Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > Wally-Mart SUX[Thread Closed/Bumped Thread No Clear OT]      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 401
view profile
History
Wally-Mart SUXPage 17 of 20    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)

Why limit it? I didn't say that. I said LINK the two incomes together - the highest and the lowest - and as one goes up or down, so does the other


You are being disingenuous here. Linking the two as you propose LIMITS the pay of the CEO to some multiple of the janitor's pay.

I think if you want Wal-mart to do that, you should buy some stock in Wal-Mart, attend the shareholder's meeting, and propose it.
 Kingreol
Joined: 8/26/2006
Msg: 402
view profile
History
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/20/2008 4:07:25 PM
exxon mobile is big enough to be concidered a monopoly for MANY NATIONS. if exxon mobile can if they willed it stop the economic flow of various nations that they supply to, and since it only takes a 20% drop in supply to cripple a country and most can anly survive without transportation for 3-5 days before shelves go empty and truckers striking. look at spain. in my opinion a monopoly is when no other competition can come and take over buisness if evil will be done... rockafeller tried big oil but was stopped on conspiracy of monopolizing the oil industry, but now it seems monopolizing is the big thing now. its a monopoly when the only place to shop is walmart or waste 16 bucks in gas to goto that grocery store 30 miles away. how is that not a instant monopoly in local economies and small towns?
 Super Ryan
Joined: 9/15/2007
Msg: 403
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/20/2008 4:11:00 PM

Why limit it? I didn't say that. I said LINK the two incomes together - the highest and the lowest - and as one goes up or down, so does the other

It would'nt really be fair to do that either. Let's say the government mandated a ratio of 1:400. Would it be fair that the CEO of Wal-Mart, who runs one of the largest corporations in the world has to tie his package to Billy the shopping cart collector, where the CEO of a very small software company gets to tie his to a programmer. The Wal-Mart CEO has to oversee thousands of employees, a massive operating budget, international trade, where the software CEO only has sixty employees, all national customers, and a much smaller budget. If we went with the 1:400 ratio, the software CEO would make multiple times the amount of the Wal-Mart CEO.

The real problem is how CEO compensation packages are approved. This is a simplified version of what actually happens. The CEO of company A sits on the board of companies B, C, D, and E. The CEO of company B sits of the board of companies A, C, D, and E. And so on, so it ends up that the CEO's of these five companies all sit on the boards of the other companies. So when compensation comes up, they all approve the bloated compensation of the other CEO's. But they are'nt the only CEO's, we have companies F, G, and H. So when the compensation comes up for these companies, the CEO simply says, "hey this is the going rate for a CEO, just look at companies A, B, C, D, and E". This type of senario has been going on for years, and it has resulted in executives being paid much more then they should and the money came off the backs of the common worker.
Fortunately this is coming to a stop thanks to Home-Depot. They had a CEO that was given a ridiculous package, something like over $100 million a year. But the four years he was at the helm, the company lost much of its stock value, the growth they saw in the past stopped, and I believe they were operating in the red. This was a wake up call to many boards, and many are now tying achievements to compensation.


But the real issue is still the low paid worker. Paying people a wage that is below a living wage makes the worker a drag on the economy. If you go to countries where the pay is really low (like parts of Asia and Africa), the economy stayes stagnant, or regresses. But if you look at countries that set a high minimum wage and strong workers rights, you will see massive amounts of growth. Look at Europe today or America in the late 50's and early 60's. We all benefit from a higher standard of living for everyone, except for the wealthy elite (and none of you are one of them).
 Super Ryan
Joined: 9/15/2007
Msg: 404
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/20/2008 4:21:36 PM

exxon mobile is big enough to be concidered a monopoly for MANY NATIONS.

