|
|
|
|
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/21/2008 2:12:47 PM |
Laissez-faire capitalism is a proven failure. Really? Based on what objective criteria? What system is working better?
Just off the top of my head.
Enron
Motgage crisis
Unnatural recent rise in oil prices
All of these were caused by greedy people allowed to run free without any real government oversite.
And what is better? A mixed economy. Mixed economies work great, because it forces both sides (government and business) to fight for power. The result is both sides share power, with the citizens hopefully getting the benefits of capitalism and socialism.
Most countries, including America, have a mixed economy. | |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/21/2008 3:52:37 PM | 1. In a proper or legal manner: playing fair. -Webster's Dictionary. I couldn't have said it better myself - "PLAYING FAIR."
I am not an econ major, I do not presume to dictate how corporations should be run. In my perfect world, where I am the billionaire CEO, I would sit down with my Board of Directors and hash out a wage ratio that allows income growth throughout the company in a FAIR manner - ie - "in a proper or legal manner."
It sounds like you are just fine with the current poverty state in this country. I am not. Rampant unchecked growth in the human body is called "cancer." Rampant unchecked growth in the marketplace is just as deadly and unstable.
"Pity would be no more
If we did not make somebody poor,
And Mercy no more could be
If all were as happy as we."
-Wm. Blake
And I'm sending MAJOR PROPS out to Super Ryan for his SUPER abilities to cite actual sources and for his insightful and intelligent observations. | |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/21/2008 4:32:14 PM |
Just off the top of my head.
Enron
Motgage crisis
Unnatural recent rise in oil prices
All of these were caused by greedy people allowed to run free without any real government oversite.
I get it.. it's not perfect, so it's broken.
"Unnatural" rise in oil prices? Just what is a "natural" rise in oil prices?
I don't like the price of oil, either. But that's not a reason to expect the government to solve the problem, as if it could in the first place.
What do you think the government should do about the price of oil? Decree that prices should only be so much? great idea - there'd be NO oil! | |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/21/2008 4:37:20 PM |
-Webster's Dictionary. I couldn't have said it better myself - "PLAYING FAIR."
You still have not defined the word fair - at best, you have used it in a sentence.
I asked you how you DEFINE IT. What does the word MEAN? | |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/21/2008 4:50:23 PM |
1. In a proper or legal manner: playing fair.
In a proper or legal manner... hmmm.. I see nothing illegal or improper about a corporation paying the CEO whatever they please.
Playing fair - sample usage, does nothing to define the word. | |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/21/2008 4:51:26 PM | Some of the pro-Wal-Mart posters are asking why we are picking on Wal-Mart, since there is so many other corporations that do far worse things to society. The Simple answer is that Wal-Mart is the big elephant in the room, that is hard to ignore. But a better answer is that, due to Wal-Mart's size and power, they are able to alter how the workforce as a whole is treated. Wal-Mart's direct competition is forced to make some of the same decisions to stay competitive, and there can be a trickle down effect to other industries.
Now I know some feel that it does'nt matter that people are low paid, and have their rights challenged.
Here's my view on why people should be treated better.
The world is basically one pie. Everything on the planet, all the resources, all the labour, all the land, all the potential, everything is one big pie. Now everyone takes a slice, it's not the same slice, some get a big chunk, others get some crust, and the least fortunate mearly get a crumb. We can make the pie bigger, but we can't give out more slices then are in the pie. We even take big slices and throw them in the garbage. Now I believe we share the planet, we all have the right to a piece of pie. I think it is fair that people can earn a bigger slice. But the problem is a few glutons that take pieces that they could never eat in their lifetime. Since the pie is only so big, when the glutons take their slice, the rest of us need to take a smaller slice. And some people are reduced to such a small piece, they can never hope for a bigger piece. We waste potential in many different ways. Each of us wastes a little bit of our personal potential all the time. But the glutens manage to take away potential from people, they keep them in positions to never improve, while constantly taking a bigger and bigger slice.
