Is the American Dream Dead?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I don’t expect it. I don’t believe that any country has been able to save itself after it began slipping. However, this country does still have the ability to save itself, if the people so desire. [/quote]

“Saving the country” really only amounts to saving the government from collapse.

I hope you decide to save yourself first because “the country” doesn’t give a rip about you and will do all it can to save itself even if it has to suppress you in the process.[/quote]

True enough. When I mention saving the country, I am talking about the people saving themselves from tyranny. Tyranny will eventually lead to government collapse, so I guess you’re correct.

I don’t want a government collapse. That would most likely do no good, and would almost certainly be bad. If a people were ever to arrive at anarchism by intellectual means, that would likely be great, but getting there by collapse would not be.
[/quote]

Anarchy that is not a torrent of violent misery is not possible. This is self-evident to anybody who’s lived on Earth for more than a few years.

102

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I don’t expect it. I don’t believe that any country has been able to save itself after it began slipping. However, this country does still have the ability to save itself, if the people so desire. [/quote]

“Saving the country” really only amounts to saving the government from collapse.

I hope you decide to save yourself first because “the country” doesn’t give a rip about you and will do all it can to save itself even if it has to suppress you in the process.[/quote]

True enough. When I mention saving the country, I am talking about the people saving themselves from tyranny. Tyranny will eventually lead to government collapse, so I guess you’re correct.

I don’t want a government collapse. That would most likely do no good, and would almost certainly be bad. If a people were ever to arrive at anarchism by intellectual means, that would likely be great, but getting there by collapse would not be.
[/quote]

Anarchy that is not a torrent of violent misery is not possible. This is self-evident to anybody who’s lived on Earth for more than a few years.[/quote]

That certainly seems to be true. That’s why I said “if”.

103

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I don’t expect it. I don’t believe that any country has been able to save itself after it began slipping. However, this country does still have the ability to save itself, if the people so desire. [/quote]

“Saving the country” really only amounts to saving the government from collapse.

I hope you decide to save yourself first because “the country” doesn’t give a rip about you and will do all it can to save itself even if it has to suppress you in the process.[/quote]

True enough. When I mention saving the country, I am talking about the people saving themselves from tyranny. Tyranny will eventually lead to government collapse, so I guess you’re correct.

I don’t want a government collapse. That would most likely do no good, and would almost certainly be bad. If a people were ever to arrive at anarchism by intellectual means, that would likely be great, but getting there by collapse would not be.
[/quote]

Anarchy that is not a torrent of violent misery is not possible. This is self-evident to anybody who’s lived on Earth for more than a few years.[/quote]

That certainly seems to be true. That’s why I said “if”.[/quote]

Indeed, that comment was directed more at the real dyed-in-the-wool anarchists.

104

Nobody can deny the possibility of anarchy unless he cam deny the possibility of at least one voluntary associations in his life.

All friendships are anarchic.

Most business transactions are anarchic.

This discussion is anarchic.

All anarchy means is peaceful and voluntary exchange.

Anarchy is the free market.

105

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Nobody can deny the possibility of anarchy unless he cam deny the possibility of at least one voluntary associations in his life.

All friendships are anarchic.

Most business transactions are anarchic.

This discussion is anarchic.

All anarchy means is peaceful and voluntary exchange.

Anarchy is the free market.
[/quote]

Reduced to this level, a dictatorship is anarchy…

106

I’m obiv being flippant, but come on.

If you are going to say the free market and anarchy works, you are saying that people act in a peaceful and voluntary exchange. Therefore you have to be okay with government, because it is just a group of people.

You can flip this around as well and say any arguement agaisnt a free market based on the evils and will to power of man, is an arguement against government.

107

Absurd.
“the possibility of at least one voluntary association” doesn’t prove the possibility of anarchy.

Anarchy requires that each and every association is voluntary.
So the possibility of at least one non-voluntary association is enough to disprove the possibility anarchy.
As long as such a possibility exists, a State can (and certainly will) emerge, and anarchy is impossible.

108

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
@ Severiano:

Don’t most companies pay their employees a decent wage though? You used Costco as an example, which I think is a good one for your case. My thought though is that most companies have to reward talent in order to keep said talent, but in many cases a lot of their jobs don’t require talent. Walmart, for example, probably pays top dollar for experts in supply chain management because it’s a skill/expertise not everyone has due to education requirements and expereince.

