Not when said company employs, and is expanding, and is the overt cause of over 1 million americans living in poverty. [/quote]
Is WalMart the only retailer? No, so again, your rants are moot.
When you’ve run a business, or even understand the basics, then you’ll be able to teach.
Also, as a side note, I have to take ethics CPE’s to keep my letters. And no, you’re not teaching a damn thing. You are complaining, whining and making up wild slippery slope imaginary situations to prove a point that isn’t happening.
One would have to think, but a short while and see that if people were so upset by WalMart they wouldn’t: work there, shop there or buy their stock… But they do… Hmmm, I wonder why that is?
MA walmarts - 50, no dist centers, O in Boston itself
TX walmarts - 480, 17 frigging massive dist centers
You come to rural, small towns where Walmart began their march 40 years ago and you will see that they are indeed the only game in town. They literally have replaced virtually all grocery, clothing, electronic, and department stores. And have attacked hardware, nurseries, car services, medical services, gasoline vending, and on and on.
I just visited your area for a week, and can see why you think there is such a variety of choices. Try coming here and get back to me on why people shop and work here. You are being myopic
MA walmarts - 50, no dist centers, O in Boston itself
TX walmarts - 480, 17 frigging massive dist centers
You come to rural, small towns where Walmart began their march 40 years ago and you will see that they are indeed the only game in town. They literally have replaced virtually all grocery, clothing, electronic, and department stores. And have attacked hardware, nurseries, car services, medical services, gasoline vending, and on and on.
I just visited your area for a week, and can see why you think there is such a variety of choices. Try coming here and get back to me on why people shop and work here. You are being myopic
[/quote]
There is none in Boston because the political machine blocks them.
Also, you act like people didn’t shop there in the first place. They are the “only game left in town” because of the very same people that are complaining there are the “only game left in town”.
WalMart didn’t draft the state consitituion and populate the state. They opened up a store and the citizenry shopped there more than anywhere else…
So in the end, people have no one to blame but themselves. Because ultimately if so many people hate WalMart so much, I would imagine one could open up a store of thier own and make a killing off all the people that are “forced” to shop at WalMart.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Let’s look at some numbers to see how feasible it would be for a company the size of Walmart to pay employees more than they already are. Walmart employs around 1.4 million people in the US. Let’s assume only 60% are hourly employees. That leaves us with 840,000 people. I read about half are part time workers so lets say these workers work an average of 30 hrs/wk. Let’s give them all a raise of $2.
840,000 workers x $2/hr x 30 hrs/wk x 52 wks/yr = $2.6 billion. Walmart’s 2011 net profit was $16B. A paltry $2/hr raise wipes out 1/6th of Walmarts profit.
But hey, I see no reason they can’t double everyone’s pay.[/quote]
A $2 raise costs the company much more than $2. Figure total payroll costs and things look even worse.
[/quote]
Yep. I figured in just the simple act of raising wages by $2/hr to show how absurd it is to arbitrarily claim a company like Walmart is exploiting slave labor. Many here would say $2/hr raise is not enough. A 1/6th loss in profits would be catastrophic on Wall Street. It clearly would be even worse when you figured in the additional costs. The same goes for all the people who complain not all employees get to work 40hrs/wk.
[/quote]
The difference is people who work poverty wages don’t have a stock option or anything invested in stock or Wall Street. Walmart isn’t just a corporation, it’s a model of a corporation. If you have a store that covers just about all facets of commercial shopping, groceries, appliances etc, where else are people going to go? Maybe they go to Lowe’s or Costco, Costco seems to have a more people friendly business model as far as what I have heard from those that work there. But if every Corporation took their model as far as employee payment, it’s awful for the economy as a whole, all you have to do is think it through and you will see it is a parasite of a Corporation.
End of the day, when everywhere you shop ends up being from a Corp, and every laborer is paid a poverty wage, why don’t you tell me the rest of this story? It’s not going to matter what the value of the stock is when the people living at the very bottom live in poverty. Think about this prophecy, the Company is expanding and it offers nothing but poverty jobs by design, and this is THE corporate model so many look to copy. Is this something you want in your neighborhood? Do you want your sons or daughters working there, and climbing that bullshit ladder? I’ll say this, I wouldn’t want your kids to work there, but maybe you would want me and mine to? Some of you call yourselves patriots. Ha!