I don't feel that a Wal-Mart cashier should be paid the same as a tradesman, or a professional. But they should still be able to afford a life. Every body should get enough to provide for themselves. If they are forced to Wal-Mart's standards, it's hard to provide a life for just a single person. | |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/21/2008 4:57:57 PM | | I like walmart and will keep on shopping there. It all boils down to the savings. To some of us if we buy all our necessary items there ,as opposed to another store where they charge more, all the savings added up can be as much as $100 dollars a month. Sometimes more. That may not be much to some people , but to me it is. If people don't like what their salaries at walmart then they can leave and go work somewhere else. I have never noticed that they were held captive in the store by a gunman. | |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/21/2008 4:58:10 PM | Fair to me means equitable - i.e. - success and failure is shared by ALL who contribute to the corporation; reward excellent behavior (work that promotes the business) and provide a business plan that allows all employees access to adequate health care, retirement and perks as are relavant to that business (ie - discounts, share options,etc.).
I do not suffer from delusions of grandeur and assume that my limited understanding of the economy is the ultimate solution. I am asking the question why not link the wages so why don't you try to explain to me why you believe it would limit what the CEO could earn by allowing the lowest paid employee to enjoy in some small way the success that he/she has contributed to in his/her small way. | |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/21/2008 5:29:22 PM |
"Unnatural" rise in oil prices? Just what is a "natural" rise in oil prices?
What I was refering to is that it did not follow the supply and demand curve that should have been expected with the changes in consumption and production. Most of the recent spike in oil was not caused by the changes in the supply or consumption (although both of those facts would cause a rise). It was caused by the commodity traders driving up the price. Unrest in the middle east has been a factor in the speculation causing the spike, but it appears to be exagerated in how it effected the price. The US government could have used the strategic reserve to balance out the speculation and keep the price lower. People are getting extremely rich off the current high price of oil, and many people have good reasons to keep the price high.
There is some hope, I read an article on Sympaticle@MSM, about a market expert who is predicting $63 barrels in few years. He pointed to government oversite after the spike, will help return oil to it's natural price. Not everyone agrees with the expert, but let's hope he is right.
And just to be clear, lassez-fairre capitalism is different from regular capitalism. Lassez-fairre promotes no interference from government in business. Capitalism generally promotes oversite and regulation, but still allow business to make it's own decisions. | |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/21/2008 6:24:04 PM | the pie metaphor seems to be a good one. im more not liking those who keep billions but never could possibly spend 10% of it in there or there childrens lifetime. if the money is there but isnt floating around in the system there is less money to be handed out and less buisness being done. but deflation seems to not happen much, except in the housing market currently. everything else stays inflated. so lower standards of living. in a economy where survival REQUIRES a decent standard of living (transportation ,housing ,a phone) people will find they cant make the mark. if you end up loosing your car, how do you make it to work, if you cant make it to work you lose your job after 1 or 2 times of not showing up, then you cant get your car repaired, or another one, so you struggle 3 times as much to get another job. you lose the phone, now no one can contact you for interview. then you cant pay rent. well if you dont have family or friends close bye, you will more likely end up in a shelter. a trickle down effect.
a side not
the real big problem is small bursts of hyperinflation, and education also is being hit really bad. the ratio of people completing collage is getting smaller, cause not many can afford to go if there family is not rich. thats going to hurt the economy in 10 years more then anything.
"More quietly, Wal-Mart has created its own electricity company in Texas, called Texas Retail Energy, to supply its stores with cheap power bought at wholesale prices. This saves the world's largest retailer about $15 million annually and gives the company total control over its utility bills.
Plus Wal-Mart now has the infrastructure to sell electricity to Texas consumers. That could change the game in a deregulated state where high prices have become a hot political issue.
And it could help the giant company to continue to grow, even in one of its most saturated markets."
something to think about. walmart wants to compete not in one market, but ALL of them. can you imagine walmart manufacturing cars/drilling oil. if there setting up to sell electricity then what market is left that they wont play in.
and of course some slight evidence, probly mathimatical formulas to give this but still
"Wal-Mart's stores in Texas use 1.6 million megawatt-hours of electricity each year. That accounts for 0.5 percent of the Texas power grid last year. It's enough juice to power 133,000 homes. And it's about one-third of the annual output of one of the new coal-fired power plants TXU Corp. has proposed.
| |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/22/2008 1:23:44 AM | >>>If you want to continue using this analogy, please explain to me how you view Wal-Mart as a SKILLED worker who is being FORCED to provide its LIVELIHOOD for the betterment of the government.
