmeoicratic global society and globalised economy driven by free market ideas and constuctive capitalistic ideas, is an illusion that is impossible to work. The scaling simply is FUBAR.
Again, that is true of every facet of society, not just the economy. How do you propose to change it?

[ReallyDedPoet]

If you feel so strongly about this, why aren't you a prominent crusader and in the government, instead of posting on a small website in the middle of nowhere?

No defending SB but there are plenty of SUBSIM Bloggers here :yep::doh::doh:
It's called General Topics :)

I know you just turned 60 SS, but you're slipping.....

j\k

[Sailor Steve]

No defending SB but there are plenty of SUBSIM Bloggers here.
I know, but I don't think posting here is going to change the world.
It's called General Topics.
Sometimes with a General Attitude.:rock:

I know you just turned 60 SS, but you're slipping...
No, I've always been this way. "Getting Old" is a great excuse for not being able to do the things you couldn't do anyway.:D

[ReallyDedPoet]

I know, but I don't think posting here is going to change the world.


I don't disagree. That is why for the most part I avoid it :yep::DL

No, I've always been this way. "Getting Old" is a great excuse for not being able to do the things you couldn't do anyway.:D:rotfl2:
And we'll all be there someday.

[tater]

Skybird, you can see it that way, but black markets crop up in virtually every human situation naturally. You can have a free market with no threat of violence—you cannot have regulation/socialization without the threat of force, period.

What examples are there of nation-states that have 100% voluntary "regulation" and control of the economy?

I missed you post suggesting forced wage caps at 25X lowest income. What an awful word to live in that would be. No incentive to do more than laze around. That sort of law would be well past my "to arms!" tripwire.

[tater]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304198004575172271682347064.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

What walmart is really lacking, as I said well above, is quality customers. The problem with being cheap is that visiting the store is like visiting an urban bus station.

[Skybird]

I missed you post suggesting forced wage caps at 25X lowest income. What an awful word to live in that would be. No incentive to do more than laze around. That sort of law would be well past my "to arms!" tripwire.

Incentive...? Is a freaking several tens of thousands of dollars not enough for doing an office job? You guys seem to think that if a company makes millions in income due to a director having made a certain decision, that at least parts of that profit his is personal property. It is not! The man makes decisions, that is his job, his damn duty, that'S what he already is being payed for - you can be polite and say "thanks" - but already that thanks is not mandatory, for he just fulfills his damn duty for which he additionally already gets payed...!

One million income per month - no sports, no show act, no movie, no business is worth it as long as you do not save the planet and bring peace to mankind or find a cure for a lethal epidemic.

Incentive is all nice and well - but they can be in relation to what is being done in workload and success - or can be totally disconnected from any such realities. And the latter all too often is the case.

If you think the top manager achieving orders by customers that secure a million-.heavy profit for the company earns that manager one of these isnanely high incomes - then figiure what that decision, that catching of custimer orders would be worth if the worker and staff refuse to process the order. Woithiut the lower ranking workforce, the top staff would acchieve NOTHINg. You do not only need a clever factory manager, you also need the workers running the factory. Both are mutually deopending on each other, and this shoudl be reflected in a fairer, more reasonable relation between his and their income. but if workers get fired and their wages cut and their income even more reduced by ifnlation some bastard bankers have pushed by causing a mess the taxpayers have to fix, while the top class of leading managers quadruple their incomes within five years and sign themselves in for additional bonus payments while they already go home every onths with hudnreds of thosuands and even millions, then this system may be called capitalistic or not, but it remains what it is: sick, unjust, undeserved, and in disregard for a realistic perspecrtive on things.

The strong eats the weak - that is all there is to this model.

You either accept that, or you decide to speak out against that. Both possible actions and replies tell something about your own personal morality.

[Onkel Neal]

We can do that. At that opportunity we could ask them if they earn enough money so that they could afford to buy in a more expensive supermarket instead of a discounter.

There is a reason why cheap discounters are booming. ;) At the same time these discounters can only be cheaper, because they offer less service and pay their employees worse. Which leaves you with employed but exploited consumers having less money - and thus many cannot afford to buy in more expensive supermarkets - where the workers get payed fairer wages.




Fair enough, Sky. I think people who earn enough money to buy clothes at Macy's and tools at Sears already make the decision where to spend their money. We could ask middle-income people to avoid Wal-mart, but the choice is still theirs and a lot of them prefer to stretch their dollar at WM. Besides, if more people avoided WM, that would not induce the company to pay their employees more, I don't think.

However, there are many other reasons discounters like WM can offer lower prices. You know they put a lot of thought and effort into making their supply chain very efficient. They have some really outstanding management practices, that save them costs. Wal-Mart is a very smart company.


The minimum criterion for a fair wage is that if somebody works fulltime a week in a given job, he needs to be able to make a living by his income that funds his family, pays for raising and educating his children, and secure his life's evening when he has become old and does not work anymore. Else there would be no point in working fulltime.


