But irish , small businesses can fuck someone over just as easy as a larger one. Whats the diff?
[quote]PGA200X wrote:
This is in response to why immigrants are flooding here…
I cant speak from a “getting money to start a business” point of view but I can from “getting money from college” point of view.
For me to better myself it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to get money for college. IMPOSSIBLE! I can get loans but obviously at a price. When it comes time to hand out scholarships a white, straight, 4.0 gpa, right handed, fit, male is the last person they offer “free” money too. So for me to better myself I have to work a full-time job in order to fund my way through college. I’m choosing to “better” myself (not guaranteed) but at a large price. I lose a TON of my freedom as I’m studying and working all the time.[/quote]
Under an unselfish, altruistic system such as ours, you have no right to complain. Our society does not invest in its brightest and best; all funding must go to those who DON’T deserve it – that’s the basic principle of altruism.
Didn’t you see the woman screaming at Congress to come and rebuild the 9th ward (NOLA)? They demanded your money precisely because they DIDN’T deserve it! They had a NEED, and that always comes before ACCOMPLISHMENT. “Who are you to want college help? You’ve never suffered!”
According to Altruism, suffering is the new standard of value. That’s why you will never get any college aid. You, the living, are to be drained to help human-vacuums.
[quote]BigPaul wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If Wal-mart goes union, they will raise their prices to compensate their employees.
I disagree, although that would likely be one factor, my suspicion is that prices would be raised disproportionately above the level necessary to offset employee benefits. This would most likely be done in the interest of making sure that profit projections are exceeded, as there would undoubtedly be a great deal of concern surrounding walmart stock were the employees to unionize. In this day in age corporate executives are far more concerned with the fluctuating value of their corporation’s stock than the actual business fundamentals of the corporation.
Therefore, unions cause unemployment.
This might not necessarily be the case. It surely is more likely now in the case of walmart given the size and strength of the unions now involved. But, were walmart not so hostile to unions, it is possible that smaller, more autonomous regional unions could have been organized amongst employees. Smaller unions tend to have less bargaining power, and as such, will often see realignments of pay scales in reaction to their bargaining points. This would then translate to a lesser increase in cost to consumers, as well as a minimized job loss.
This is, of course theoretical and measured in contrast to the effect of large UGW- and UWA-type unions. But the assertion that unions cause unemployment is also terribly theoretical and is also dependent upon a number of assumptions as well.[/quote]
Is this why jobs in the auto industry are disappearing? Is this why auto plants are closing and being moved to India and China?
[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
PGA200X wrote:
This is in response to why immigrants are flooding here…
I cant speak from a “getting money to start a business” point of view but I can from “getting money from college” point of view.
For me to better myself it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to get money for college. IMPOSSIBLE! I can get loans but obviously at a price. When it comes time to hand out scholarships a white, straight, 4.0 gpa, right handed, fit, male is the last person they offer “free” money too. So for me to better myself I have to work a full-time job in order to fund my way through college. I’m choosing to “better” myself (not guaranteed) but at a large price. I lose a TON of my freedom as I’m studying and working all the time.
I agree that the person you described is probably the last one to get “free money”.
However, in regards to your statement, “I lose a TON of my freedom as I’m studying and working all the time.” life isn’t always fun and sure as shit isn’t full of roses.
I have to work a full time job just to go to college, but it’s what I have to do.
If I spent all my free time complaining i’d be one miserable bastard.
Also, i’m wondering what’s next after Wal-Mart is “fixed” if it ever is. Papa Johns? Pizza Hut? Little Ceasars? Subway? Burger King? After all, those big chains are killing the little local restaurants and pizza joints.[/quote]
Interesting point, but only time will tell. I would assume that the next targets would be the majors chains a step under Wal Mart such as Target, Best Buy, Home Depot, etc.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
BigPaul wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If Wal-mart goes union, they will raise their prices to compensate their employees.
I disagree, although that would likely be one factor, my suspicion is that prices would be raised disproportionately above the level necessary to offset employee benefits. This would most likely be done in the interest of making sure that profit projections are exceeded, as there would undoubtedly be a great deal of concern surrounding walmart stock were the employees to unionize. In this day in age corporate executives are far more concerned with the fluctuating value of their corporation’s stock than the actual business fundamentals of the corporation.
Therefore, unions cause unemployment.
This might not necessarily be the case. It surely is more likely now in the case of walmart given the size and strength of the unions now involved. But, were walmart not so hostile to unions, it is possible that smaller, more autonomous regional unions could have been organized amongst employees. Smaller unions tend to have less bargaining power, and as such, will often see realignments of pay scales in reaction to their bargaining points. This would then translate to a lesser increase in cost to consumers, as well as a minimized job loss.
