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

[ReallyDedPoet]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

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...fi-briefs20.6]

[SteamWake]

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

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

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

Me too!

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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?

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

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.

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

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. 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. 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.

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.




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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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".

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by reallydedpoet

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]

Originally Posted by August

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 in the U.S. is between 32–40 hours. In France it is a government-mandated 35 hours per week. In Germany it is between 35–40 hours per week, and in Denmark it is 37 hours per week. In Australia it is around 38-40 hours per week, and in the 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, and is entitled to extra per-hour wages (but not salary).

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by reallydedpoet

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.