However, the guy saying hello when you walk in. He could be replaced by a sign or any 15 year old looking for a job. So to me, it doesn’t make sense for Walmart to bother at all with the greeter because they don’t really add value. If they had to cut the job entirely it wouldn’t affect their customers or business. If they had to cut the supply chain management guy though, it would cause big problems for the business.

Also I thought Walmart was like the king of operating on the margin? [/quote]

When you plan out the way a business will operate, you divy out the responsibilities, assigning certain tasks to certain employee positions. The difference between Walmart and Costco is that Walmart designed many of their storefront positions to have no real mobility within the company, or any real pay leaving employees feeling hurry up and wait games.

Costco, employees have a lot of responsibility by design, as well as room to grow. It’s not an accident, it’s by design. That’s my definition of a parasitic company, when by design people who are employed have no mobility, or simply don’t make enough full time to make ends meet.

So, Costco pays it’s storefront folks a fair, living wage by design.

Walmart pays it’s storefront folks a poverty wage, by design.

From here I get into what is patriotic and what isn’t for the country. If Walmart were a Marine, he’d be a total shitbag leader who shits all over his lance corporals and listens to the butterbar rather than the Master Guns, Costco would be the leader who everybody works their ass off for because he is fair and shows integrity, follows his chain of command but filters the bullshit for those who follow him.

Two types of leadership, which one were you? The shit bag or the real mofo?

109

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
@ Severiano:

Don’t most companies pay their employees a decent wage though? You used Costco as an example, which I think is a good one for your case. My thought though is that most companies have to reward talent in order to keep said talent, but in many cases a lot of their jobs don’t require talent. Walmart, for example, probably pays top dollar for experts in supply chain management because it’s a skill/expertise not everyone has due to education requirements and expereince.

However, the guy saying hello when you walk in. He could be replaced by a sign or any 15 year old looking for a job. So to me, it doesn’t make sense for Walmart to bother at all with the greeter because they don’t really add value. If they had to cut the job entirely it wouldn’t affect their customers or business. If they had to cut the supply chain management guy though, it would cause big problems for the business.

Also I thought Walmart was like the king of operating on the margin? [/quote]

When you plan out the way a business will operate, you divy out the responsibilities, assigning certain tasks to certain employee positions. The difference between Walmart and Costco is that Walmart designed many of their storefront positions to have no real mobility within the company, or any real pay leaving employees feeling hurry up and wait games.

Costco, employees have a lot of responsibility by design, as well as room to grow. It’s not an accident, it’s by design. That’s my definition of a parasitic company, when by design people who are employed have no mobility, or simply don’t make enough full time to make ends meet.

So, Costco pays it’s storefront folks a fair, living wage by design.

Walmart pays it’s storefront folks a poverty wage, by design.

From here I get into what is patriotic and what isn’t for the country. If Walmart were a Marine, he’d be a total shitbag leader who shits all over his lance corporals and listens to the butterbar rather than the Master Guns, Costco would be the leader who everybody works their ass off for because he is fair and shows integrity, follows his chain of command but filters the bullshit for those who follow him.

Two types of leadership, which one were you? The shit bag or the real mofo? [/quote]

I like the analogue, that’s a good :slight_smile:

I don’t want you to think I’m defending Walmart, I’m not. I’m more interested in understanding the why behind why the companies operate the way they do. Maybe it is just a matter of leadership.

Perhaps it is a superior design utilized by a CEO that is truly an honorable man. It just seems like somehting is missing. They sell similiar products at similiar prices. Costco is a bit more expensive if I’m not mistaken and I think there is a membership fee. So how can they afford to pay higher wages? It can’t just be that the CEO earns less, can it?

Or, like I alluded to, maybe Costco has found a way to fill their positions with better talent, talent they can foster and grow, which demands greater pay.

110

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
@ Severiano:

Don’t most companies pay their employees a decent wage though? You used Costco as an example, which I think is a good one for your case. My thought though is that most companies have to reward talent in order to keep said talent, but in many cases a lot of their jobs don’t require talent. Walmart, for example, probably pays top dollar for experts in supply chain management because it’s a skill/expertise not everyone has due to education requirements and expereince.