This is, of course theoretical and measured in contrast to the effect of large UGW- and UWA-type unions. But the assertion that unions cause unemployment is also terribly theoretical and is also dependent upon a number of assumptions as well.
Is this why jobs in the auto industry are disappearing? Is this why auto plants are closing and being moved to India and China?
[/quote]
In a way, yes. Unfortunately, labor is so much cheaper over there (not just due to unions, it also has to do with the overall cost of living in the US) that everything gets outsourced. Hell, just read the labels on your clothes, cars, computers, etc. It’s one of the reasons why we have such a massive trade deficit right now, since the salaries “American” companies are paying to the foreign nations stays over there.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
BigPaul wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If Wal-mart goes union, they will raise their prices to compensate their employees.
I disagree, although that would likely be one factor, my suspicion is that prices would be raised disproportionately above the level necessary to offset employee benefits. This would most likely be done in the interest of making sure that profit projections are exceeded, as there would undoubtedly be a great deal of concern surrounding walmart stock were the employees to unionize. In this day in age corporate executives are far more concerned with the fluctuating value of their corporation’s stock than the actual business fundamentals of the corporation.
Therefore, unions cause unemployment.
This might not necessarily be the case. It surely is more likely now in the case of walmart given the size and strength of the unions now involved. But, were walmart not so hostile to unions, it is possible that smaller, more autonomous regional unions could have been organized amongst employees. Smaller unions tend to have less bargaining power, and as such, will often see realignments of pay scales in reaction to their bargaining points. This would then translate to a lesser increase in cost to consumers, as well as a minimized job loss.
This is, of course theoretical and measured in contrast to the effect of large UGW- and UWA-type unions. But the assertion that unions cause unemployment is also terribly theoretical and is also dependent upon a number of assumptions as well.
Is this why jobs in the auto industry are disappearing? Is this why auto plants are closing and being moved to India and China?
[/quote]
They are dissapearing because Japanese cars outsell the American companies, being as they are ahead of the curve on saving gas, better mileage, etc. They are also far cheaper because of the cheap labor. its not the union’s fault that shit is cheaper over there- should Americans start working for a nickel a day and no bathroom breaks just because the Chinese do? No. So it is more the American consumer’s fault, being as they won’t buy American and support the American companies; ironically, there is no loyalty to American companies in capitalism. So don’t blame it on the unions, because your argument is essentially flawed.
I have said this before- one day, some ass in India and China will begin reading Marx (and see the right parts, as opposed to the fascist state that is China), and they will all unionize.
This is only a matter of time; it is the natural progression of industrial jobs. As a consequence, there will be no cheap labor anywhere after that. What is America going to do when that happens?
[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
Also, i’m wondering what’s next after Wal-Mart is “fixed” if it ever is. Papa Johns? Pizza Hut? Little Ceasars? Subway? Burger King? After all, those big chains are killing the little local restaurants and pizza joints.[/quote]
I have wondered this myself. The tactic of using your size to gain an advantage over competition is nothing new, and is certainly not limited to Wal Mart. Wal Mart just happens to do it better than anyone else.
And, here is the problem I have with the attack on Wal Mart: Wal Mart doing things that everyone else does, it is just that their size allows them to do it on a much larger scale. If we limit a company like Wal Mart in engaging in, comrporately vicious, but perfectly legal tactics, where do we draw the line? What is the line between running a healthy corporation and an ‘evil’ one like Wal Mart? Do we start going after other big companies as well? Again, I think in a lot of cases, the beef that some folks have with Wal Mart, is actually a beef that they have with rules, especially corporate regulations (or lack thereof).
Wal Mart is not the only non-union retail chain. Unskilled workers make shit here, there, and everywhere. Big companies use their size to their advantages. Selling goods made by cheap offshore labor, is certainly not specific to Wal Mart. If these are the problems that people have, it sounds to me like they should be settled in the voting booth or in Congress, not by targeting specific corporations.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Is this why jobs in the auto industry are disappearing? Is this why auto plants are closing and being moved to India and China?
[/quote]
That, in my opinion, would be due to the fact that the oil industry, auto industry and the UAW all had too many Washington polititians bought and paid for. The unions prevented the implementation of some measures that would have increased the sector’s efficiency, Preferential tax breaks allowed the industry’s companies to continue poor business practices and still profit, and auto prices were kept low through tax codes and incentives so that a) the auto companies would proft and b) there would be a significant demand for oil.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
They are dissapearing because Japanese cars outsell the American companies, being as they are ahead of the curve on saving gas, better mileage, etc. They are also far cheaper because of the cheap labor. its not the union’s fault that shit is cheaper over there- should Americans start working for a nickel a day and no bathroom breaks just because the Chinese do? No. So it is more the American consumer’s fault, being as they won’t buy American and support the American companies; ironically, there is no loyalty to American companies in capitalism. So don’t blame it on the unions, because your argument is essentially flawed.
