[quote]pookie wrote:
I don’t think that decision should be legislated though. Personally, I buy a lot of stuff at Costo and as little as possible at Wal-Mart; so I’m supporting the approach I personnally value.
[/quote]
Oh, I agree with you, there. There was a time when an employer could all but own his employees, but we are in those times no longer.
[quote]pookie wrote:
I think the approach on salary depends on the skill set of your employees and on how hard they are to replace.
Microsoft pay their employees generously and have amazing benefits. Why? Because the really smart people who work there will simply go to work for Yahoo! or Google or Amazon if they can find a better offer.
The skillset they require can’t be found just by grabbing someone off the street.
So in their case, trying to pay their employees “as little as possible” simply ensures that they’ll eventually be left with only the idiots who nobody else wants. Not good.
In Wal-Mart’s case, the bulk of their employees need no particular skills. As long as they bathe occasionally and don’t drool too much, they’ll do. Whatever training is required can generally be given in a matter of hours by other employees. In their case, paying employees more than necessary cuts into the profits. It then becomes a question of morals and ethics whether you wish to offer better conditions (like Costco does) or not (like WalMart does).
It don’t think that decision should be legislated though. Personally, I buy a lot of stuff at Costo and as little as possible at Wal-Mart; so I’m supporting the approach I personnally value.
[/quote]
But in your example Microsoft does pay them “as little as possible”. You say so yourself.
There is no difference between Microsoft and Walmart.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
pookie wrote:
I don’t think that decision should be legislated though. Personally, I buy a lot of stuff at Costo and as little as possible at Wal-Mart; so I’m supporting the approach I personnally value.
Oh, I agree with you, there. There was a time when an employer could all but own his employees, but we are in those times no longer. [/quote]
I agree, but I also don?t want to live in a time or a place where employees would all but own the employer and that is what legislation like that is all about.
[quote]orion wrote:
But in your example Microsoft does pay them “as little as possible”. You say so yourself.[/quote]
Which part of “Microsoft pay their employees generously and have amazing benefits.” do you want me to explain to you?
If you mean that they won’t give an employee $200,000 a year if they can keep him with $150,000; well, yes, they’re a business, not a charity.
Wrong again. Microsoft’s business is based on products that require a highly educated; highly intelligent workforce. Replacing an employee is costly and difficult.
Wal-Mart’s workforce requirement is for manual laborers. People who can take boxes from the trucks, open them up and put the smaller boxes on shelves in the aisles. They need to be able to pass a mop and direct customers to the right corner of the store when asked “Where is X?..”
So while both companies have histories of shady ethics and skirting with or engaging in illegals practices, they are very different places, workforce-wise.
Comparing working at Wal-Mart with working at Microsoft is simply ludicrous.
[quote]pookie wrote:
orion wrote:
But in your example Microsoft does pay them “as little as possible”. You say so yourself.
Which part of “Microsoft pay their employees generously and have amazing benefits.” do you want me to explain to you?
If you mean that they won’t give an employee $200,000 a year if they can keep him with $150,000; well, yes, they’re a business, not a charity.
There is no difference between Microsoft and Walmart.
Wrong again. Microsoft’s business is based on products that require a highly educated; highly intelligent workforce. Replacing an employee is costly and difficult.
Wal-Mart’s workforce requirement is for manual laborers. People who can take boxes from the trucks, open them up and put the smaller boxes on shelves in the aisles. They need to be able to pass a mop and direct customers to the right corner of the store when asked “Where is X?..”
So while both companies have histories of shady ethics and skirting with or engaging in illegals practices, they are very different places, workforce-wise.
Comparing working at Wal-Mart with working at Microsoft is simply ludicrous.[/quote]
You are missing the basic point:
Microsoft are paying them very well because otherwise they will go and join Yahoo, Googe who knows what company.
You said so yourself.
Gifted programmers are rare, their skill is high in demand, they get paid well.
Microsoft does NOT overpay, it pays the prize the market demands, so does Walmart.
And, to work at it from another angle:
Those Microsoft employees would be able to get a job anywhere else, I guess people would even help them move, buy them cars or help their kids with private schools.
Walmart employees however would have a very hard time finding employment anywhere else .
Microsoft is not exceptionel, everyone can find a job for a bunch of highly gifted people, Walmart pulls of the miracle of employing people that nobody else would hire.
Walmart is a gift for those people…
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26:
Yes…national healthcare…it’s FREE WEEEEEEEEE…everyone can have it. All you have to do is sign up right here folks.