Actually they are not a monopoly anywhere. They are part of a oligopoly. It is less power, but since they use the price leader method (it's like collusion but legal), they have the same strangle hold on the consumer.
McDonalds is not even close to a monopoly either, they are'nt even part of a oligopoly. Just look at all the compitition and how easy it is to open up a restaurant, no monopoly or oligopoly, they are part of an industry known as monopolistic compitition. How that differs from perfect competition (like a farmers market) is that even though there is lots of compitition, each company sells a similar but unique product.
 Kingreol
Joined: 8/26/2006
Msg: 405
view profile
History
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/20/2008 4:28:20 PM
yup henry fords idea is higher wages. and i dont see why not as jobs for retailers are becoming much more advanced. and a higher learning curve. perhaps the job market can see better with a bigger raise gap. seeing how the hardest worker sometimes will get payed less then a newly hired. this has happend to me when a taco bell changed to pay 8:00 for new hires and i was making 7:30 after 2 years, and was training these new hires on the food prep who was making more then me.

this is why bigger retailers are also annoying. managers have less power to reward employees for extra hard work being done cause they have to follow a very tight payment and promotion standard. or those managers dont want to see there job being taken bye the next guy. instead of themselfs climbing the ladder. if no one is able to climb the ladder then your all just sitting hoping to, you may have the skills, and the know how. but its who holds the keys that matter.
 Kingreol
Joined: 8/26/2006
Msg: 406
view profile
History
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/20/2008 4:32:46 PM
sorry yah i forgot mc donalds is mostly franchise. sorry shouldnt of put that in the list. just feels like i see the store name way to much
i know the merger with exxon and moblie scared enough people when it happend



hmmm maby i will reference 1984 and just say its all big brother...
 Damon0028
Joined: 7/8/2008
Msg: 407
view profile
History
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/20/2008 4:54:02 PM

anyways walmart, exxon mobile, mc donalds, and any other monopolizing corporation is just the downside evolution to capitalism. companies eat each other up until its just one big company running the big show. and then we will have nothing to compare our prices to cause walmart will set them for us.......


Hmmmmm..... Anyone remember Micro-Soft, the anti-trust suits, the damages paid for strong-arming a monopoly...? That monopoly crap doesn't fly down here in the States. Read those old Public Documents that we celebrate every July... Just an example, but a couple of decades ago, AT&T had their asses slung up in a similar situation.

Exxon-Mobil is another one. Believe you, me! Exorbitant diesel prices were enough for me a few months ago, I sold a real damn nice Peterbilt over that crap. We little poor people just don't know anything, except how it feels when it's dry and we don't get a kiss with the fvckin'!

-damoN-
 mister_mark
Joined: 8/16/2006
Msg: 408
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/20/2008 4:57:59 PM
I HATE WAL-MART

Even though i have had to shop there :(
I still hate it with a passion. I would much rather goto goodwill and buy a old pair of underwear than goto walmart if i can avoid it.
 Damon0028
Joined: 7/8/2008
Msg: 409
view profile
History
Wallmart Gripe , again ? you REALLY NEED a girlfriend
Posted: 8/20/2008 5:19:30 PM

The made in China (unprintable) that Wal Mart sells, IS Wal Mart's fault! And Wal Mart is one of the guilty parties for encouraging, aiding and abetting the treason of outsourcing to Communist dictatorships when we should be keeping our jobs at home, or at the very least supporting democratic nations.


FVCKIN'- "A"!!!!!!!!!!

I'm glad I read a little further, since I've been gone a few days(driving for a friend who needed out of his truck while his wife bore a child) and I was getting ready to start in on the unprintable stuff from China.

Nothing against Chinese people, but when you take into account how many people there are there, how their traditional culture has sufficed for years(thousands) and they just don't have the kinds of doping and thieving problems seen rampant in more developed countries- there's something to be said for the good old days....

It's a damnable shame that any corporation would go into a needy country and take advantage. It's not China's fault, but Wal-Mart has some culpability there, because we shoul be preserving our Red, White, and Blue on our own ground, not shipping it overseas. We are the country who for years was known to take Liberty and Justice to all, but ever since VietNam and the OPEC crises of the early 70's, corporate Big Money has sold out our values and virtues, is robbing our homeland for personal profit, and leaving economic shambles in their wake in this country, ya'll's across the border up there, and everywhere else in the world where they can go and get their nut without regard to the people that lay down for them. It's deplorable.

