Batteground Walmart

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Maybe we should address the costs of healthcare [/quote]

The only way the Republicans can imagine is to open the market across state lines , It won’t work . The Demographics are different in FLA to CA
[/quote]

Stop thinking “us v them”.

Jesus H it isn’t like the democrats have any better ideas… Except to take failed republican ones and spread it nationally.[/quote]

I responded to some one that said “People like Pitt” . You responded to that. And now I am supposed to quit thinking Me vs Them in three quick steps ? Funny stuff

142

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Not only are the republicans the only party to even address welfare reform in any meaningful way, there are more companies that pay low wages than just WalMArt.
[/quote]

Bill Clinton did the last welfare reform (I know with a Republican house :slight_smile:

Reform does not mean dismantle necessarily , it can also mean to change for the better .

I agree Walmart is not the only one , but because they are the largest private employer (especially low paying employer) they set the standard .

I personally doubt Walmart could have gotten so large with out the government subsidizing their employment program .

143

Wages and benefits don’t have to suck for retail employees but it’s easier for lazy management that way.

james

144

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Wages and benefits don’t have to suck for retail employees but it’s easier for lazy management that way.

james[/quote]

Funny you should bring Costco up, I was just reading up yesterday on how high they pay their employees compared to similar businesses. Also, from what I gathered, their CEO through 2011 was apparently only taking a $350,000 salary…dunno if it was by his choice, but if so, pretty cool.

Pittbull, the loud and clear message I’ve been getting through your posts is that you think it is the government’s responsibility to make sure people are employed. Which is why I said what I did, and I don’t take it back.

I don’t call myself conservative, though once upon a time I did. I just like the idea of small government, minimally involved in the people’s affairs…a government that is afraid of its citizens, one that known if it tries to pull any shady crap, they, our representatives, will get kicked out of office pronto. Because government is responsible for upholding the law, for the most part, it also will generally regard itself as above the law. For this, and other related reasons, it should be kept as small as possible.

You disagree with this, I presume?

145

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

Pittbull, the loud and clear message I’ve been getting through your posts is that you think it is the government’s responsibility to make sure people are employed.
[/quote]

What did I say that gives you this load message ?

146

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Funny you should bring Costco up, I was just reading up yesterday on how high they pay their employees compared to similar businesses. Also, from what I gathered, their CEO through 2011 was apparently only taking a $350,000 salary…dunno if it was by his choice, but if so, pretty cool.

Pittbull, the loud and clear message I’ve been getting through your posts is that you think it is the government’s responsibility to make sure people are employed. Which is why I said what I did, and I don’t take it back.

I don’t call myself conservative, though once upon a time I did. I just like the idea of small government, minimally involved in the people’s affairs…a government that is afraid of its citizens, one that known if it tries to pull any shady crap, they, our representatives, will get kicked out of office pronto. Because government is responsible for upholding the law, for the most part, it also will generally regard itself as above the law. For this, and other related reasons, it should be kept as small as possible.

You disagree with this, I presume?[/quote]

The guy created the company so he didn’t need a high salary with his stock options. He also wasn’t going to just get up and leave the company or willingly drive it to the ground. So you figure $350K plus options is pretty solid.

It’s funny how you talk about small government while we’re discussing huge corporations because the similarities are uncanny.

james

147

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Funny you should bring Costco up, I was just reading up yesterday on how high they pay their employees compared to similar businesses. Also, from what I gathered, their CEO through 2011 was apparently only taking a $350,000 salary…dunno if it was by his choice, but if so, pretty cool.

Pittbull, the loud and clear message I’ve been getting through your posts is that you think it is the government’s responsibility to make sure people are employed. Which is why I said what I did, and I don’t take it back.

I don’t call myself conservative, though once upon a time I did. I just like the idea of small government, minimally involved in the people’s affairs…a government that is afraid of its citizens, one that known if it tries to pull any shady crap, they, our representatives, will get kicked out of office pronto. Because government is responsible for upholding the law, for the most part, it also will generally regard itself as above the law. For this, and other related reasons, it should be kept as small as possible.

You disagree with this, I presume?[/quote]

The guy created the company so he didn’t need a high salary with his stock options. He also wasn’t going to just get up and leave the company or willingly drive it to the ground. So you figure $350K plus options is pretty solid.

It’s funny how you talk about small government while we’re discussing huge corporations because the similarities are uncanny.

james
[/quote]

Certainly the man doesn’t NEED more than that by any means, but it’s approx 1/3 of the average CEO’s wages from what I understand, and I’m sure most CEOs have stock options just like he does. I wasn’t really trying to make a point with Costco, just mentioning it.

Some of the biggest differences, in my opinion, between big gov’t and big companies, are:

  1. Gov’t makes laws for everyone, including the companies, to follow
  2. Gov’t largely controls the circulation of money
  3. Gov’t, being a larger machine, with generally a longer delay in the consequences of its financial actions, is naturally less prone to accountability.