I respectfully disagree, and I am not trying to change your opinion. The minimum criterion for a fair wage is what people will accept. I cannot buy into socially engineered pay structures. You mandate a "fair" pay that covers all those areas, there is less incentive for people to strive. I do not think that will work over the long run. Ask GM.


....you cannot have regulation/socialization without the threat of force, period.



Wow, that is so true.

[tater]

Money is not zero-sum, sorry.

If someone gets paid 1 million a year by the stockholders (otherwise known as "the public") it's because they think that he is worth that money.

Just like it's worth it to Hollywood to pay someone 10 million to make a movie, or 3 million to throw a ball.

An ARBITRARY cap is just that, arbitrary (and stupid).

All of a sudden making 25.00001X lowest wage is immoral (and illegal) while 25.000 is just dandy?

What about all the people that make money selling stuff to people with money?

[Admiral8Q]

Nothing against the Chinese, but I refuse to buy anything "Made in China".

[Sailor Steve]

Incentive...? Is a freaking several tens of thousands of dollars not enough for doing an office job? You guys seem to think that if a company makes millions in income due to a director having made a certain decision, that at least parts of that profit his is personal property. It is not! The man makes decisions, that is his job, his damn duty, that'S what he already is being payed for - you can be polite and say "thanks" - but already that thanks is not mandatory, for he just fulfills his damn duty for which he additionally already gets payed...!
And who makes that decision? You? Me? I think American senators and congressmen (and the president) are vastly overpaid for what is supposed to be a public service. I would have to convince enough congresspeople that it should be changed, since they are the ones with the power to make that change. It is absolutely not going to happen. So how exactly do you propose making top corporate people make what you think they deserve?

One million income per month - no sports, no show act, no movie, no business is worth it as long as you do not save the planet and bring peace to mankind or find a cure for a lethal epidemic.
Again, exactly how do you mean to change that, without removing all freedom from everybody?

[CaptainHaplo]

The minimum criterion for a fair wage is that if somebody works fulltime a week in a given job, he needs to be able to make a living by his income that funds his family, pays for raising and educating his children, and secure his life's evening when he has become old and does not work anymore. Else there would be no point in working fulltime.

Please sir - put down the crack and step slowly away from the pipe.....

Skybird - how much does an education cost? Assuming your talking about JUST "primary" education - aka small children through high school - how much is that cost PER child? Using the "family of four" standard that has been bandied about - and using my own state's average cost per child (which was $8023.38 for FY2006) - and its fair to note that my state ranks fairly low in their per child spending - this just added $16k to the cost of that one employee... Now of course - to feed a family of 4 - which I have btw - our weekly grocery bill is between $150 - 200. We will use the $150 - multiply that by 52 weeks a year.... That is a grocery bill of $7,800 dollars a year just to feed everyone. Now we have a house payment and car payment - we will make it easy (as well as way too cheap just to prove the point) and include all the insurance and licensing costs with that - $1000 for the house and $300 for the car. So thats $15,600 for those. So right now we are at 16k + $7,800 + 15,600..... That equals $39,400.00

Now - Utilities (electricity, gas, oil, etc) - lets be gentle and make that $150 a month. Fuel for the vehicle - again using my own family experience that is about $200 bucks a month (I drive to work and back - thats it). So that adds another $4200 - and we haven't touched the costs of stuff like property taxes, or the cost of the health insurance, much less your "secure his life's evening when he has become old and does not work anymore." ideal.

So at this point - we have a total cost of JUST $43,600 not counting your very happy worker's contribution to his 401(k) - which lets say he decides to do a 3% contribution (which is also rather low) so thats an additional $1300.

Your ideal world will pay this employee more than $44,900 dollars a year (since I already noted there were other costs I haven't counted) - for putting boxes and cans on shelves, or running a cash register 40 hours a week.

But this STILL isn't the total cost - because it neglects payroll taxes ($2,783 for SS, $651 for medicare taxes, amounts for FUTA and SUTA will vary) , the company match to the 401(k) ($1300), health insurance costs paid by the employer, etc etc...

Just in taxes and the retirement push the cost of that employee well over $50,000 dollars a year. The health insurance is a substantial cost that will be specific to each employer - so I can't give numbers there.

$50,000 - Figure 260 paid work days a year (2 weeks vacation/sick time - total 250 days worked) - you have a person costing $200 a day - for 8 hours. That breaks down to a "realistic minimum fair" COST to be $25 dollars an hour for a stockboy putting cans on a shelf to that company.

Whats funny - is we didn't even count ALOT of additional costs for the family - so the real final numbers would be alot highter. So I challenge you Skybird - find ANY economic system - free market or fully socialized - that can sustain that level of burden long term without massive inflation (rising costs of good). There isn't one. Its not a perfect system we have - but your "utopian" one is doomed to catastrophic failure whereas a capitalist one is not.