Back to the Chinese, and the exponential effect, there are gonna be enough of them due to the rabbit-factor so soon that we can realistically imagine a much more drab economic picture than we are looking at now, a whole lot sooner if we don't reign in narcisstic corporate powers and monopolies that blight our financial landscape. Nothing against Chinese, hell, I ate some wicked-good lunch at a small family-owned restaurant today. THAT is what free enterprise means, not giving our country away and exploiting poorer, more desperate people overseas for the benefit of a few.

When Wal-Mart takes over China, they'll be back here, paying us jack-shit to work in a sweatshop for nothing while the Chinese are doing what North America has been doing for the last century. If we don't stop these kinds of people they will ensure that they die in comfort while the rest of us exist in misery. Anyone remember Mad Macx?

-damoN-
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 410
view profile
History
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/20/2008 6:48:37 PM

exxon mobile is big enough to be concidered a monopoly for MANY NATIONS.

We can't have honest and meaningful dialog here if you're going to re-define words of the English language to appear to have an argument.


in my opinion a monopoly is when no other competition can come and take over buisness if evil will be done

Well, thank you for making it quite clear that it's all about what you decide the words mean, not about how they are defined in the language
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 411
view profile
History
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/20/2008 6:52:47 PM

But if you look at countries that set a high minimum wage and strong workers rights, you will see massive amounts of growth. Look at Europe today or America in the late 50's and early 60's.

Massive amounts of growth? In Europe today? Man, where are you getting this stuff?

All we have to is pay people more, and everything will be cool, right?

Only trouble is, everything will COST MORE!
 NeapTide
Joined: 6/18/2008
Msg: 412
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/20/2008 7:34:56 PM
You are being disingenuous here. Linking the two as you propose LIMITS the pay of the CEO to some multiple of the janitor's pay.
No, I'm not being disingenuous - as flattered as I am by that apparent assumption of my ability to argue, the truth is I do not understand - I truly do not understand why wage ratios are not feasible or why you find it so distasteful. How does it limit the what the CEO can make? All it does is say if the CEO's salary goes up x amount of dollars then the janitor's salary will also go up whatever percentage the corporation decides to employ. How is that unfair? It seems more unfair to inflate the wages of the CEO and then leave the worker bee in the dust. The worker bees are just as essential as the queen bee so why not honor that?

I am not a business major so I realize that puts me at a disadvantage but when I was talking about a wage ratio that would link a CEO's wage with that of the lowest employee, I was not suggesting some government-enforced ratio - just something that was fair for everyone at that particular corporation - the bigwig CEO's and the janitors and everyone in between. It seems to me that if a corporation wanted to have happy, productive employees who were out spending money and making the wheels of commerce turn, they could come up with a wage ratio formula that was appropriate to that corporation.

When we decided to colonize the West, we plundered all the way to the Pacific Ocean, shooting buffalo for sport and chasing "Indians" off their land - it seemed inconceivable at that time that any of these resources would ever run out. That is how I view Wal-Mart's business plan - it is as though they think there is an unlimited amount of resources out there - both human and environmental - and are giving no thought for the future.
 designingwoman
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 413
view profile
History
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/20/2008 9:55:51 PM
That's right: comparing McD's to Wal Mart is like comparing apples to oranges. Most McD's are franchises and are in actuality local businesses, many of which support local schools and other aspects of the community. Wal Marts look the same everywhere and are ugly big boxes, unlike the McD's I see in various communities. The restaurants blend into the surroundings or are very attractive. There's one not far from me that actually has a lovely interior that could easily be used in a nice restaurant, along with pretty flower gardens around the property. It is a pleasant sight, unlike the eyesore known as Wal Mart down the street. A local Burger King has lovely landscaping around it, as well.


I agree with Neap's statement: "It seems to me that if a corporation wanted to have happy, productive employees who were out spending money and making the wheels of commerce turn, they could come up with a wage ratio formula that was appropriate to that corporation." Well said!!