You demand a CEO, or a manager, or anyone sacrifice what they earned for the livelihood of others. Its just that simple. If these workers earned their value, then your argument would be moot- its only the unearned that you are fighting for.
>>>I swear, you cannot take a work of art like Atlas Shrugged and condense it down into a one liner support for Wal-Mart.
Now I'm confused- you claim that people can interpret different things from books- this is my interpretation- and you say its invalid because Walmart isn't a person, its merely owned by persons.
My interpretation is that Atlas Shrugged is about businesses- it focus's on the individuals who run it because a business cannot feel outrage when its rights are being assaulted- but they people who work there can.
>>>A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.
How is Walmart being uncreative have any relevance?
>>>Again, I am saying FAIR TO THAT CORPORATION
Oh snap- I relised another flaw in your 'connected salaries' belief- what if the janitor does a piss poor job, but the CEO at Walmart does an exceptional job? Should the Janitor receive a bonus because they let someone else work hard? Should the CEO receive a pay cut because their employees worked poorly?
>>>But I like how you accept my posts when you think you can use it to back up you opinion.
Naw, I just didn't feel like saying what you already said. You didn't present any facts to argue against tide- you merely explained why it was unfair to someone when it was asked.
Nonetheless, all of your links doesn't address anything before the 90's,and mainly focus's on the last 8 years. Where did you get your 70's ratio?
Also, I'm pretty sure all your links address an article released by the United for a Fair Economy and the Institute for Policy Studies- 'Fair Economy'? hardly sounds like a partisan organization- in fact, it sounds like they had a policy to promote before they released any information.
>>>I never said it was the average, just what one specific worker makes.
I never said you said average- in fact, that was specifically why I questioned it, if I remember correctly.
Still- funny article- you zoned in on the lowest wage in the article. Why did you give your example for Jason Mrkwa, rather than Frances Browning? or LaTasha Barker? or Jamie Schifferer? Hell,the article, which is 3 years old, literally said the average for fulltime workers is $9.68- you had the average right in front of you, and you didn't take it?
>>>Living wage is a term used to describe....
Well, first off, that wasn't addressed to you, do I can understand your confusion.
Secondly, the user it was replying to, Darknight1984, in the past, decried that Walmart employees do not have a living wage- I asked him to set a price to a living wage- he said Ten Dollars or more- I pointed out the average full time Walmart employee is already earning that. They ignored reality and continue to say they aren't earning a living wage- only now, they refuse to define what they mean.
Basically, the user is 'The Moving Goalpost '- if they define a living wage as 10 dollars, and Walmart concedes, then they'll claim that 15 dollars is a living wage- and if Walmart concedes to that, they will claim that 20 is. They are justifying their hatred with irrationality- and I just want to make everyone aware of what they're doing.
>>> She was a philosopher and a writer.
And I believe her in her philosophy.
>>> For the same reason total communism does'nt work.
The freedom to trade goods on mutually agreed terms doesn't work because .....the Government forces you to agree to terms that only benefits them? Huh?
I can see why Capitalism may fail in some regards- but I cannot see how it would fail for the same reasons Communism fails. They are polar opposites, and thus the opposites is what destroys them, not the same thing.
>>>"in a proper or legal manner."
Feel free to point out where Walmart broke the law- I'm sure the Government would be more than happy to penalize them,as they have numerous times in the past- but what you're talking about- increased wages, healthcare, ect- theres no law requiring that- by your own definition, they ARE playing fair.
>>>But a better answer is that, due to Wal-Mart's size and power, they are able to alter how the workforce as a whole is treated.
So you wish to make an example of Walmart, and call it justice.
Why not simply dictate how these businesses should be run, and how these employees should be compensated? Mind you, that's an abhorrent solution, but why, if your beliefs are so true, do you take one step forward and two steps back? If these employees are treated horribly,then you shouldn't say that only those who work at Walmart deserve an increased wage and healthcare, while those who work at Kmart have to fight on their own for a decent wage and insurance.