[Ducimus]

You know what, i don't give a rats ass about all this lofty BS pro suspender man wallstreet job robbing talk.

Here's what i know and what i see.

Manufacturing jobs have been, are, or are going. Being outsourced , or "offshored" or "3rd partied" to places like China. IT jobs along with them from where im sitting. My own job is liable to be "3rd partied" before too long.

My father's workplace is a great example of SKILLED CRAFTSMAN being replaced by cheap specialized labor all so boardmembers and executives can have HUGE f*cking salaries and bonuses. Let me rephriase that. Americans are losing their livelyhoods so this upper 1% can get paid more.

Over the years, I've see cost of living increasing, jobs decreasing, no raises and stagnant income, all the while executives see increased salary and bonuses. I see more and more people sharing apartments because they can't afford to rent their own apartment, let alone buy a god damn house.

Written language does not adequately describe my disgust for this. Sure, go walmart, go ahead and put Americans out of good jobs while your exeuctives clean house. Yeah.. aren't we so lucky to have them, and their pro company men to explain to us. Brav -- Oh!

[tater]

I guess I don't understand what the alternative is.

As long as buying products from China is legal, someone will fill the role of walmart. Punitive tariffs are not possible given the PRC's t-bill holdings, it's a trade war we'd lose.

You can chose not to shop walmart, but you also need to not buy anything from China—which is virtually impossible as I try not to, myself.

So I really can't fault walmart, if it wasn't them it would certainly be someone else. The fault is farther back with the idea of "engagement" with commies. Of course had we not engaged China, the conversation might be about India, instead.

<shrug>

[UnderseaLcpl]

You know what, i don't give a rats ass about all this lofty BS pro suspender man wallstreet job robbing talk.
There are a lot of people who have felt the same way throughout history. Their jobs are all gone now. Back in the day, it was the peasants and sharecroppers and later the mill-workers and who were getting all bent out of shape about mechanization stealing their jobs.

As it turns out, all their whining didn't change a thing, and thank God it didn't. Labor-intensive agriculture was eventually streamlined, making food cheaper and more readily available. The mill staff got smaller and smaller, and the textile industry has pretty much ceased to exist in the US, though the battered remains of their once-mighty lobby of dinosaurs still manage to extract tariff and subsidy concessions from Washington when they run sob-story ads about the mill closing in some bass-ackwards town.

Now we get most of our clothing from CAFTA countries, China, Indonesia, India, and Taiwan; places that actually appreciate textile jobs and can use them as a way to climb out of poverty in the same way western nations once did. The US remains a leader in agriculture, but now machines do most of the work, and it's the agriculture conglomerates like Archer-Daniels Midland, Conagra, and Monsanto that control the industry and give us affordable and plentiful food.

Is the country worse off for that? No, not even close. There are a lot more jobs now then there were when the heel-draggers first started protesting industrialization and mechanization and the jobs pay a lot better.
Here's what i know and what i see.


Manufacturing jobs have been, are, or are going. Being outsourced , or "offshored" or "3rd partied" to places like China. IT jobs along with them from where im sitting. My own job is liable to be "3rd partied" before too long.

That may be what you see, but it's what you and others with similar opinions don't see that will cost you your job. Manufacturing jobs have been lost in the millions in the US because the firms became complacent. The US auto industry is a great example. After ww2, the US was the premier auto manufacturer in the world. It was already heavily unionized, and the industry was primarily concerned with making cars bigger, faster, more stylish, and more luxurious. The industry was rich and the workers did well.....for a while.

What US automakers failed to realize was that the world does not stop turning just because they're on top. While they stuck to their business modeland kept churning out battleships on wheels, the rest of the auto world was quietly innovating. We all know what happened after that, of course. Once the gas crisis manifested itself in the late 70's and fuel prices rose, the industry tanked because it didn't change quickly enough. Foreign automakers gained tremendous market share over the subsequent few decades, and still maintain control over large amounts of it. When you snooze, you lose.


My father's workplace is a great example of SKILLED CRAFTSMAN being replaced by cheap specialized labor all so boardmembers and executives can have HUGE f*cking salaries and bonuses. Let me rephriase that. Americans are losing their livelyhoods so this upper 1% can get paid more.

And that's as far down the road as you can see? It's true that there are "corporate raiders" who sit on some boards and sell off assets or downsize solely for the purpose of enhancing their bonuses, but the companies they lead don't last for long unless idiotic and/or unethical policymakers bail them out. Case-in-point, American Airlines. That company should have been dufunct years ago, but the government has saved it on several occassions, the most recent being the $15 billion bailout after 9/11.