LOL
All you are saying in essence is that you want someone else (those companies and people making more money than you) to pay for your health care costs.
Yea…it’s always nice when someone else picks up the tab. I try to get my brother to do that everytime we go out to lunch. But, I’m never successful, even when I explain to him that he makes more than me and that I need, deserve and could really use that free lunch.
Odd how that works huh?
Someone has to pay!..
You see Irish, there is quite a bit more than meets the eye once you reach beyond the superficial points which are brought out in threads like this.
No shit Zeb. Of course, Congress blows money left and right on shit we don’t need, so I don’t want to hear it.[/quote]
That makes no sense at all. We are spending money on things YOU don’t think are needed. Therefore, we should raise everyones (who is actually making money) taxes to give people who can’t afford it, free health care.
(Eye roll).
But you are, as I have shown you. None…not one…of your points makes any sense when it is followed through logically.
You think black and white when it comes to any issue that involves money. Have you noticed that?
All corporations are evil. And all rich people are thieves. And everyone who does not have enough of (fill in the blank)______________should be given it from the government.
That pretty much sums up your stance on economic issues.
[quote]I’m the one without medical insurance and no money to buy it. Sorry bud. Try again later.
[/quote]
LOL!
Because someone is not making enough money, that somehow becomes the governments responsibility?
Not one person who is succeeding financially should have to pay even one penny more in order for someone else to have better health insurance.
You want big brother to take care of you?
Move to Canada!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[/quote]
No, I’m trying to say that Congress missapropriates tons and tons of money, and then claims that social security is dying, and we could never afford healthcare.
Our money is taxed, and it goes to the government, and they blow it.
No taxes need to be raised- the money needs to be used the right way, and not for pork barrel projects in shit states like Alaska or West Virginia (who only get it because their senators have so much power).
National healthcare is something that is necessary, even a base level so actual working people can get taken care of when they need it.
[quote]orion wrote:
Microsoft does NOT overpay, it pays the prize the market demands, so does Walmart.[/quote]
Well that’s my point. Wal-Mart should not be “legislated” in giving better conditions; the market controls the conditions and the market says that for unskilled labor, you get crap wages and no respect.
Microsoft has incentive in keeping it’s employees happy, and it does so. Wal-Mart doesn’t have similar incentive because it’s work force can be easily replaced with anyone walking off the street. It pays in accordance with that fact. Some companies (Costco) choose to give their employees more than the strict market demands, and I applaud their decision. I also “vote” with my spending dollars by shopping there over Wal-Mart.
But the final fact remain, if you’re able to work at both Wal-Mart and Microsoft, chances you’ll go to work for MS. I would. 
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
No, I’m trying to say that Congress missapropriates tons and tons of money, and then claims that social security is dying, and we could never afford healthcare.
Our money is taxed, and it goes to the government, and they blow it.
No taxes need to be raised- the money needs to be used the right way, and not for pork barrel projects in shit states like Alaska or West Virginia (who only get it because their senators have so much power).
National healthcare is something that is necessary, even a base level so actual working people can get taken care of when they need it. [/quote]
If you can point out specifically where the money comes from. And…(and this is a big AND) we don’t have to raise anyones taxes to support this program then I’d take another look at it.
But, honestly Irish, while your heart is in the right place I don’t see this being realistic without some sort of tax hike.
Walmart sells inferior products made inferior by the manufacturer because it’s made to be sold at Walmart - and their Gatorade tastes funny??? That’s the craziest thing I’ve ever heard!!
[quote]clovely wrote:
Even their gatorade tastes different.
Walmart sells inferior products made inferior by the manufacturer because it’s made to be sold at Walmart - and their Gatorade tastes funny??? That’s the craziest thing I’ve ever heard!!
[/quote]
No really it’s true.
[quote]doogie wrote:
clovely wrote:
Even their gatorade tastes different.
Walmart sells inferior products made inferior by the manufacturer because it’s made to be sold at Walmart - and their Gatorade tastes funny??? That’s the craziest thing I’ve ever heard!!
No really it’s true.
[/quote]
Hey. I told a coworker of mine that, and he didn’t believe me…until he bought a bottle from somewhere else and noticed that it wasn’t nearly as watered down.
I was always said he was getting the “electros” but not the “lytes”…fuckin wal-mart 
Hey, big business does this stuff all the time.
They make low price guarantees on a product that they “custom” purchase under a different product model number, so that you’ll never find a cheaper price on that model. Pretty sneaky!
It’s certainly possible that some companies manufacture products to different standards for Walmart in order to be profitable instead of being dumped for another supplier.