However, the guy saying hello when you walk in. He could be replaced by a sign or any 15 year old looking for a job. So to me, it doesn’t make sense for Walmart to bother at all with the greeter because they don’t really add value. If they had to cut the job entirely it wouldn’t affect their customers or business. If they had to cut the supply chain management guy though, it would cause big problems for the business.

Also I thought Walmart was like the king of operating on the margin? [/quote]

When you plan out the way a business will operate, you divy out the responsibilities, assigning certain tasks to certain employee positions. The difference between Walmart and Costco is that Walmart designed many of their storefront positions to have no real mobility within the company, or any real pay leaving employees feeling hurry up and wait games.

Costco, employees have a lot of responsibility by design, as well as room to grow. It’s not an accident, it’s by design. That’s my definition of a parasitic company, when by design people who are employed have no mobility, or simply don’t make enough full time to make ends meet.

So, Costco pays it’s storefront folks a fair, living wage by design.

Walmart pays it’s storefront folks a poverty wage, by design.

From here I get into what is patriotic and what isn’t for the country. If Walmart were a Marine, he’d be a total shitbag leader who shits all over his lance corporals and listens to the butterbar rather than the Master Guns, Costco would be the leader who everybody works their ass off for because he is fair and shows integrity, follows his chain of command but filters the bullshit for those who follow him.

Two types of leadership, which one were you? The shit bag or the real mofo? [/quote]

I like the analogue, that’s a good :slight_smile:

I don’t want you to think I’m defending Walmart, I’m not. I’m more interested in understanding the why behind why the companies operate the way they do. Maybe it is just a matter of leadership.

Perhaps it is a superior design utilized by a CEO that is truly an honorable man. It just seems like somehting is missing. They sell similiar products at similiar prices. Costco is a bit more expensive if I’m not mistaken and I think there is a membership fee. So how can they afford to pay higher wages? It can’t just be that the CEO earns less, can it?

Or, like I alluded to, maybe Costco has found a way to fill their positions with better talent, talent they can foster and grow, which demands greater pay. [/quote]

Well, that’s the very thing I’ve been trying to point out. People talk about ceo’s as if it couldn’t be any other way, that the need for such leaders necessitates the cost. Yet, there are examples of companies/ corporations that have found a way to make room for EVERYBODY. Not just Costco, there’s a list of great companies to work for, you will find they are plenty profitable and ownership is wealthy.

If you ask me, it just turns out that the folks at the very top tend to get very greedy. Be it restructuring, creating bankruptcies so that they don’t have to pay off people’s retirements, etc… Remember Mitt Romney and all the folks defending him here? Guy was a master at manipulating demand and government so he could line his pockets, just look up the whole Alcoa fiasco that everyone seems to forget about, nevermind the miners he blue falconed.

Just remember that the good folks out there who do it right are supposed to be the example of the American Dream. If that’s the American dream, it’s a truly vile dream to accept when you have the example of Costco as the competitor. It’s like picking Cain over Abel.

111

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
@ Severiano:

Don’t most companies pay their employees a decent wage though? You used Costco as an example, which I think is a good one for your case. My thought though is that most companies have to reward talent in order to keep said talent, but in many cases a lot of their jobs don’t require talent. Walmart, for example, probably pays top dollar for experts in supply chain management because it’s a skill/expertise not everyone has due to education requirements and expereince.

However, the guy saying hello when you walk in. He could be replaced by a sign or any 15 year old looking for a job. So to me, it doesn’t make sense for Walmart to bother at all with the greeter because they don’t really add value. If they had to cut the job entirely it wouldn’t affect their customers or business. If they had to cut the supply chain management guy though, it would cause big problems for the business.

Also I thought Walmart was like the king of operating on the margin? [/quote]

When you plan out the way a business will operate, you divy out the responsibilities, assigning certain tasks to certain employee positions. The difference between Walmart and Costco is that Walmart designed many of their storefront positions to have no real mobility within the company, or any real pay leaving employees feeling hurry up and wait games.

Costco, employees have a lot of responsibility by design, as well as room to grow. It’s not an accident, it’s by design. That’s my definition of a parasitic company, when by design people who are employed have no mobility, or simply don’t make enough full time to make ends meet.

So, Costco pays it’s storefront folks a fair, living wage by design.

Walmart pays it’s storefront folks a poverty wage, by design.

