|Wally-Mart SUXPage 20 of 20 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)|
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.
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.
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.
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*.
Posted: 8/22/2008 2:26:35 PM
Just off the top of my head.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
20 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)