>>> Now I believe we share the planet, we all have the right to a piece of pie.
Which is frankly not the case- you do not have a right to the pie- you must earn your share of the pie.
>>> And some people are reduced to such a small piece, they can never hope for a bigger piece.
Why is it the core of the anti-Walmart argument lies in the fact that you believe humans beings are inept and pathetic,and completely have no control over their lives?
>>> Every body should get enough to provide for themselves.
But they wouldn't! By demanding these employees earn a premium, they are not earning enough to provide for themselves- Walmart is providing for them.
>>>perks as are relavant to that business
How is a perk playing fair? By its very definition, a perk is going above and beyond. If anything, giving their employees a discount is the EMPLOYEES not playing fair.
>>>Capitalism generally promotes oversite and regulation, but still allow business to make it's own decisions.
Isn't that a contradiction? How can you be regulated to do something, and still claim you made the choice?
If I forced you to set your hand on fire by threatening to take your home away from you, you are not choosing it- you are being *forced*. | |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/22/2008 7:11:08 AM |
You demand a CEO, or a manager, or anyone sacrifice what they earned for the livelihood of others. Its just that simple. If these workers earned their value, then your argument would be moot- its only the unearned that you are fighting for.
You assume the "Worker" has little value. Because you “appear” to feel this way, it is likely your opinions will never change. Some people gaze upon the rich with so much admiration that I'm reminded of an adolescent school-girl in love; yet they sneer at the poor with so much contempt.
I say, simply by showing up for the job, these "workers" have earned to right to be paid a livable wage,* assuming of course, they do the job to the satisfaction of the person paying their wages once they get there. Everyone's time has value. I don't care if that worker's job is to stand in the corner and do nothing, if someone wants to hire someone to do it, then they need to pay a proper wage.
*A livable wage: enough to pay for the basics to survive - housing, food, medical, clothing.
As far as a CEO sacrificing what they "earn" for the livelihood of others. There is no sacrifice. Employee wages are a cost of doing business. And, the outrages salaries and bonus these CEO "earn" are often not earned at all. They are merely gifts the rich bequeath upon each other.
The rest of your post just continues the circle. No point in being part of the arc so there is little to address, there. I will comment on this though:
>>>
If you box the quote, it makes it easy for the rest of us to work out your post. | |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/22/2008 9:13:41 AM | What if the CEO does a piss-poor job? You contradict yourself at every turn.
EARNING vs. LIVELIHOOD: Atlas Shrugged is not about PEOPLE EARNING a living. It is about PEOPLE WHO HAVE A TRADE - they MAKE things, design machinery, etc., etc. Please explain what it is that a Wal-Mart CEO makes? I did not say you cannot interpret Atlas Shrugged any way you want, I said you cannot CONDENSE her entire work down to a ONE LINER support of Wal-Mart - it doesn't hold. It would be like me saying Atlas Shrugged is all about the Railroads, or the Steel Mills. It is a work of art and as such cannot be distilled into ONE TINY MEANING. | |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/22/2008 9:39:18 AM | I'm not sure where you heard that but it's completely untrue.
What should a Wal-Mart employee make ? How much should somebody make relative to any other person ? I can state without a doubt that nobody would be a garbage man for the same money that a Wal-Mart greeter makes. And they shouldn't either because garbage men work infinitely harder than somebody standing at a door saying hello to people (when they bother that is)
A garbage man works harder then someone who works in a office sitting down all day. Does that mean they should be payed more? This is faulty thinking. Have you been a garbage worker or worked at Wall Mart if not I doubt you know how hard it is to do each. | |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/22/2008 11:23:10 AM | I am not an econ major, I do not presume to dictate how corporations should be run.
You don't dictate how corporations should be run? Sure you do. That's all you've been doing from the word "go."
It is about PEOPLE WHO HAVE A TRADE - they MAKE things, design machinery, etc., etc. Please explain what it is that a Wal-Mart CEO makes?
Please explain what the average Wal-Mart employee makes? Do they MAKE things? Do they design machinery? Etc. Until you answer this question you have painted yourself into corner you have no escape from. Unless, of course, you make another left turn off your illogical course and continue on down some tangential bypass that has no basis in the world of reality.