From here I get into what is patriotic and what isn’t for the country. If Walmart were a Marine, he’d be a total shitbag leader who shits all over his lance corporals and listens to the butterbar rather than the Master Guns, Costco would be the leader who everybody works their ass off for because he is fair and shows integrity, follows his chain of command but filters the bullshit for those who follow him.

Two types of leadership, which one were you? The shit bag or the real mofo? [/quote]

I like the analogue, that’s a good :slight_smile:

I don’t want you to think I’m defending Walmart, I’m not. I’m more interested in understanding the why behind why the companies operate the way they do. Maybe it is just a matter of leadership.

Perhaps it is a superior design utilized by a CEO that is truly an honorable man. It just seems like somehting is missing. They sell similiar products at similiar prices. Costco is a bit more expensive if I’m not mistaken and I think there is a membership fee. So how can they afford to pay higher wages? It can’t just be that the CEO earns less, can it?

Or, like I alluded to, maybe Costco has found a way to fill their positions with better talent, talent they can foster and grow, which demands greater pay. [/quote]

Well, that’s the very thing I’ve been trying to point out. People talk about ceo’s as if it couldn’t be any other way, that the need for such leaders necessitates the cost. Yet, there are examples of companies/ corporations that have found a way to make room for EVERYBODY.

If you ask me, it just turns out that the folks at the very top tend to get very greedy. Be it restructuring, creating bankruptcies so that they don’t have to pay off people’s retirements, etc… Remember Mitt Romney and all the folks defending him here? Guy was a master at manipulating demand and government so he could line his pockets, just look up the whole Alcoa fiasco that everyone seems to forget about, nevermind the miners he blue falconed. [/quote]

I will look up the Alcoa situation.

I’m sure greed plays it’s part. I’ll certainly not argue against greed. I think people at all levels are greedy though. It seems to me that Costco’s CEO is an exception is all. Walmart is one extreme while Costco is the other. Many companies pay good wages for talent is my guess. Look at a company like say IBM. How many of their employees are making $7 an hour, I don’t know, but my guess is not many if any. I think most companies fall into this category.

Are Costco and Walmart really comparable anyway? Costco’s business is centered on bulk sales correct? That’s not really Walmarts strategy, which could play a larger role than we think. Also we are talking about very different companies:

Walmart 2012 in milions:
Net sales: $443,854
Consolidated net income: $16,387

Costco 2012 in millions:
Net Sales: $97,062
Net Income: $1,709

I realize these are only a few indicies, but look at the differnce in cost between the two. Walmart’s net sales are about 22% higher than Costco, but their NI is only about 10% higher. This I assume is due in large part to a significantly higher COGS. My guess is this is not due to poor management, but that it just cost Walmart more money to run their business. Raising wages across the board at Walmart would be rather expensive I think.

http://www.walmartstores.com/sites/annual-report/2012/WalMart_AR.pdf

Costco, came off their statements (a pdf on their site)

112
113

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Nobody can deny the possibility of anarchy unless he cam deny the possibility of at least one voluntary associations in his life.

All friendships are anarchic.

Most business transactions are anarchic.

This discussion is anarchic.

All anarchy means is peaceful and voluntary exchange.

Anarchy is the free market.
[/quote]

Reduced to this level, a dictatorship is anarchy…[/quote]

You have a very warped understanding of “peaceful and voluntary exchange”.

edited

114

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m obiv being flippant, but come on.

If you are going to say the free market and anarchy works, you are saying that people act in a peaceful and voluntary exchange. Therefore you have to be okay with government, because it is just a group of people.

You can flip this around as well and say any arguement agaisnt a free market based on the evils and will to power of man, is an arguement against government. [/quote]

Market tends to reduce power down to a more civilized element.

If government could exist voluntarily I would be all for it. I should be able to opt out and refuse to pay for services that I never asked for…you know, how we typically understand the term voluntary.

115

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
@ Severiano:

Don’t most companies pay their employees a decent wage though? You used Costco as an example, which I think is a good one for your case. My thought though is that most companies have to reward talent in order to keep said talent, but in many cases a lot of their jobs don’t require talent. Walmart, for example, probably pays top dollar for experts in supply chain management because it’s a skill/expertise not everyone has due to education requirements and expereince.