I just can’t believe this thread is still around!
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
doogie wrote:
clovely wrote:
Even their gatorade tastes different.
Walmart sells inferior products made inferior by the manufacturer because it’s made to be sold at Walmart - and their Gatorade tastes funny??? That’s the craziest thing I’ve ever heard!!
No really it’s true.
Hey. I told a coworker of mine that, and he didn’t believe me…until he bought a bottle from somewhere else and noticed that it wasn’t nearly as watered down.
I was always said he was getting the “electros” but not the “lytes”…fuckin wal-mart ;)[/quote]
Irish,
My “No really it’s true” response was edited by the mods. It included a joke about the Spike sold at Wal-Mart not being the real thing. JOKE, mod, JOKE.
Anyway, I totally think you are wrong about this point. I guess we could get TC or Tim to chime in and tell us if they have to make an inferior product for Wal-Mart, but I think you know they don’t.
[quote]doogie wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
doogie wrote:
clovely wrote:
Even their gatorade tastes different.
Walmart sells inferior products made inferior by the manufacturer because it’s made to be sold at Walmart - and their Gatorade tastes funny??? That’s the craziest thing I’ve ever heard!!
No really it’s true.
Hey. I told a coworker of mine that, and he didn’t believe me…until he bought a bottle from somewhere else and noticed that it wasn’t nearly as watered down.
I was always said he was getting the “electros” but not the “lytes”…fuckin wal-mart
Irish,
My “No really it’s true” response was edited by the mods. It included a joke about the Spike sold at Wal-Mart not being the real thing. JOKE, mod, JOKE.
Anyway, I totally think you are wrong about this point. I guess we could get TC or Tim to chime in and tell us if they have to make an inferior product for Wal-Mart, but I think you know they don’t.[/quote]
There are companies that do. If Biotest does or does not is not my business.
How are you forgetting the 325 billion spent in 2005 on Medicare? That is an order of magnitude higher than the waste you mention.
[quote]haney wrote:
The latest stats that I read on Wal-mart and how much profit they make was
for every $100.00 spent in a Wal-Mart
they make a huge profit of 3-4.00
This is due to all the cost of store overhead, and to cover in store theft.
Things like this will only spure Wal-mart to close it doors, and become an E-tailer. Which will cost more jobs.
The only reason Wal-mart does so well is because they have so many stores, not because they make so much money off of their sales.[/quote]
You’re right in the last paragraph, but I’m almost positive your stat on their profits is too high. Wal-Mart makes tiny profits on each individual item and in each store, by comparison with any of their competitors, because their prices are so low. They manage to keep prices so low by ruthlessly cutting costs and keeping overhead as low as absolutely possible.
They make money and are tremendously successful purely on volume. Guess what happens when their operating costs go up by even a small amount? Their profits take a massive hit, because the margins are so low that any rise in overhead is a killer.
FYI, Wal-Mart wages are a bit higher than the national average for the retail sector. Still far from great, glad I’m not doing that, but hardly the super-exploitation many seem to think exists.
[quote]dermo wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
…
Maryland is doing the right thing and the state will benefit if Wal-Mart closes all their stores in that state.
Let me excerpt a point from an article I posted on the other thread on this same topic:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=011606A
EXCEPRT:
Although the motivation of the liberals was to raise the well-being of Wal-Mart workers, it is far from clear that this will be the consequence. Low-skilled workers cannot receive more in compensation than the value of their labor. If Wal-Mart is forced to increase the share of compensation that comes in the form of health benefits, then it will have to decrease take-home pay. If it cannot decrease take-home pay, then it will have to reduce its reliance on low-skilled labor or cut back on operations altogether.
If this is true, why does Costco pay so much more, and offer better benefits packages? Couldn’t the heirs of Sam Walton, who are something like 5 of the 13 richest people in the country, make a little less profit?[/quote]
Again, because Costco has much better margins, they can afford to pay their employees more. Wal-Mart, in basing their whole business model around low prices, has to keep costs down to an absolute minimum. May not sound great, but that’s the reality.
And want to know something really interesting? Wal-Mart is slowly becoming one of the biggest advocates for national health care, which has been part of the union strategy all along, to push Wal-Mart to the point where it has to either offer health care and risk completely ruining itself (see my last two posts for why), or lean on the government to provide health care for all (which is what is slowly happening).
Fascinating article in The Atlantic monthly pretty recently, I think it was the June issue, can’t link to it because their site is subscribers only, but really worth photocopying at your library or something.