[/quote]
The Japanese auto industry actually is, and has historically been, quite heavily subsidized by the Japanese government. This is what allowed them to break into the world market and has unfortunately remained in place to the present. I think the maintenance of such mutually beneficial arrangements is now showing its ugly side effects in the case of the american auto industry.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
BigPaul wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If Wal-mart goes union, they will raise their prices to compensate their employees.
I disagree, although that would likely be one factor, my suspicion is that prices would be raised disproportionately above the level necessary to offset employee benefits. This would most likely be done in the interest of making sure that profit projections are exceeded, as there would undoubtedly be a great deal of concern surrounding walmart stock were the employees to unionize. In this day in age corporate executives are far more concerned with the fluctuating value of their corporation’s stock than the actual business fundamentals of the corporation.
Therefore, unions cause unemployment.
This might not necessarily be the case. It surely is more likely now in the case of walmart given the size and strength of the unions now involved. But, were walmart not so hostile to unions, it is possible that smaller, more autonomous regional unions could have been organized amongst employees. Smaller unions tend to have less bargaining power, and as such, will often see realignments of pay scales in reaction to their bargaining points. This would then translate to a lesser increase in cost to consumers, as well as a minimized job loss.
This is, of course theoretical and measured in contrast to the effect of large UGW- and UWA-type unions. But the assertion that unions cause unemployment is also terribly theoretical and is also dependent upon a number of assumptions as well.
Is this why jobs in the auto industry are disappearing? Is this why auto plants are closing and being moved to India and China?
They are dissapearing because Japanese cars outsell the American companies, being as they are ahead of the curve on saving gas, better mileage, etc. They are also far cheaper because of the cheap labor. its not the union’s fault that shit is cheaper over there- should Americans start working for a nickel a day and no bathroom breaks just because the Chinese do? No. So it is more the American consumer’s fault, being as they won’t buy American and support the American companies; ironically, there is no loyalty to American companies in capitalism. So don’t blame it on the unions, because your argument is essentially flawed.
I have said this before- one day, some ass in India and China will begin reading Marx (and see the right parts, as opposed to the fascist state that is China), and they will all unionize.
This is only a matter of time; it is the natural progression of industrial jobs. As a consequence, there will be no cheap labor anywhere after that. What is America going to do when that happens?[/quote]
Irish - Excellent point also. At some point in time, the workers always figure out that they could, would, and should be making more. That’s the reason unions formed over 100 years ago, and it’s the reason they will form and strengthen overseas in the next 15-20 years (It will take time).
[quote]redfreddy wrote:
JokerFMJ wrote:
Also, i’m wondering what’s next after Wal-Mart is “fixed” if it ever is. Papa Johns? Pizza Hut? Little Ceasars? Subway? Burger King? After all, those big chains are killing the little local restaurants and pizza joints.[/quote]
I don’t ever see restaurant chains driving out local restaurants. I think most people prefer smaller, local restaurants as opposed to the chains, at least where I have lived. I know some places are driven out by the chains, but I think most of the good restaurants develop a backing and loyal customer base and can hold their own against the chains. No mass produced Burger King is going to drive out a good, quality burger joint.
I ask this, and I am being serious becuase I don’t know, when does Wal-Mart become a monopoly? I’m somewhat embarrased to ask, but I do not know.
The thing with Wal-Mart is, it seems if their ultimate goal is for every town to be fully suported by however many Wal-Marts, and only Wal-Marts, that town needs. A clothing/electronic/automotive/grocery/fast food/gas station/whatever-else-they-can-throw-in-there-mega-super-store.
Malone - In some of the smaller towns Wal Mart becomes what’s known as a geographic monopoly - They’re the only place to get the items they sell. As far as the bigger business, dominate an entire industry monopoly goes, they’re nowhere near being one. In my opinion, retail is far too big an industry world wide for one chain, etc to take it all over. They have a large chunk, but they’ll never have the whole pie.
I heard Wal-Mart was the largest private employer in the US and if considered a separate country they would have the 20th largest economy in the world.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
I don’t ever see restaurant chains driving out local restaurants. I think most people prefer smaller, local restaurants as opposed to the chains, at least where I have lived. I know some places are driven out by the chains, but I think most of the good restaurants develop a backing and loyal customer base and can hold their own against the chains. No mass produced Burger King is going to drive out a good, quality burger joint.