Let me see if I can make this plain to you one more time. A person is paid what they are worth in the marketplace. If I hire someone to come into my business and I will pay a rate that I feel is fair and competitive. I will not, however, be worried about whether or not that the person I hire will become rich from my wages, unless of course, they bring such talents to my company that they make me rich and increase cashflow into the business immensely.
If a new CEO comes into a company and takes that company from $1 billion annual sales to $10 billion, and he gets paid $100 million for doing so, then he has been fairly compensated. And many thousands of people have been given jobs in this company and are now earning weekly paychecks. If those paychecks aren't enough for them to live the kind of life that they desire, then they need to figure out how to make themselves more valuable to the company, so that they can move up the ladder. And no, just coming to work every day and punching the clock, putting in your eight hours and going home and parking your ass in front the television does not make you more valuable to the company. I can walk out on the street in front of the business and find a hundred people that can do that kind of job. Why do I need to pay you more for that kind of effort when I can hire any one of those others for the same wage you're complaining about?
No one is suggesting that because a person makes less money than their next door neighbor that they are somehow worth less as a human being. But a person's worth as a human being is not tied to their worth as an employee. If that were true we'd all be paid exactly the same wage all over the world because there is NOBODY in this world that is better than me, just as I am no better than any other person. But the doctor that performs heart surgery is worth a hell of a lot more money than I am. But, as a real estate agent, I am worth more money than the night janitor that cleans up the building my office is in. If your poor, down-trodden Wal-Mart employees need to make more money to make ends meet, then they need to figure out how to make themselves more valuable, monetarily, to the marketplace. | |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/22/2008 12:02:27 PM | | Kissable - I was referencing Jip's use of Atlas Shrugged to explain why Wal-Mart's business practices are justifable. Atlas Shrugged is not an economic study but a philosophical study and I'm trying to explain that to him. As you point out, it is not a good piece of work to hang a pro-Wal-Mart platform on so let's just let poor Rand off the hook and get back to the original focus of this thread - why Wal-Mart SUX. | |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/22/2008 1:16:26 PM |
Kissable - I was referencing Jip's use of Atlas Shrugged to explain why Wal-Mart's business practices are justifable. Atlas Shrugged is not an economic study but a philosophical study and I'm trying to explain that to him. As you point out, it is not a good piece of work to hang a pro-Wal-Mart platform on so let's just let poor Rand off the hook and get back to the original focus of this thread - why Wal-Mart SUX.
Right, and you used it for an anti-Wal-Mart platform by postulating:
It is about PEOPLE WHO HAVE A TRADE - they MAKE things, design machinery, etc., etc. Please explain what it is that a Wal-Mart CEO makes?
And I noticed how you neatly walked right past my question of what things the average Wal-Mart employee makes or what pieces of machinery they design. What is it that they do that makes them so invaluable to the company, that no one else can come in and do for the same wages they are currently earning?
As an employer, I might have employees on the bottom rung of the corporate ladder earning $11.00 an hour. I am not going to push their hourly wage to $15.00 an hour simply because they have three kids, two cars and a mortgage. If one of those employees wants to earn more than $11.00 an hour, then they will have to show me that they are worth more. But, if they aren't worth more monetarily than the average Joe walking down the street, who can come in and learn and do their job in a couple of hours, I am not going to feel compelled at all, to up their pay rate.
Too damn many people in this country have grown up with the idea that because they live here they are entitled to something, a good life, a great paycheck, a big car, a nice house or whatever. No folks, sorry. I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but the only thing you are entitled to is the opportunity to climb the ladder to a better life. Stop looking for the elevator and stop looking for the escalator. Find the stairs and start climbing. That's your ticket to a better life. No one is entitled to any more or any less than that. You don't get to the top of the mountain by sitting on your ass and wishing yourself there. You get there by climbing. | |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/22/2008 2:15:59 PM |
But the problem is a few glutons that take pieces that they could never eat in their lifetime. Since the pie is only so big, when the glutons take their slice, the rest of us need to take a smaller slice. And some people are reduced to such a small piece, they can never hope for a bigger piece.