Just a few off the top of my head, but I think you get the gist of it.

148

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

Pittbull, the loud and clear message I’ve been getting through your posts is that you think it is the government’s responsibility to make sure people are employed.
[/quote]

What did I say that gives you this load message ?
[/quote]

I suppose I should amend my previous statement to accurately reflect what I think you think. It looks to me like you believe it is the govt’s responsibility to tell companies how much they should pay their employees, how many hours employees are entitled to work per week, etc. Granted, gov’t already does that to some degree, what with minimum wage and such. Then again, I’m not even sure if mandated minimum wage is a good thing. At a glance, it comes across as just one more attempt by the gov’t to impose arbitrary regulations on the market.

So, in a nutshell, do you believe the gov’t should be telling companies how to compensate their people, or not?

149

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Funny you should bring Costco up, I was just reading up yesterday on how high they pay their employees compared to similar businesses. Also, from what I gathered, their CEO through 2011 was apparently only taking a $350,000 salary…dunno if it was by his choice, but if so, pretty cool.

Pittbull, the loud and clear message I’ve been getting through your posts is that you think it is the government’s responsibility to make sure people are employed. Which is why I said what I did, and I don’t take it back.

I don’t call myself conservative, though once upon a time I did. I just like the idea of small government, minimally involved in the people’s affairs…a government that is afraid of its citizens, one that known if it tries to pull any shady crap, they, our representatives, will get kicked out of office pronto. Because government is responsible for upholding the law, for the most part, it also will generally regard itself as above the law. For this, and other related reasons, it should be kept as small as possible.

You disagree with this, I presume?[/quote]

The guy created the company so he didn’t need a high salary with his stock options. He also wasn’t going to just get up and leave the company or willingly drive it to the ground. So you figure $350K plus options is pretty solid.

It’s funny how you talk about small government while we’re discussing huge corporations because the similarities are uncanny.

james
[/quote]

Certainly the man doesn’t NEED more than that by any means, but it’s approx 1/3 of the average CEO’s wages from what I understand, and I’m sure most CEOs have stock options just like he does. I wasn’t really trying to make a point with Costco, just mentioning it.

Some of the biggest differences, in my opinion, between big gov’t and big companies, are:

  1. Gov’t makes laws for everyone, including the companies, to follow
  2. Gov’t largely controls the circulation of money
  3. Gov’t, being a larger machine, with generally a longer delay in the consequences of its financial actions, is naturally less prone to accountability.

Just a few off the top of my head, but I think you get the gist of it. [/quote]

Excuse me while I point out the 400lbs turd in the room:

Governments expect you to do as they say or else they send men with guns who will shoot you dead if you dont comply.

That is the alpha and omega of the difference between corporations and governments, the rest is footnotes.

150

Crux of the problem from the laborer and poverty standpoint is that Walmart NECESSARILY creates poverty jobs in every location it opens up shop. It employs something like 1.5 million people, and is responsible for just about that many poverty jobs. If every business operated the same way Walmart operated, the economy would tank.

If owners considered the very moral concept of the categorical imperative, the Walmart model wouldn’t exist. It’s the basic concept, that don’t you do shit that you wouldn’t will everyone else to do. Or you don’t do things that wouldn’t work out in a world where everyone does the same thing. Walmart couldn’t do this because the nature of the Corporation is parasitic and not conducive for a healthy lower class. If you follow through with the concept and every corporation and employer paid the lowest possible wage, the economy would INDUBITABLY FAIL, so it’s a self defeating Philosophy which fails the Categorical Imperative.

From a business persons perspective who competes with a corporate giant… Good friggin luck competing with them, they gobble mom and pop shops up like Ronald Reagan did jellybeans. Sometimes the consumer doesn’t have the luxury of using their purchasing power in a Political way, some people straight up don’t follow politics and are just looking to put food on the table… So naturally they will look for the best deal.

Big picture, it’s parasitic… The only reason it can exist is because there are other companies out there that pay fair wages. It’s just too bad some of you either don’t care, or cant see it. Fucking Beans, I can’t believe you see this for what it is and think it’s okay.

151

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

Pittbull, the loud and clear message I’ve been getting through your posts is that you think it is the government’s responsibility to make sure people are employed.
[/quote]

What did I say that gives you this load message ?
[/quote]

I suppose I should amend my previous statement to accurately reflect what I think you think. It looks to me like you believe it is the govt’s responsibility to tell companies how much they should pay their employees, how many hours employees are entitled to work per week, etc. Granted, gov’t already does that to some degree, what with minimum wage and such. Then again, I’m not even sure if mandated minimum wage is a good thing. At a glance, it comes across as just one more attempt by the gov’t to impose arbitrary regulations on the market.