 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 414
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/21/2008 1:43:52 AM
>>>The average ratio was 40:1 in the 70s and now

Kinda creepy how you accepted that from ryan without any evidence or source.

Also, Ryan's choice of wage is questionable- where did they get $8.53/h? They said some- is that the average overall? The average for part time? Or does he simply know someone who works there and is paid that much? At either event, last I heard, the average fulltime Walmart employee earns $10.51/h- so what he said is vague enough to be accurate, but solely because of the vagueness of his statements.

>>>but it is unethical to not pay your employee a starting wage to live on.

Who are you to dictate anyone's ethics, save your own?

>>>How do you not know that 18 is supporting someone and needs the money?

How do you not know that 18 year old is spending that money on drugs and booze? How do you not know that by giving that 18 year old your favourite vague statement, a "living wage"(still waiting for a definition for that one from you), that you ensure someone who actually needs that job cannot be hired, since Walmart is spending all its employment wages to help support that teens drug and alcohol habit?

If need is the standard for all of society, then why isn't Walmart's cashiers entirely employed by the homeless?

>>>and when it does i will compare it just as much to exxon mobile when it has enough power to raise prices when there is no competition

Couldn't people simply stop shopping at Walmart if they raised their prices? If I worked at Walmart and hated it, and saw them raise their prices, then its not a threat against society- its an opportunity- suddenly I have an opportunity to compete against Walmart more aggressively than if their prices stayed at a competitive low.

I honestly don't get where people get ideas like this- if Walmart destroys the competition, and demands the customers pay a premium, then the customers will simply take their business to another company. To claim that Walmart will end competition, then raise prices, is nothing more than fear mongering.

>>>1 store could power 1000 homes, probly more... demand for electricity alone whould probly half

Source please. I find your use of your word probably to be implying that you're pulling these numbers straight out of your ass.

Also, I can't help but be curious- how is centralizing business somehow inefficient? I'd think that if you have 1000 different shops all competing against each other, using varying degrees of hydro, water, ect- then you'd use more energy then if you had some15-20 mega power drain companies.

If power reservation is your argument,then you're going to have to present more evidence- because I honestly cannot see how that would work.

>>>ooh and in michigan, walmart cigs are 6 bucks where everywhere else they are 5. so dont buy cigs at walmart.

.....

Doesn't that prove what your JUST said two paragraphs up wrong? Walmart raised their prices- so you took your business elsewhere....

>>>we dont want to see our manufacturing jobs leave the us to china.

And Walmart is exclusive in this practice?

If you don't want to see your money invested in Chinese labour, that's your own choice-your money- but why are you chastising people for how they spend their money?

>>>not everyone can survive when the only jobs there are are minimum wage jobs.

Really? The only jobs?

So theres no plumbers, no electricans, or mayors or haircutters- no teachers, no managers, no transport truck drivers or pilots?

Once again- fear mongering- you don't wish to gain peoples support on facts- you wish to make people fear that, if they do not support you, the country will fall to pieces. Your argument depends both entirely on that fear and entirely on the hope that people will believe your assertions.

>>>there are people WITH DEGREES, that are cashiers.

Is this new? I could imagine that in the 70's there could be cashiers with degrees, as well as in the 50's, and 30's, and further still.

Are you implying that people who have degrees that do not affect their job in the least should be paid more? That if they bring no new value to that company than any other cashier, they should be paid more because they received an education before they confirmed the employment availability? What if I spend all my money on becoming a nurse- should I receive a nurses salary while being a cashier?

>>> I said LINK the two incomes together - the highest and the lowest - and as one goes up or down, so does the other.

I gotta admit- this is one of the best ideas that has come out of this thread- one problem though- if a Walmart Janitor loses 5% of their wage, should they be allowed to quit in outrage? What if the company needs them to do their job?

Conversely, what if a Walmart CEO loses 5% of their wage- should they be allowed to quit in outrage? What if the company needs their leadership? What if that person quitting costs thousands of people their jobs?

Seems awfully alot like that idea, while having noble intentions, would create a world where employment is mandated.

