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

[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.

[Platapus]

This is where I put on my capitalist hat.

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

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".

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]

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.

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

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by tater

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

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]

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".

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

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.