The rationale behind this was the too-big-to-fail argument coupled with an emphatic argument that the airline's insolubility was not its own fault. The complete opposite was true. American was a lumbering, unionized, failure that should have gone out of business and been replaced by an efficient airline where former employees could have attained jobs. Instead, we're still stuck with AA and the board members are still a bunch of counterproductive a-holes. Most recently, there was a dispute between labor and management when the company returned to profitability but voluntarily lowered union wages were not increased, though the board got huge bonuses. Capitalism and progress didn't do that, the government is what made it possible.

Your father may be a skilled craftsman, but if his industry can't compete, or a machine can do his job, or no one wants to buy the things he crafts, there is no point in keeping his job around. It would be like paying to keep boilermakers around after we quit using steam engines; just economic dead-weight.

I don't know what your father's situation is, or yours for that matter, but you should also consider that whatever firms employ you, unless they're just closing entirely, may actually be preserving jobs by outsourcing yours. If the firm can remain competitive, it can remain in business, and at least some people won't lose their jobs. The ones who will get your job need it more than you do, anyway, because they're poorer and they don't live in a rich country.

Of course, if you really don't give a crap about the guy in India whose malaria-ridden family is starving in a crowded hovel with sewage for a front lawn, there is a way to end this recession and bring good jobs back to the US and create newer, better ones in very short order. All we have to do is cut corporate taxes to 0%, disband some expensive regulatory frameworks, sclae back anti-business legislation, and remove tariffs. Lots of outmoded and uncompetitive industries would die immediately, but the move would create a lot of jobs as firms from other nations flocked to the US and new businesses sprang up. It would be like Switzerland or Hong Kong, but on a world-dominating scale. To put it another way, who cares if the factory is in China if the company owns China?

Over the years, I've see cost of living increasing, jobs decreasing, no raises and stagnant income, all the while executives see increased salary and bonuses. I see more and more people sharing apartments because they can't afford to rent their own apartment, let alone buy a god damn house.
Can't really argue with that, but I think you're misidentifying the causes of it. When Wal-Mart or whoever runs a successful business, it does not make the standard of living decrease. It's easy to see how one could think that just by looking at a Wal-Mart greeter working for $8.00 an hour, but what you don't see is the 75-yr old guy sitting at home and going bankrupt with no way out because he planned poorly for retirement and has no job and no way out because there is no job. You don't see the 16-yr old kid not bagging groceries to save money for a car because he has no skills worth more than 8 bucks an hour. Wal-Mart creates employment for the otherwise unemployable, and creates services for the consumer of little means. Their motto, "Save Money. Live Better", is actually true.

By contrast, when the government taxes people, and when it agrees with heel-draggers who whine about their jobs being lost and steals money from others to keep them unproductively employed, the economic pie really does get smaller. The income does allow them to buy things and particiapte in the economy to a degree, but overall they create a net loss. That's why the government is so heavily in debt, and why companies get so spendthrift; they have to keep pace with the costs of doing business.


Written language does not adequately describe my disgust for this. Sure, go walmart, go ahead and put Americans out of good jobs while your exeuctives clean house. Yeah.. aren't we so F*cking lucky to have them, and their pro company men to explain to us. Brav F'ing Oh!

Wal-Mart execs, like most execs, get payed the big bucks because they do big things. The arguments have already been made that their salaries are a drop in the bucket, comparitively speaking, and I mentioned corporate raiders, but I'd also like to mention "caring capitalism" and CEO bonuses. Ben and Jerry's ice cream company tried limiting CEO income on the grounds that they could not justify the wealth disparity between execs and line workers. They limited the salary to five times the wage of the lowest paid workers. They got exactly what they paid for; the absolute worst execs caring capitalism could buy, and ended up paying a CEO 14 times what the lowest-paid worker earned. He wasn't good enough either, so they ended up paying another CEO even more and then they sold the company.

I understand how frustrating it can be to live in a world where your livleyhood can vanish in an instant; whisked away to some foreign shore because you were too expensive while the big-wigs make obscene salaries. It seems wrong on the face of it, but that's the way forward. You can choose to hang on to your lousy, endangered job and cost everyone else or start playing the same game that the execs do and think ahead. Innovate. Make sound, long-term investments in commodities or education. Discover the miracle of compound interest. Make your income count.

Admittedly, the state is making that harder and harder to do with the increase in capital gains tax, inflation, and taxes, taxes, taxes, in general, but there are still a lot of opportunities out there if you work hard and plan wisely.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

You know what, i don't give a rats ass about all this lofty BS pro suspender man wallstreet job robbing talk.

Here's what i know and what i see.

Manufacturing jobs have been, are, or are going. Being outsourced , or "offshored" or "3rd partied" to places like China. IT jobs along with them from where im sitting. My own job is liable to be "3rd partied" before too long.

My father's workplace is a great example of SKILLED CRAFTSMAN being replaced by cheap specialized labor all so boardmembers and executives can have HUGE f*cking salaries and bonuses. Let me rephriase that. Americans are losing their livelyhoods so this upper 1% can get paid more.

