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: 227
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)

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!
 designingwoman
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 228
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: 229
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: 230
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.
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 231
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.
 Super Ryan
Joined: 9/15/2007
Msg: 232
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: 233
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: 234
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: 235
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: 236
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: 237
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: 238
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.
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 239
view profile
History
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!
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 240
view profile
History
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?
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 241
view profile
History
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.
 Super Ryan
Joined: 9/15/2007
Msg: 242
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.
 Super Ryan
Joined: 9/15/2007
Msg: 243
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.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 244
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*.
 oddandy
Joined: 3/5/2008
Msg: 245
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?

 Super Ryan
Joined: 9/15/2007
Msg: 246
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.
 The Minister of Dudeness
Joined: 6/11/2006
Msg: 247
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
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 248
view profile
History
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.
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 249
view profile
History
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/22/2008 4:02:45 PM

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.


This is how it is, and hopefully how it will remain.

The problem is, many folks, most of whom who have never run a business, want the government to step in and dictate how a business should be run. This is socialism number one, and number two, it is a sure way, proven by experience, to reduce the performance of an enterprise.

These people think everyone should be paid a "living wage" no matter HOW little they have done to prepare themselves to be productive members of society. "Just pay everyone more", as if there was some magical tree from which this money will come. They would probably be surprised at much this increased the price of virtually everything they buy.

This points out a major failure of our educational system. You should not have to go to college to learn about economics and how our economy works.
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 250
view profile
History
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/22/2008 4:06:00 PM

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.


As far as I know, Wal-Mart has an Employee Stock Ownership Program. Want to participate int he finacial success of the ompany?? Buy stock.

You work, and you get paid for working. You invest, and you get paid dividends.

You seem to propose that people get paid dividends for an investment of zero.

Sorry, you can't count a 40-hour workweek as an "investment". It was not GIVEN, it was EXCHANGED for a paycheck.
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 251
view profile
History
Wally-Mart SUX
Posted: 8/22/2008 4:08:02 PM

I believe that patronizing a store that devalues its employees, the environment and the local community is tacit approval of that behavior.


I think that making such accusations is slanderous. Can you prove ONE of them, using logic and facts? OR are we to just accept those accusations because you say Wal-Mart does those things?
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > Wally-Mart SUX[Thread Closed/Bumped Thread No Clear OT]