>>>The question isn't who is going to be shopping at Wal-Mart but who will be able to shop ANYWHERE else.

I think its a valid question- what does Walmart have to gain from making their products too expensive to buy?

>>>walmart will be the last to stand if great depression/peak oil/any other huge crisis hit.

And they would be a necessity,then, if there is an event that creates a depression. You can't argue that their prices are too low to support their employees while at the same time alluding to the idea that an unrelated event will create a need for lowered prices.

>>> if exxon mobile can if they willed it stop the economic flow of various nations that they supply to

Why would they? Wouldn't they lose money? Many users here think that companies like Exxon are greedy- sounds awfully ungreedy to not be moved by the idea of profit.

>>>seeing how the hardest worker sometimes will get payed less then a newly hired.

Got a chip on your shoulder, do we?

>>>managers have less power to reward employees for extra hard work being done cause they have to follow a very tight payment and promotion standard.

If the owner didn't want to follow Taco Bell's standards, they wouldn't agree to pay for the franchise.

If they manager didn't want to have less ability to run the business, they wouldn't agree to work at the Taco Bell

See how it works? While it is true that a manager of a Taco Bell has less control over their business than a manager of a private taco restaurant, the key is IT IS THEIR CHOICE, AND IT IS ENTIRELY WITHIN THEIR POWER TO MAKE IT.

You know- freedom and all that Jazz.

>>>you may have the skills, and the know how. but its who holds the keys that matter.

Then open a competing business. Just because your boss has the key to a door doesn't mean you have the right to force it out of their hand.

>>>AT&T had their asses slung up in a similar situation.

Actually, if a remember correctly, AT&T managed to reform their monopoly

>>>It's not China's fault

Howso?

>>>THAT is what free enterprise means, not giving our country away and exploiting poorer, more desperate people overseas for the benefit of a few.

I'm pretty sure it means you are free to choose- claiming a moral directive in anything that has the word "free" in it is a contradiction in terms- if you are free, you should have the freedom to choose your own morality.

>>>All it does is say if the CEO's salary goes up x amount of dollars then the janitor's salary will also go up whatever percentage the corporation decides to employ. How is that unfair?

To use Randian language, that kind of stance would just encourage the CEO to simply loot the business- give himself and everyone who works there a raise, quit, and leave the business in shambles.

>>> I was not suggesting some government-enforced ratio

Then how would it be enforced? What would stop Walmart from one day announcing that their experiment was a failure, and giving their employees a pay cut to help recoup their losses?

>>>just something that was fair for everyone at that particular corporation

And Ryan explained previously how that is not fair to the CEO.

>>> it seemed inconceivable at that time that any of these resources would ever run out.

Once again, if your issue is reserving resources, how could you possibly go about it without Government intervention? If you are saying there aren't enough resources to go around, you are actually *demanding* people sacrifice(and since you've read Rand, I know I don't really need to go much further than the word "sacrifice" to make my point....)

And if you don't actually believe that people should be forced to sacrifice, don't worry- someone will take your beliefs and believe it is their right to impose them onto others.

>>>many of which support local schools and other aspects of the community.

As do Walmart- often times better than local businesses.

>>>Wal Marts look the same everywhere and are ugly big boxes

Isn't that an argument entirely against ascetics? Doesn't that depend entirely from person to person?
 21074cdt
Joined: 11/1/2007
Msg: 415
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/21/2008 8:12:24 AM

Yes, let's have the government decide... after all, they have shown that they know all about running a business efficiently, right?


I'm not going to try and defend the government, however I would like to point out that many big companies are not exactly efficent nor moral. Enron, WorldCom, Fannie Mae and yes I would include Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart may be incredibly efficent at bringing products to market, but the impact they have on small to middle sized communities is often more negative than positive. Small business do not have the ability to dictate (often termed negotiate) better prices with manufacturers.

And as someone who does a bit of non-profit work in a variety of causes, when you look at which businesses give back to my local community guess who gives the least if at all? You got it Wal-Mart. Maybe my local Wal-Mart is the exception. My bet is that it is the rule.
 NeapTide
Joined: 6/18/2008
Msg: 416
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/21/2008 10:07:09 AM
you are actually *demanding* people sacrifice(and since you've read Rand, I know I don't really need to go much further than the word "sacrifice" to make my point....)