Over the years, I've see cost of living increasing, jobs decreasing, no raises and stagnant income, all the while executives see increased salary and bonuses. I see more and more people sharing apartments because they can't afford to rent their own apartment, let alone buy a god damn house.

Written language does not adequately describe my disgust for this. Sure, go walmart, go ahead and put Americans out of good jobs while your exeuctives clean house. Yeah.. aren't we so lucky to have them, and their pro company men to explain to us. Brav -- Oh!

The cute thing is so many people seem to WANT to be serfs serving a tiny, predatory elite. Licking the hands that beat and kill them. And that tiny, predatory minority has hired guns who's only job is to warp reality and make servitude sound reasonable. And OF COURSE these people want government small, or non-existent. Bullies don't like it when there is no teacher monitoring the schoolyard, either.

[SteamWake]

Hrm... I havent seen anyone mention one of the main reasons that Wal Mart is so hated...

Any guesses out there?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Hrm... I havent seen anyone mention one of the main reasons that Wal Mart is so hated...

Any guesses out there?

Competitors.

[Sailor Steve]

The cute thing is so many people seem to WANT to be serfs serving a tiny, predatory elite. Licking the hands that beat and kill them. And that tiny, predatory minority has hired guns who's only job is to warp reality and make servitude sound reasonable. And OF COURSE these people want government small, or non-existent. Bullies don't like it when there is no teacher monitoring the schoolyard, either.
I've always been bothered by people who 'know' they're right. You don't discuss, you preach. You don't argue, you condemn. Anyone who disagrees with you obviously likes being wrong, or being stupid, or being a slave.

Of course we love being slaves to the evil corporations, but the salvation you have in mind for us lies in the wonderful, friendly, loving government? Some of us actually see the people in the government as worse monsters than your hated CEOs. Can you show me that I'm wrong about that?

Has it ever occured to you that you might be wrong? Is it possible to have a discussion, or does it have to be a shouting match? Or a put-down match?

[tater]

Men that don't want to be serfs don't act like children.

You know what, even children don't need adults messing with most of their playground interactions. Asking a grown up to fix it for them means they never learn how to fix it themselves.

I read a great article by Jonah Goldberg. He said in effect that his kids had it great. They had loads of free time, everything they could possibly want, nice vacations, etc. He said he'd stop working and live their lifestyle—but he can't, because someone has to be the grown up.

[UnderseaLcpl]

On that note, I can't remember the last time Wal-Mart's "predatory elite" ever forced me to serve them. If I don't like Wal-Mart, I can go shop at Kroger, or Albertson's, or about ten thousand other retailers. I can go to work for 22 million other US companies.

The only elite that has ever preyed on me can come to my house and take away my rights and property and force me into improsonment or kill me if I don't surrender a significant portion of my wealth and my will to whatever cause they deem is best. They can send me to fight and die for them for a cause I don't believe in by giving me a draft number. They can make decisions that affect hundreds of millions, and sometimes billions of people around the globe negatively, and they are almost never held accountable for their mistakes.

[SteamWake]

Competitors.

Nope... I waited a full day and no one got it.

Wal Mart is anti Union.

[Task Force]

Holy hell, Didnt even know my region of the country had that many walmarts.

Hmm, I say we lynch Arkansas, It all started there.:rotfl2:

[Méo]

but what do you suggest is the solution? Govt mandated business?

We got few of these ''Govt mandated business'' and it works well (of course it's not perfect).

I can assure you that if you had choice between a job in a Wal-Mart and a job in one of our ''Govt mandated business'' you wouldn't hesitate long. ;)

[tater]

We got few of these ''Govt mandated business'' and it works well (of course it's not perfect).

I can assure you that if you had choice between a job in a Wal-Mart and a job in one of our ''Govt mandated business'' you wouldn't hesitate long. ;)

Government employees in the US earn considerably more than someone in the private sector—and they work less even though the job description is the same (anyone who has seen 3 government workers supervising 2 more on break knows what I mean).

Having the taxpayers subsidize lazy employees is great for the employees, I have no doubt.

Again, to my post above, what is the alternative? Government mandated salaries is totalitarian, frankly. If trade with a country like China is legal, someone will sell their chit cheaply. Tariffs? Unlikely given that a trade war with our major creditor is a bad idea.

Grass roots? Maybe. If you don't like walmart, don't shop there. Write them letters saying you want their employees to make 2X what they make now, and you're willing to pay 2x as much so they will.

Here's an idea. Shop exclusively at walmart, and TIP ANYONE WHO HELPS YOU. Substantially!

The same applies to those that think we're not taxed enough, send Uncle Sam some extra money, he could use it!

[Méo]

Government employees in the US earn considerably more than someone in the private sector

Maybe in the US, but not where I live.

and you're willing to pay 2x as much so they will.

It's only a prejudice, as an example, our electricity is much cheaper than yours.

Having the taxpayers subsidize lazy employees is great for the employees

Again, only a prejudice.