And any first year economist will tell you this is false. Just because some CEO gets paid $100 million a year doesn't mean there is less for me. But this is the lie that the liberal Robin Hoods want us to believe. They would have you believe that because your next door neighbor is earning more than you, there is less for you to earn, less for you to have, less for you to enjoy. This is a fallacy that refuses to die. | |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/22/2008 2:26:35 PM | Just off the top of my head.
Enron
Motgage crisis
Unnatural recent rise in oil prices
All of these were caused by greedy people allowed to run free without any real government oversite.
NONE of these examples existed within the parameters of lassaiz-faire capitalism, and thus cannot be used as arguments against it.
If you diagree, I invite you to try to start up your own power company tomorrow. Try to sell electricity to your neighbors in competition with the (possibly crooked) local power company. Let us know what you find out 
Monopolist cronyism enforced by the government is NOT lassaiz-faire capitalism, folks. It's closer to fascism, which is what most folks are REALLY griping about when they mistakenly blame "capitalism" for misdeeds of artificially-created pseudo-monopolies.
As for the oil prices bit, someone else already did a fine job of explaining that one.
Some of the pro-Wal-Mart posters are asking why we are picking on Wal-Mart, since there is so many other corporations that do far worse things to society. The Simple answer is that Wal-Mart is the big elephant in the room, that is hard to ignore.
I call bullocks. I live in a city that has 4 or 5 (that I can think of off the top of my head)super-wal marts across the metropolitan area. I wouldn't even dare to guess how many fast food joints, convenience stores, and car washes we have. Guess who pays even less than Wal Mart and offers no medical insurance?
Would you like fries with that?
| |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/22/2008 2:30:52 PM | Right, and you used it for an anti-Wal-Mart platform by postulating:
It is about PEOPLE WHO HAVE A TRADE - they MAKE things, design machinery, etc., etc. Please explain what it is that a Wal-Mart CEO makes?
And I noticed how you neatly walked right past my question of what things the average Wal-Mart employee makes or what pieces of machinery they design.
They don't either - I thought that was obvious! I agree! What I was saying is that Atlas Shrugged is about tradesmen/women - not corporations and ipso facto not about corporate employees. I have never used Atlas Shrugged for or against Wal-Mart - the analogy doesn't work.
I was merely trying to show JIP what a lousy model it was for him to try and apply to his argument. You can't find a place where I say that Atlas Shrugged supports my position because I would never think to use that book and apply it to this thread - it just doesn't make sense for either side. | |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/22/2008 2:40:28 PM | And any first year economist will tell you this is false
Actually the first day of economics teaches that I am correct.
Fortunately, society possesses productive resources, such as labour and managerial talent, tools and machinery, and land and mineral deposits. These resources, employed in the economic system (or simply the economy), help us produce goods and services that satisfy many of our economic wants. But the blunt reality is that our economic wants far exceed the productive capacity of our scarce (limited) resources. We are forced to make choices. This unyielding truth underlies the definition of economics, which is the social SCIENCE concerned with how individuals, institutions, and society make optimal (best) choices under conditions of scarcity.
"Micro-Economics, 11th Canadian Edition"; McConnell, Brue, Barbiero; McGraw-Hill Ryerson. page 3, the very first paragraph after the preface. | |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/22/2008 3:12:10 PM | Oh, Big Bad Wal-Mart! Never mind that they provide the low prices that millions of working class families need and depend on to stock their households. Don’t you care about all of those people? And if your retort is that Wal-Mart doesn’t pay enough for a family of 4 to live on, it is unfair of anybody to become a parent then complain that they can’t afford to support a family. Everyone knows what their job skills are worth to an employer, so if you choose to mismanage your obligations and end up exceeding your capabilities, quit complaining about your foolish, undisciplined judgment. And forget about oppressive China, quite oppressing your own children by having them when you can’t pay for a decent lifestyle for them. Quit littering the world with the outcomes of your muddled thinking.
Wal-Mart tried to come into downtown Chicago, and they were blocked by the politically “correct” crowd who have the chump voters dancing on their puppet strings, then the Chicago aldermen had to answer to 10,000 job applicants who were pursuing the 200 much-needed jobs that never materialized. The socialist media chose not to splash that across your television news screen.