However, the guy saying hello when you walk in. He could be replaced by a sign or any 15 year old looking for a job. So to me, it doesn’t make sense for Walmart to bother at all with the greeter because they don’t really add value. If they had to cut the job entirely it wouldn’t affect their customers or business. If they had to cut the supply chain management guy though, it would cause big problems for the business.

Also I thought Walmart was like the king of operating on the margin? [/quote]

When you plan out the way a business will operate, you divy out the responsibilities, assigning certain tasks to certain employee positions. The difference between Walmart and Costco is that Walmart designed many of their storefront positions to have no real mobility within the company, or any real pay leaving employees feeling hurry up and wait games.

Costco, employees have a lot of responsibility by design, as well as room to grow. It’s not an accident, it’s by design. That’s my definition of a parasitic company, when by design people who are employed have no mobility, or simply don’t make enough full time to make ends meet.

So, Costco pays it’s storefront folks a fair, living wage by design.

Walmart pays it’s storefront folks a poverty wage, by design.

From here I get into what is patriotic and what isn’t for the country. If Walmart were a Marine, he’d be a total shitbag leader who shits all over his lance corporals and listens to the butterbar rather than the Master Guns, Costco would be the leader who everybody works their ass off for because he is fair and shows integrity, follows his chain of command but filters the bullshit for those who follow him.

Two types of leadership, which one were you? The shit bag or the real mofo? [/quote]

I like the analogue, that’s a good :slight_smile:

I don’t want you to think I’m defending Walmart, I’m not. I’m more interested in understanding the why behind why the companies operate the way they do. Maybe it is just a matter of leadership.

Perhaps it is a superior design utilized by a CEO that is truly an honorable man. It just seems like somehting is missing. They sell similiar products at similiar prices. Costco is a bit more expensive if I’m not mistaken and I think there is a membership fee. So how can they afford to pay higher wages? It can’t just be that the CEO earns less, can it?

Or, like I alluded to, maybe Costco has found a way to fill their positions with better talent, talent they can foster and grow, which demands greater pay. [/quote]

Well, that’s the very thing I’ve been trying to point out. People talk about ceo’s as if it couldn’t be any other way, that the need for such leaders necessitates the cost. Yet, there are examples of companies/ corporations that have found a way to make room for EVERYBODY.

If you ask me, it just turns out that the folks at the very top tend to get very greedy. Be it restructuring, creating bankruptcies so that they don’t have to pay off people’s retirements, etc… Remember Mitt Romney and all the folks defending him here? Guy was a master at manipulating demand and government so he could line his pockets, just look up the whole Alcoa fiasco that everyone seems to forget about, nevermind the miners he blue falconed. [/quote]

I will look up the Alcoa situation.

I’m sure greed plays it’s part. I’ll certainly not argue against greed. I think people at all levels are greedy though. It seems to me that Costco’s CEO is an exception is all. Walmart is one extreme while Costco is the other. Many companies pay good wages for talent is my guess. Look at a company like say IBM. How many of their employees are making $7 an hour, I don’t know, but my guess is not many if any. I think most companies fall into this category.

Are Costco and Walmart really comparable anyway? Costco’s business is centered on bulk sales correct? That’s not really Walmarts strategy, which could play a larger role than we think. Also we are talking about very different companies:

Walmart 2012 in milions:
Net sales: $443,854
Consolidated net income: $16,387

Costco 2012 in millions:
Net Sales: $97,062
Net Income: $1,709

I realize these are only a few indicies, but look at the differnce in cost between the two. Walmart’s net sales are about 22% higher than Costco, but their NI is only about 10% higher. This I assume is due in large part to a significantly higher COGS. My guess is this is not due to poor management, but that it just cost Walmart more money to run their business. Raising wages across the board at Walmart would be rather expensive I think.

http://www.walmartstores.com/sites/annual-report/2012/WalMart_AR.pdf

Costco, came off their statements (a pdf on their site)[/quote]

Just based on shopping experience I can see how costco has better profits and in turn can pay employees more.

  • Maximum traffic in minimum hours, they have shorter hours than most stores but are very efficient during that time. The hours are just about the time of 1 shift so they don’t really need overlapping shifts and as many employees. They don’t waste much time having the store open with few people shopping.