I think Rand herself is going to rise from the dead and scream if you continue to use her opus as a justification for greed.

I'm assuming that by saying that I am demanding people "sacrifice" you mean that I want them to stop patronizing Wal-Mart. Right? If that is the case, NOWHERE in Atlas Shrugged did Rand suggest that "SACRIFICE" meant how the middle class spent their money. The sacrifice that Rand WAS talking about in Atlas Shrugged was the sacrifice of those SKILLED workers were being FORCED to provide their LIVELIHOOD for the betterment of the government. The corporations in Atlas Shrugged were the TOOLS that PEOPLE used to PUSH their own agenda and to try and bring down the government. Also, Atlas Shrugged was about STEEL companies, RAILROADS and GOVERNMENT, not GENERAL MERCHANDISERS, which is what Wal-Mart is.

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.

If you are implying that Wal-Mart is like one of the corporations in that book, then your argument also fails because the point of the story is NOT the corporations but the PEOPLE who run them.

I swear, you cannot take a work of art like Atlas Shrugged and condense it down into a one liner support for Wal-Mart. If that is what you took from the book, you need to sit down and read it again.

You would have a better argument if you would substitute Wal-Mart for the government in Atlas Shrugged, but then, WHOOPS, you would be proving my point. Cheers!
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 417
view profile
History
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/21/2008 11:43:48 AM

just something that was fair for everyone at that particular corporation


Fair? According to whom? What is unfair about a corporation deciding how much each of it's employees is paid?

The janitor is responsible for making sure that the store is clean.

The CEO is responsible for the entire operation - from purchasing, warehousing and distribution to marketing and advertising to the operations of each and every store.

So again, I ask.... if you want to have "fairness", you have to be able to define it, and the definition needs to be objective, so that each of us can look at a situation, decide whether or not it is "fair", and come up with the same answer to the same question in the same circumstance, no matter who is doing the evaluation.
 NeapTide
Joined: 6/18/2008
Msg: 418
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/21/2008 11:53:02 AM

A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.
- A. Rand
Hmmmm.... seems like you can use her works to prove many concepts.... interesting...

Here's another:


Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values.
- A. Rand

The significance of great works of writing is that they can mean many things to many people. They are not quantifiable. That is why they are read and reread and interpreted and reinterpreted and deconstructed and reconstructed and so forth. To try and claim you know EXACTLY what the author meant is folly.


So again, I ask.... if you want to have "fairness", you have to be able to define it, and the definition needs to be objective, so that each of us can look at a situation, decide whether or not it is "fair", and come up with the same answer to the same question in the same circumstance, no matter who is doing the evaluation.

Again, I am saying FAIR TO THAT CORPORATION - that entity which includes all parts of the organism - I don't understand why it cannot be relative to that specific corporation.

As I have said, I am not an Econ Major - I am just trying to offer up some ways to think outside box and move away from knee jerk reactions and think along the lines of mutually beneficial change - why is that so upsetting? If I were a CEO and making billions annually, I would be EMBARRASSED that I had employees schlepping in the food bank lines. I would want to make the earnings fair - I would work to that end. Obviously, I'm not a billionaire CEO and maybe something happens in the process of becoming a billionaire CEO that you stop caring about fairness and just grab what you can.

Maybe my concept is hogwash but radical ideas come from odd places sometimes. Maybe ultimately a wage ratio is impossible because it requires a corporation to act as an entity for the betterment of ALL. It may be the same situation as the nonprofit that refuses to die once it has met its goals. But instead of just saying WAL-MART sux (which IMO it does royally), I was trying to find a way to find common ground. Thanks for showing me that polarization is the wave of the future.
 Super Ryan
Joined: 9/15/2007
Msg: 419
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/21/2008 12:53:46 PM

Kinda creepy how you accepted that from ryan without any evidence or source.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/CEOsNearRecordPayRatios.aspx
http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/1794.html
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/news/economy/ceo_pay/
I could post even more links, but I think I have proven my claim. The reason why people accept what I write is because in the past I have always backed up my information when challenged. But I like how you accept my posts when you think you can use it to back up you opinion.