----

Btw, I didn't say that the private sector shouldn't exist, I was talking about Wal-mart.

[tater]

Huh? It's a fact. Government workers are less productive, but make more money. Every few years a TV news reporter will follow city employees in an unmarked car and film them. They hit a drive-through, drive to the middle of no place and hang out talking on the phone, etc. And on average they do get paid more. A recent study just confirmed this (again). It's not vastly more, but enough to make a real difference.

Where is the prejudice in sending a letter to walmart saying you'll not shop there until they do X, Y, and Z where perhaps one condition is that they pay low-end workers 2X more? Maybe I'm just being clueless.

I can sort of see the prejudice in me saying that lazy, government (redundant, sorry) employees getting paid more is good for the employees. The prejudice being that they are lazy. Of course, I know many people who have worked for the State here, and they all told me everyone was lazy. I used to do a lot of work with and for a museum here professionally. I was friends with a few guys that really wanted to improve the museum. They worked quite hard. They were constantly beating up against the wall of the bulk of their coworkers slowing them down. Why finish a project when you can do white paper after white paper to decide what to do? Or taking it to the next step and spending years testing out an idea, spending as much as the project would actually take to complete if they just did it? My prejudice is based on experience.

[Sailor Steve]

Where is the prejudice in sending a letter to walmart saying you'll not shop there until they do X, Y, and Z where perhaps one condition is that they pay low-end workers 2X more? Maybe I'm just being clueless.
No prejudice at all. In fact, for people who feel that way it's a good thing to do. But it's easier to rant and about the 'evil' of it all, and more fun to tell people what losers they are for feeling differently.

[tater]

And again, if you feel they should be charging $20 for something instead of $15, and that the employees should make more, buy it for $15, then give $5 to some random employee as a tip.

[Méo]

But it's easier to rant and about the 'evil' of it all, and more fun to tell people what losers they are for feeling differently.

I have no idea if it was aimed at me, but I never said anything about 'evil' or ''tell people what losers they are''.

In fact, I even go there sometimes (rarely) but each time I do, I hate every step I take, everything is so ugly.

And again, if you feel they should be charging $20 for something instead of $15, and that the employees should make more, buy it for $15, then give $5 to some random employee as a tip.

Why should I do it?

I already said it but my electricity bill is much cheaper than my cousin's bill who lives in Boston.

----

And for all of those who are afraid of government-owned corporation, look how awful it is:

http://www.hydroquebec.com/en/index.html

http://www.saq.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/GeneralContentView?langId=-1&storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&page=%2fnh%2fHome

http://lotoquebec.com/corporatif/nav/en/home

[CaptainHaplo]

Meo - I cannot speak to Canadian run businesses.

However - I can speak to American run businessess...

The Government has tried repeatedly to run certain "businessess" - in whole or in part - and has run ever single one of them into the red to the point where each must be subsidized by the government to continute to exist.

Not one government controlled and run business in the history of this country has ever been successful in turning a long term profit. I am not talking social programs - I am talking services for dollars. With that said - why in the world would we - as citizens with a different experience historically - ever want to trust our government to further reach into the business sector? History for us shows that such a move is unwise.

And yes - Steamwake has it nailed. The wal-mart hatred actually did not start until it opened up businessess in highly unionized areas of the Northeast. In doing so, the Unions saw a large group of workers they could exploit - uhm... have as members - yet got rebuffed. Once that happened - then the rage against wal-mart started.

But don't get me started on Unions....

[Méo]

The Government has tried repeatedly to run certain "businessess" - in whole or in part - and has run ever single one of them into the red to the point where each must be subsidized by the government to continute to exist.

Not one government controlled and run business in the history of this country has ever been successful in turning a long term profit. I am not talking social programs - I am talking services for dollars. With that said - why in the world would we - as citizens with a different experience historically - ever want to trust our government to further reach into the business sector? History for us shows that such a move is unwise.

I see, it helps to understand.

But don't get me started on Unions....

:haha: Don't worry!!

Even if I'm a teamsters member, sometimes (yes I insist on the sometimes) I find a bit ridiculous what union officials are asking.

Actually, I also find ridiculous how some people can be polarized in their opinions, whether extreme left or extreme right.

[CaptainHaplo]

Meo - first off let me commend you for keeping an open mind. Different experiences = different perspectives. I will say this - if our government could be semi-responsible with some things, I might have a view closer to your own. I totally see why you have your view - its reasonable based on what your government has been able to do.

Now - as to unions - again I suspect that there is a big difference between labor unions in the US and those in Canada. Here, there has been much agitation for "unionization" votes to be non-secret - allowing union representatives to list who was for - and against - the forming of a union chapter at a certain location or business. Given the history of unions in the US - which is one filled with intimidation, physical and employment coercion, etc - opening up employees to being publicly classified as "anti-union" means enabling them to be specifically targetted with such measures.