As to Big Bad Wal-Mart (or Starbucks, Home Depot, etc.) driving the mom-and-pop business out, the “blame” for that lies with you and me and your friends and neighbors—all of those crowds who freely patronize the big boys are doing so because they are getting more selection and better prices for them selves and their families. They have no obligation to support the mom-and-pop merchants’ families. If Mom-and-Pop are smart enough to run a small business, they are smart enough to see the trends in the business climate, and they are free to adapt to a changing environment like everyone and everything on the planet has done since day one millions of years ago. They should not compete on selection and price, they should go “boutique” and offer better service and more unique merchandise to attract a new clientèle since they are going to lose their old one. Then they live happily ever after, just like the Big Boys.
And the government should NOT step in, they should step out, since they are incompetent and self-serving at almost everything they do.
Wal-Mart certainly isn’t perfect, as nobody is. But they have brought outstanding value to their customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders for many years. Then the I-want-money-for-nothing-I’m-a-victim-of the-system-pseudo-intellectual socialist bums come along and complain. That is what SUX. I would vote your sorry asses off the island in 2 seconds….
___________________
The market is not an invention of capitalism. It has existed for centuries. It is an invention of civilization. Mikhail Gorbachev, June 8, 1990
Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone. John Maynard Keynes (1883 - 1946)
Socialism is nothing but the capitalism of the lower classes. Oswald Spengler (1880 - 1936), The Hour of Decision, 1933 | |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/22/2008 3:45:37 PM | I have been posting my opinions on this thread since about p. 10 or so. Before I began to spout off, I actually READ the entire thread up to that point. If you don't have the time or patience to read the entire thread then all I can conclude from your argument is that you want to wave your hands and make some noise. Since I have that "here we go again" feeling - Here is why I think Wal-Mart SUX :
I believe that patronizing a store that devalues its employees, the environment and the local community is tacit approval of that behavior. I am working poor. I make less than 30k a year and I am a head of household. I patronize my local grocery, my local hardware store and my local farmers markets. Yes, I may pay a little more upfront but the quality is 99% better than anything I can find at Wal-Mart and I understand that I am doing my small part to feed the wheels of commerce, not support a cancerous growth like Wal-Mart. | |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/22/2008 3:57:05 PM |
What I was refering to is that it did not follow the supply and demand curve that should have been expected with the changes in consumption and production.
Okay.. so "unatural" means "unexpected". I'm learning the language here.
The US government could have used the strategic reserve to balance out the speculation and keep the price lower.
And they could use Medicare funds to buy you a new car, too. That's not what Medicare is for, nor is it what the Strategic Reserve is for, either.
You fail to acknowledge a major factor in the price of oil - the very government intervention in the economy that you seem to advocate. To attempt to stave off inflation, the FED lowered interest rates and increased the money supply, which lowered the value of the dollar. That makes anything paid for in dollars cost more dollars.
People are getting extremely rich off the current high price of oil
People like those who own stock in oil companies? I suppose we should make that illegal, too. Just have the government take over the oil companies, so we can be like Venezuela. | |
|
| Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/22/2008 4:00:58 PM | I see people talk about linking wages to profit of the company. The problem exists that employees love this idea until profit go down and their wages must decrease. I was involved in a small company that tried to put this contract forward to a group of employees that were thinking of striking. They loved the idea of linking wages to profit, until they looked at historical data of profit margins of the company. The employees are happy to get increased wages during times of prosperity, but when times are tough they will not take a decrease in their take home. In other words, they want the best of both worlds with no RISK. That is why the companies should make large sums of money is because of the risk involved. These companies didn't start out of thin air...
Choices: Choose not to work at Walmart. Choose not to shop there. Choose to voice your opinion and hope others follow suit.
Walmart has a choice to not run stores with unions, their profits go down and they are not able to run their business according to the model that made them successful.
I don't shop at Walmart, but I understand both sides of the argument. Educate yourself, move, find a new line of employment, anything except whining about Wally-mart. Walmart is not meant to be a career oriented place. These jobs are not meant to feed a family of 4 on just one income...take personally responsibility for your life situation and change it, don't expect a private company to change it for you. | |
|
|
| Page 19 of 20
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
|
Home
login 