Also, Ryan's choice of wage is questionable- where did they get $8.53/h?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/04/business/04wages.html
I never said it was the average, just what one specific worker makes.

a "living wage"(still waiting for a definition for that one from you),


Living wage is a term used to describe the minimum hourly wage necessary for a person to achieve some specific standard of living. In developed countries such as the United Kingdom or Switzerland, this standard generally means that a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford a specified quality or quantity of housing, food, utilities, transport, health care, and recreation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage

So basically enough money for a shitty apartment, a bus pass, enough food to have a balanced diet, health care (I think everyone even the unemployed should have health care), utilities, some clothing, a bit of pocket cash for entertainment, and hopefully enough so if someone wishes they can improve themselves (like part-time education).
What the living wage is, depends on where you live. If you live in rural areas, transportation costs would most likely be higher since buses are'nt likely, but rent would be cheap. People who live in big cities would need more for rent, but may find other things cheaper. So it's very hard to make a single number for the whole country. But I don't think anyone here thinks a Wal-Mart cashier should be able to afford a new Ferrarri, wear Gucci and Prada, or live in a gated estate. Just enough so if they work a full time job, they can survive without relying on government support or work a second job.

That's all I feel like defending right now. The rest of the attacks against my posts I will get to later. Some of them will require a ton of writting to explain, which I just don't feel like doing right now.
 Super Ryan
Joined: 9/15/2007
Msg: 420
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/21/2008 1:03:57 PM
Ayn Rand never studied economics. Her ideas have never been taught in the ligitimate world of economics. She was a philosopher and a writer.
Laissez-faire capitalism is a proven failure. For the same reason total communism does'nt work.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
 oddandy
Joined: 3/5/2008
Msg: 421
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/21/2008 1:41:03 PM
There are people working at Wal-Mart because that is the best they can get right now.


But rather than going after the places of employment that are even WORSE than Wal Mart...the places that pay EVEN LESS, that DON'T offer profit-sharing, that have even mroe deplorable conditions...rather than go after the worst of the worst, everyone jumps on the "let's attack Wal Mart even though they're better than a lot of the alternatives" bandwagon. Great.



To say they are not entitled to adequate health care or a livable wage because they choose to work at Wal-Mart is adding insult to injury.


Ma'am, if I CHOOSE to eat McDonalds every day of my life, I hope I will NOT be insulted when you claim I am not entitled to be skinny. Think about it. For that matter, I don't believe anyone is "entitled" to healthcare any more than they're "entitled" to drive a nice car or "have nice things."

CHOICES - It's the new adult thing.
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 422
view profile
History
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/21/2008 2:00:31 PM

Laissez-faire capitalism is a proven failure.


Really? Based on what objective criteria?

What system is working better?
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 423
view profile
History
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/21/2008 2:02:31 PM
[quote}Again, I am saying FAIR TO THAT CORPORATION - that entity which includes all parts of the organism - I don't understand why it cannot be relative to that specific corporation.

Let me try this one more time.

How do you define "fair"? Are there objective criteria for this?
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 424
view profile
History
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/21/2008 2:06:24 PM

I would like to point out that many big companies are not exactly efficent nor moral. Enron, WorldCom, Fannie Mae and yes I would include Wal-Mart.


Many? You named four.

Enron and Worldcom are gone - business Darwinism at work.

I'm not sure how you can call Fannie Mae "inefficient" or "immoral", perhaps you'll share that with me. This by the way, it not *exactly* an example of a private corporation, as it is a creation of Congress.

Having a negative impact, as you allege Wal-Mart does, is not demonstrably either "inefficient" or "immoral".
 Super Ryan
Joined: 9/15/2007
Msg: 425
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.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > Wally-Mart SUX[Thread Closed/Bumped Thread No Clear OT]