  • Profit per purchase, I noticed that many things at costco are not always discounted that much, its just convenient buying in bulk. Some of their stuff is better quality than typical bulk stores but not really cheaper (or at least enough to make a huge difference).

  • Average purchase, the average checkout total is probably over $100 so just in the time that occurs they make a decent profit for employee time. Compare this to walmart were a lot of people may make small purchases on discount items (lot of sale items), just the employee time they take to make that transaction they are making little profit.

116

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
@ Severiano:

Don’t most companies pay their employees a decent wage though? You used Costco as an example, which I think is a good one for your case. My thought though is that most companies have to reward talent in order to keep said talent, but in many cases a lot of their jobs don’t require talent. Walmart, for example, probably pays top dollar for experts in supply chain management because it’s a skill/expertise not everyone has due to education requirements and expereince.

However, the guy saying hello when you walk in. He could be replaced by a sign or any 15 year old looking for a job. So to me, it doesn’t make sense for Walmart to bother at all with the greeter because they don’t really add value. If they had to cut the job entirely it wouldn’t affect their customers or business. If they had to cut the supply chain management guy though, it would cause big problems for the business.

Also I thought Walmart was like the king of operating on the margin? [/quote]

When you plan out the way a business will operate, you divy out the responsibilities, assigning certain tasks to certain employee positions. The difference between Walmart and Costco is that Walmart designed many of their storefront positions to have no real mobility within the company, or any real pay leaving employees feeling hurry up and wait games.

Costco, employees have a lot of responsibility by design, as well as room to grow. It’s not an accident, it’s by design. That’s my definition of a parasitic company, when by design people who are employed have no mobility, or simply don’t make enough full time to make ends meet.

So, Costco pays it’s storefront folks a fair, living wage by design.

Walmart pays it’s storefront folks a poverty wage, by design.

From here I get into what is patriotic and what isn’t for the country. If Walmart were a Marine, he’d be a total shitbag leader who shits all over his lance corporals and listens to the butterbar rather than the Master Guns, Costco would be the leader who everybody works their ass off for because he is fair and shows integrity, follows his chain of command but filters the bullshit for those who follow him.

Two types of leadership, which one were you? The shit bag or the real mofo? [/quote]

I like the analogue, that’s a good :slight_smile:

I don’t want you to think I’m defending Walmart, I’m not. I’m more interested in understanding the why behind why the companies operate the way they do. Maybe it is just a matter of leadership.

Perhaps it is a superior design utilized by a CEO that is truly an honorable man. It just seems like somehting is missing. They sell similiar products at similiar prices. Costco is a bit more expensive if I’m not mistaken and I think there is a membership fee. So how can they afford to pay higher wages? It can’t just be that the CEO earns less, can it?

Or, like I alluded to, maybe Costco has found a way to fill their positions with better talent, talent they can foster and grow, which demands greater pay. [/quote]

Well, that’s the very thing I’ve been trying to point out. People talk about ceo’s as if it couldn’t be any other way, that the need for such leaders necessitates the cost. Yet, there are examples of companies/ corporations that have found a way to make room for EVERYBODY.

If you ask me, it just turns out that the folks at the very top tend to get very greedy. Be it restructuring, creating bankruptcies so that they don’t have to pay off people’s retirements, etc… Remember Mitt Romney and all the folks defending him here? Guy was a master at manipulating demand and government so he could line his pockets, just look up the whole Alcoa fiasco that everyone seems to forget about, nevermind the miners he blue falconed. [/quote]

I will look up the Alcoa situation.

I’m sure greed plays it’s part. I’ll certainly not argue against greed. I think people at all levels are greedy though. It seems to me that Costco’s CEO is an exception is all. Walmart is one extreme while Costco is the other. Many companies pay good wages for talent is my guess. Look at a company like say IBM. How many of their employees are making $7 an hour, I don’t know, but my guess is not many if any. I think most companies fall into this category.