I have no problem with collective bargaining on its own - its the ways unions do it - often over the objection of their own membership - that I take issue with.

[Méo]

first off let me commend you for keeping an open mind. Different experiences = different perspectives.

Thanks, that's reciprocal. :)


Given the history of unions in the US - which is one filled with intimidation, physical and employment coercion, etc -

Yeah, I've already heard of that, particularly in our construction industry (I don't work in this industry).

But I've never experienced any intimidation, I guess it's a remain of the past when things were much more violent.

[Ducimus]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/312F7AF5RSL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

[Blood_splat]

Paying sweatshop workers pennies and working them 16 hours a day and 7 days a week. Using child labor because it's even cheaper. New age slavery.

[Sailor Steve]

I have no idea if it was aimed at me, but I never said anything about 'evil' or ''tell people what losers they are''.
No, it wasn't.

[Sailor Steve]

Paying sweatshop workers pennies and working them 16 hours a day and 7 days a week. Using child labor because it's even cheaper. New age slavery.
On the other hand, the people who do those jobs would otherwise be working in rice paddies for less than half the 'pennies' they get making that stuff. Or sold into prostitution.

And, as I said before, I hope you don't own a playstation. Or a television. Or a telephone.

[tater]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/312F7AF5RSL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

Any of the chips in that widget you're typing on come from overseas? ;)

I actually try not to buy stuff from the PRC, but it's nearly impossible to avoid.

[Sailor Steve]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/312F7AF5RSL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
I hope your televisions are all Zenith. They are the only TV manufacturer that is still US-owned. Of course the majority of the assembly takes place in Mexico.

And what kind of car do you drive?

Telephone?
http://www.usstuff.com/cellphon.htm

[tater]

BTW, for any of you with younger kids (or grandkids ;) ), a great way to buy toys that don't suck, AND stick it to the chinese is to buy Playmobil toys. They are awesome.

My daughter has a PM dollhouse, a bunch of fairy princess stuff (unicorns, etc), and a pyramid (?!). My son (3.5 YO) has a 2 sailing brigs (I bought enough extra cannon to fill all 8 gunports :D ), a small gunboat, a lighthouse/fort, and a jail with some frenchie napoleonic troops. The 2 kids play together, the fancy Victorian doll house has the captain and princesses, and then Joel has pirates fighting the navy ship (and losing). Great fun. (note that that (discontinued) brig was pitched as a pirate ship, but I bought red coats, and some other crap on ebay so that one is fully crewed in sort-of Royal Navy style.

Yes, it's MY set of toys, too.

But they are NOT made in China (Malta, I believe).

[Blood_splat]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1266643/Microsofts-Chinese-workforce-tired-stay-awake.html :yeah:

[Sailor Steve]

Cute. A photograph showing a group of women cradling their heads on their arms. Are they worn out from work? Are they taking a scheduled break? Are they posing for the picture?

Why isn't there a picture of the boss raking them over the coals for sleeping on the job?

[Tribesman]

The Government has tried repeatedly to run certain "businessess" - in whole or in part - and has run ever single one of them into the red to the point where each must be subsidized by the government to continute to exist.

But the government had to repeatedly take over passenger trains as private business even with massive tax breaks cannot run the business without running into the red.
I suppose the best example of that service for dollars industry going tits up would be across the water in Britain , where the industry now recieves more government money despite charging higher fares than it did when it was government owned....and the government is having to buy back sections of the industry as companies are making bigger losses even with the higher subsidies.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Money is not zero-sum, sorry.

If someone gets paid 1 million a year by the stockholders (otherwise known as "the public") it's because they think that he is worth that money.

Can you ask them what logical basis they have for saying he is worth that money? Have you included the opinions of those who aren't stockholders, or is "the public" limited to the bourgeosie?

All of a sudden making 25.00001X lowest wage is immoral (and illegal) while 25.000 is just dandy?

What about all the people that make money selling stuff to people with money?

It is no more arbitrary than laws saying that the maximum BAL when driving is such and such, or 18 is the minimum age for a wide range of activities.

Laws are at best a crude fit to morality and reality, about drawing lines in analogue sand. It doesn't mean the lines don't have to be drawn, or that the alternative of the law being a crude fit to the interests of the bourgeosie is healthy.

[Blood_splat]

Cute. A photograph showing a group of women cradling their heads on their arms. Are they worn out from work? Are they taking a scheduled break? Are they posing for the picture?

Why isn't there a picture of the boss raking them over the coals for sleeping on the job?

Look I just think they should pay them a little more money then they due. I'm sure it'll change within 200 to 300 hundred years from now.

[Sailor Steve]

But the government had to repeatedly take over passenger trains as private business even with massive tax breaks cannot run the business without running into the red.
I agree that businesses should stand or fall on their own merits. The problem I have with that particular example is that the government also runs them in the red, as they do everything else. The government does very little that actually generates revenue, and their far-and-away major source of income is taxation. And that doesn't give them enough, so they are always borrowing money.

