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

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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.

[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?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by 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!...

...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?

[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).

[ReallyDedPoet]

Originally Posted by tater

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]

Originally Posted by tater

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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?

[ReallyDedPoet]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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
It's called General Topics

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

j\k

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by reallydedpoet

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.

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.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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

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.

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.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by tater

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

Wow, that is so true.