[/quote]
A larger company with more resources can sell a product cheaper than (edit: or at higher quality than) a smaller comapny. For example, have you ever known an owner of an independent hardware store? If so, I’ll bet he absoultely despises the company True Value. Why? Because, as an owner of one such store told me, when a True Value Hardware store comes to town, the local stores can’t compete with the prices they offer. How many local coffee shops have been run out by Starbucks?
A lot of people will take True Value and Starbucks over Bostwick’s Hardware and Coffee-on-the-Corner any day. If more people actually preferred the smaller shops (which is certainly the case in some places), the smaller shops would not get run out of town.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
I ask this, and I am being serious becuase I don’t know, when does Wal-Mart become a monopoly? I’m somewhat embarrased to ask, but I do not know.
[/quote]
There are well defined antitrust laws that deal with this. I know one metric is percent market share. To your point, Wal Mart is kind of a tricky situation since they deal in so many markets.
[/quote]
[quote]malonetd wrote:
The thing with Wal-Mart is, it seems if their ultimate goal is for every town to be fully suported by however many Wal-Marts, and only Wal-Marts, that town needs. A clothing/electronic/automotive/grocery/fast food/gas station/whatever-else-they-can-throw-in-there-mega-super-store.[/quote]
I think the goal of Wal Mart is the same goal of every corporation: make as much profit as possible by whatever means the law allows (granted, Wal Mart was in some trouble with the law not long ago, which they were deservedly punished for, however, I mean in the grand scheme). They do it well. How can we tell a company that they are executing the goal of every other corporation too well?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The most telling quote in the piece:
“We need a broad social movement to change this company,” said Blank. “This is a moral question about what kind of America we want to live in. Do we want to live in Wal-Mart’s version of America, where you drive down wages, don’t provide health insurance, provide no retirement security, ship jobs overseas and have complete abandonment of your values in the relentless pursuit of profit?”
Does this guy really think that the way to incentivize companies not to move jobs offshore is to raise labor costs?
As for “retirement security,” does the phrase 401(k) mean anything to this guy? Fixed-benefit pensions don’t work unless you have pyramid-scheme demographics.[/quote]
Should Wal-Mart stay the way it is? Do you believe that is the best thing for the majority?
[quote]doogie wrote:
I didn’t realize people were forced at gunpoint to work in Wal-Marts. That’s horrible. These poor victims were sitting in college classrooms trying to better themselves when suddenly armed Wal-Mart managers kicked in the doors, rounded them up and chained them behind the registers forcing them to work 40 hours a week for minimum wage. The horror!!!
[/quote]
How touching. you are so perceptive.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
doogie wrote:
I didn’t realize people were forced at gunpoint to work in Wal-Marts. That’s horrible. These poor victims were sitting in college classrooms trying to better themselves when suddenly armed Wal-Mart managers kicked in the doors, rounded them up and chained them behind the registers forcing them to work 40 hours a week for minimum wage. The horror!!!
Great Post! This is capitalism people. You make your own decisions in life. You have the right to choose to NOT work or shop there.
[/quote]
If this is an economy based on free and fair competition then why does Wal-Mart often get subsidies to open it’s doors and mom&pop busnisses don’t?
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
The most telling quote in the piece:
“We need a broad social movement to change this company,” said Blank. “This is a moral question about what kind of America we want to live in. Do we want to live in Wal-Mart’s version of America, where you drive down wages, don’t provide health insurance, provide no retirement security, ship jobs overseas and have complete abandonment of your values in the relentless pursuit of profit?”
Does this guy really think that the way to incentivize companies not to move jobs offshore is to raise labor costs?
As for “retirement security,” does the phrase 401(k) mean anything to this guy? Fixed-benefit pensions don’t work unless you have pyramid-scheme demographics.
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Should Wal-Mart stay the way it is? Do you believe that is the best thing for the majority?[/quote]
The best thing for the majority in the long run is for politicians to not mess with the labor market.
anyway, I don’t shop at wal-mart, I shop at the safeway where the prices are a little higher and the employees make 15 dollars an hour. Wal-mart sucks. Hey folks, the compair the EU’s GNP to the US(minus oil) and they are kicking our ass and they are pretty much socialist. Unions don’t hurt corporations, and our country was at its strongest when unions were at their strongest.
[quote]coloradosteve wrote:
anyway, I don’t shop at wal-mart, I shop at the safeway where the prices are a little higher and the employees make 15 dollars an hour. Wal-mart sucks. Hey folks, the compair the EU’s GNP to the US(minus oil) and they are kicking our ass and they are pretty much socialist. Unions don’t hurt corporations, and our country was at its strongest when unions were at their strongest. [/quote]
If you really care, why not just shop at Wal-Mart and hand the checker an extra $20? Then she doesn’t have to pay taxes on the money, and you get cheaper goods.