I suppose the best example of that service for dollars industry going tits up would be across the water in Britain , where the industry now recieves more government money despite charging higher fares than it did when it was government owned....and the government is having to buy back sections of the industry as companies are making bigger losses even with the higher subsidies.
But again, the government only gets that money by taking it from the people. I'm not saying that it would work for the water companies to charge exorbitant amounts of money for the water. That would probably lead to even more problems. But neither is funding everything by taking it from the people and then charging them for the service on top of it.

What is the answer? I don't know. There may not be one.

Look I just think they should pay them a little more money then they due.
Why? If that's what they offer and I'm willing to take it, I go for it. If I don't like it, I look for a job somewhere else.

All the fast food places and stores, big and small, are paying about the same right now. I'd love to get work at any of them.

Can you ask them what logical basis they have for saying he is worth that money? Have you included the opinions of those who aren't stockholders, or is "the public" limited to the bourgeosie?

The job, like any other service, is worth exactly what the people paying the money think it is worth. If I start a job and make $7.25 per hour, that is because that's all the people who run things think my work is worth. If I can prove my work is worth $14.50 per hour to them, then they'll pay me that. If I can convince them that my work is worth $7,200,000 per year to them, then they'll pay me that. In all three cases it is a contract between them and me, and what anybody else thinks is irrelevant.

[August]

The job, like any other service, is worth exactly what the people paying the money think it is worth. If I start a job and make $7.25 per hour, that is because that's all the people who run things think my work is worth. If I can prove my work is worth $14.50 per hour to them, then they'll pay me that. If I can convince them that my work is worth $7,200,000 per year to them, then they'll pay me that. In all three cases it is a contract between them and me, and what anybody else thinks is irrelevant.

That's not actually correct Steve. You might be worth $14.50 per hour and the company might fully realize that's what you're worth, but if they can convince you to work for $7.50 then that's what they will do.

[frau kaleun]

That's not actually correct Steve. You might be worth $14.50 per hour and the company might fully realize that's what you're worth, but if they can convince you to work for $7.50 then that's what they will do.

Ditto if they can find someone else who is perfectly willing to do the same job for $7.50/hr even though everybody involved knows it should pay more.

[Sailor Steve]

Good point, but if they find someone who'll take $7.50 for a $14.50 job they run the risk of finding out they got what they paid for.

Which is why companies that offer less for top managers get managers who're worth what they're paid, and the companies go under.

[tater]

Can you ask them what logical basis they have for saying he is worth that money? Have you included the opinions of those who aren't stockholders, or is "the public" limited to the bourgeosie?

He is worth whatever he is paid, by definiton, period. If he is found not to be worth it, he gets replaced. I don't care in the least about the opinions of non-stockholders. Only the owners matter, and they properly only matter in proportion to their stake—as it should be.


It is no more arbitrary than laws saying that the maximum BAL when driving is such and such, or 18 is the minimum age for a wide range of activities.

Laws are at best a crude fit to morality and reality, about drawing lines in analogue sand. It doesn't mean the lines don't have to be drawn, or that the alternative of the law being a crude fit to the interests of the bourgeosie is healthy.

Arbitrary laws are stupid. BTW, it is a common misconception that there is an arbitrary BAI limit. The limit applies to the level at which the police are REQUIRED to charge you. Any level above 0.00 is technically illegal.

[Platapus]

That's not actually correct Steve. You might be worth $14.50 per hour and the company might fully realize that's what you're worth, but if they can convince you to work for $7.50 then that's what they will do.

Ditto if they can find someone else who is perfectly willing to do the same job for $7.50/hr even though everybody involved knows it should pay more.


I believe this is one of the tenets of Capitalism. Getting the most work for the least pay. :)

[August]

I believe this is one of the tenets of Capitalism. Getting the most work for the least pay. :)

Same rules apply with any commodity. Has anyone ever voluntarily paid more than they had to for something?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

He is worth whatever he is paid, by definiton, period. If he is found not to be worth it, he gets replaced. I don't care in the least about the opinions of non-stockholders. Only the owners matter, and they properly only matter in proportion to their stake—as it should be.

Why do you not care about the opinions of non-stockholders? Are they not part of society? You've actually equated the stockholders to the public. And is not allowing the stockholders to decide what he is worth, without having to substantiate their decision in any way, most arbitrary?

Arbitrary laws are stupid. BTW, it is a common misconception that there is an arbitrary BAI limit. The limit applies to the level at which the police are REQUIRED to charge you. Any level above 0.00 is technically illegal.

Interesting, but effectively Almost the same thing IMO.

[Tribesman]

Has anyone ever voluntarily paid more than they had to for something?
Yes, lots of times.
It can be very good business.
As it happens I also often recieve far more in payment than I have asked for.
It can be very good business.