So, in a nutshell, do you believe the gov’t should be telling companies how to compensate their people, or not?[/quote]

I have a few nemesis (Plural:)with more time , that have managed to paint me as they wish. I am suggesting you give labor the same opportunity that Business exercises in our Government. Most people on this board feel labor has no rights in the labor market

The bit of me thinking government owes everyone a job is incorrect and obstructive of my point of view

I find it amusing that a college educated individual would say “I do not disagree with you” as apposed to I agree with you. It is a mind set to not give one iota :slight_smile:

152

What ever happened to doing the right thing?

153

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Fucking Beans, I can’t believe you see this for what it is and think it’s okay. [/quote]

You misunderstand my position.

I don’t “think it is okay”, hense why I don’t shop there.

I just expect people to take care of themselves. Sorry, but I do. I’m tired of neo-liberal American view of “everyone is a winner” and that everyone should be “taken care of”. No, not any more.

I’ve been through too much, and my empathy has run dry. I do my best every day to help those that try and help themselves, but if someone wants to dig their own ditch (shopping at and working at a WalMart without trying to move up into management) then that is their bed, and they can lie in it. I’ll be busy getting mine by helping people who want to be better than they were yesterday.

The talk of “unions” and “government” can get bent, because these same people did it to themselves by shopping there in the first place… I don’t hate WalMart, nor do I think they are evil or bad. They are making money by doing what the market allows them to do by shopping there, and they do a damn good job of it. I prefer to support the “little” guy, because I love an underdog.

154

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Certainly the man doesn’t NEED more than that by any means, but it’s approx 1/3 of the average CEO’s wages from what I understand, and I’m sure most CEOs have stock options just like he does. I wasn’t really trying to make a point with Costco, just mentioning it.

Some of the biggest differences, in my opinion, between big gov’t and big companies, are:

  1. Gov’t makes laws for everyone, including the companies, to follow
  2. Gov’t largely controls the circulation of money
  3. Gov’t, being a larger machine, with generally a longer delay in the consequences of its financial actions, is naturally less prone to accountability.

Just a few off the top of my head, but I think you get the gist of it. [/quote]

LOL…I didn’t mean that in a literal sense. But look, both corporations and the government are large bureaucratic institutions with layers of management and inefficiencies built into them. And I think you would find that corporations make more laws and control more money than you realize. I think that the recent financial crises pointed that out quite well.

james

155

[quote]Severiano wrote:
What ever happened to doing the right thing? [/quote]

lol… that’s not part of the “American Way”.

Sorry, that was cynical. There are some companies that most definitely do the right thing. I think of UPS as another company that pays well for what the work is and still manages to make a huge profit. So it definitely can be done.

james

156

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
What ever happened to doing the right thing? [/quote]

lol… that’s not part of the “American Way”.

Sorry, that was cynical. There are some companies that most definitely do the right thing. I think of UPS as another company that pays well for what the work is and still manages to make a huge profit. So it definitely can be done.

james
[/quote]

“The right thing” is founding a business and supplying the goods or services that the business sells to the public at a competitive price. If a business is able to do that they will be rewarded with a profit. That profit belongs to the risk taker who began the business. Not the people who risked nothing to work for that business. They can come and go and do all the time in most businesses. In fact, I read something the other day where the typical Apple employee stays at Apple only four years. And they treat their employees pretty well I’m told.

But if all a business does is open and succeed they’ve already helped a countless number of people.

They need go not further than that.

Is someone doesn’t like Walmart wages get another job. If they don’t have skills that warrant a higher wage NO ONE will pay them much more than Walmart does. The mom and pop that Walmart put out of business wasn’t paying Jake the stock clerk anymore than Walmart does.

This stuff is not rocket science. Business is not charity and it should not operate under some sort of Polyanna concept created in some liberals imagination.

Are you good for my business? I will pay you a competitive wage…BASED ON YOUR SKILL LEVEL. Beyond that it is pure charity. Sure I’ve given plenty to charity, but business is business and charity is charity.

157

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

The talk of “unions” and “government” can get bent,[/quote]

Fuck you beans :slight_smile:

158

[quote]Severiano wrote:
What ever happened to doing the right thing? [/quote]
'Subjectivity :slight_smile:

159

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Are you good for my business? I will pay you a competitive wage…BASED ON YOUR SKILL LEVEL.

[/quote]

Are you a good employer or are you wasting my time ,is my time totally compensated . I expect a competitive wage

160

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
What ever happened to doing the right thing? [/quote]

lol… that’s not part of the “American Way”.

Sorry, that was cynical. There are some companies that most definitely do the right thing. I think of UPS as another company that pays well for what the work is and still manages to make a huge profit. So it definitely can be done.

james
[/quote]

Maybe their drivers but, $8.25 to load/unload boxes for hours with short breaks is slave work. I worked as a loader for a while and they tell you straight up many of you will quit, the work it brutal. The hub I worked for and another one in a neighboring city was sued for over working employees with short break times and shaving over time pay. I lost 12 LBS in a little over month that was kind of cool.

Fed-ex pays well, starts loaders at $11.25-$11.75.