Are Costco and Walmart really comparable anyway? Costco’s business is centered on bulk sales correct? That’s not really Walmarts strategy, which could play a larger role than we think. Also we are talking about very different companies:

Walmart 2012 in milions:
Net sales: $443,854
Consolidated net income: $16,387

Costco 2012 in millions:
Net Sales: $97,062
Net Income: $1,709

I realize these are only a few indicies, but look at the differnce in cost between the two. Walmart’s net sales are about 22% higher than Costco, but their NI is only about 10% higher. This I assume is due in large part to a significantly higher COGS. My guess is this is not due to poor management, but that it just cost Walmart more money to run their business. Raising wages across the board at Walmart would be rather expensive I think.

http://www.walmartstores.com/sites/annual-report/2012/WalMart_AR.pdf

Costco, came off their statements (a pdf on their site)[/quote]

Just based on shopping experience I can see how costco has better profits and in turn can pay employees more.

  • Maximum traffic in minimum hours, they have shorter hours than most stores but are very efficient during that time. The hours are just about the time of 1 shift so they don’t really need overlapping shifts and as many employees. They don’t waste much time having the store open with few people shopping.

  • Profit per purchase, I noticed that many things at costco are not always discounted that much, its just convenient buying in bulk. Some of their stuff is better quality than typical bulk stores but not really cheaper (or at least enough to make a huge difference).

  • Average purchase, the average checkout total is probably over $100 so just in the time that occurs they make a decent profit for employee time. Compare this to walmart were a lot of people may make small purchases on discount items (lot of sale items), just the employee time they take to make that transaction they are making little profit. [/quote]

Exactly, which is why comparing the two is difficult at best. They don’t even service the same customers really. There is some overlap though.

117

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Anarchy is the free market.
[/quote]

No, it isn’t.

The free market requires as a necessary condition of its existence a legal infrastructure imparted with authority by the threat of violence.

There is no market–no property, even–without law.

This is exactly where this conversation ends. Always. And then the anarchist simply forgets about it, and starts over a few months later.

118

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Anarchy is the free market.
[/quote]

No, it isn’t.

The free market requires as a necessary condition of its existence a legal infrastructure imparted with authority by the threat of violence.

There is no market–no property, even–without law.

This is exactly where this conversation ends. Always. And then the anarchist simply forgets about it, and starts over a few months later.[/quote]

You’re dumb.

A person can buy anything on the black-market (or any market for that matter) and it requires only a peaceful exchange for it to be considered anarchy.

119

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Anarchy is the free market.
[/quote]

No, it isn’t.

The free market requires as a necessary condition of its existence a legal infrastructure imparted with authority by the threat of violence.

There is no market–no property, even–without law.

This is exactly where this conversation ends. Always. And then the anarchist simply forgets about it, and starts over a few months later.[/quote]

You’re dumb.
[/quote]

If someone who holds the opinions that you do thought me anything less than dumb, I’d be genuinely insulted.

[quote]
A person can buy anything on the black-market (or any market for that matter) and it requires only a peaceful exchange for it to be considered anarchy.[/quote]

You’re building “peaceful exchange” into the definition of anarchy?

No, you don’t get to do that.

Anarchy is lawlessness. And that only. And black markets are fucking stuffed to the gills with examples of extremely un-peaceful exchanges.

On a different note, good luck constructing a viable free market without contracts and courts.

120

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Anarchy is the free market.
[/quote]

No, it isn’t.

The free market requires as a necessary condition of its existence a legal infrastructure imparted with authority by the threat of violence.

There is no market–no property, even–without law.

This is exactly where this conversation ends. Always. And then the anarchist simply forgets about it, and starts over a few months later.[/quote]

You’re dumb.
[/quote]

If someone who holds the opinions that you do thought me anything less than dumb, I’d be genuinely insulted.

[quote]
A person can buy anything on the black-market (or any market for that matter) and it requires only a peaceful exchange for it to be considered anarchy.[/quote]

You’re building “peaceful exchange” into the definition of anarchy?

No, you don’t get to do that.

Anarchy is lawlessness. And that only. And black markets are fucking stuffed to the gills with examples of extremely un-peaceful exchanges.

On a different note, good luck constructing a viable free market without contracts and courts.[/quote]

Anarchy is neither lawlessness or a free market. Anarchy simply means without authority. Wich in turn means that a Anarchist society is one without a authority aka the state. I agree though SMH that capitalism without a state is absurd and without any basis in history. Governments where instrumental in establishing the capitalist economy we now know.

The only form of anarchy that has any historical basis is the tribal society`s in the stone age, but this form of society withered away with the introduction of agro-culture and the private property or in other words the institutions of agro-culture and the private property paved the way for the state.