[/quote]
I would want anyone’s kids to aspire to more than working as a Walmart cashier. If however, the life choices they made entailed them to a life of $10-11/hr menial jobs they can lay in the bed they made. By the way, around 75% of Walarts management started out in hourly waged jobs. What you don’t understand is that more than 50% of people who are now under the poverty level will not be there in 7 years. What is so difficult to understand that entry level jobs are entry level jobs?
MA walmarts - 50, no dist centers, O in Boston itself
TX walmarts - 480, 17 frigging massive dist centers
[/quote]
Also
MA square miles - 11k
TX square miles - 267k
That is a distribution center for every 15.7k square miles. Makes sense there wouldn’t be one in MA.
Also that is one store in MA for every 220 square miles, and one store in TX for ever 556 square miles. Seems like they have better coverage in MA than TX seeing as there are 636 people per square mile in MA and 97 in TX.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
What is so difficult to understand that entry level jobs are entry level jobs?
[/quote]
Don’t cha know, in America the world owes you a living for simiply being alive long enough to be of working age. Conditions here are so bad because of the evil rich people, just surviving means you should be given more than you earn.
MA walmarts - 50, no dist centers, O in Boston itself
TX walmarts - 480, 17 frigging massive dist centers
You come to rural, small towns where Walmart began their march 40 years ago and you will see that they are indeed the only game in town. They literally have replaced virtually all grocery, clothing, electronic, and department stores. And have attacked hardware, nurseries, car services, medical services, gasoline vending, and on and on.
I just visited your area for a week, and can see why you think there is such a variety of choices. Try coming here and get back to me on why people shop and work here. You are being myopic
[/quote]
And if the mom and pop model of business was so terrific then people would still be shopping there. But just maybe people had enough of price gouging by the mom and pops because they were the only game in town until the Walmarts, Targets, and Kmarts came into town. People voted with their feet and wallets. Tell me, did the workers at the mom and pops get rich working there or were they working for subsistence wages? I know I remember working for close to minimum wage in high school at my local grocery store. Guess I should have been making a living wage instead.
you are arguing for the sake of it, to try to be “right” with your last post
there are counties the size of your state with pop in the hundreds and you are educated enough to know that
[quote]treco wrote:
you are arguing for the sake of it, to try to be “right” with your last post
there are counties the size of your state with pop in the hundreds and you are educated enough to know that
[/quote]
Not really. I’m pointing out the coverage area of each store. It isn’t like people are sitting around like Mr Burns thinking of how they can destroy local economies. I’m pointing out clear reasons a store may or may not be opened.
And again, these people who are not “oppressed” into having no options but WalMart have no one to blame but themselves for shopping there when they opened in the first place.
MA walmarts - 50, no dist centers, O in Boston itself
TX walmarts - 480, 17 frigging massive dist centers
You come to rural, small towns where Walmart began their march 40 years ago and you will see that they are indeed the only game in town. They literally have replaced virtually all grocery, clothing, electronic, and department stores. And have attacked hardware, nurseries, car services, medical services, gasoline vending, and on and on.
I just visited your area for a week, and can see why you think there is such a variety of choices. Try coming here and get back to me on why people shop and work here. You are being myopic
[/quote]
And if the mom and pop model of business was so terrific then people would still be shopping there. But just maybe people had enough of price gouging by the mom and pops because they were the only game in town until the Walmarts, Targets, and Kmarts came into town. People voted with their feet and wallets. Tell me, did the workers at the mom and pops get rich working there or were they working for subsistence wages? I know I remember working for close to minimum wage in high school at my local grocery store. Guess I should have been making a living wage instead.
[/quote]
Exactly right. Those who pretend that Walmart is the problem are only fooling themselves. How much is a business supposed to pay a guy to stock shelves? The local hardware store paid those folks minimum wages (when they actually had them on the books). Walmart is no different. They want to pay unskilled labor lower wages–GASP!
This will be my last post on this subject as I feel that I have presented reasons to not like Walmart based on
1 Living in an area where I directly competed with them, where it was MY skin in the game, not equity proceeds, preferential tax situations, not some borrowed funds . So far none of you have said you did the same, so I presume you really don’t know what that is first person.
2 Because of the living in the area, I have also seen what they were able to do to an entire class of merchants - you know the vaulted middle class from virtually every society since there was such a thing.
3 Up in this thread, I gave the example of how they also manipulate the manufacturers themselves. IMO, they are the poster child of how off shoring of manufacturing jobs.
4 I put a case study on the effect of raising wages, not one reply to it - however plenty of sarcasm and ad hominem based a quick glance of the income sheet on how they are barely surviving as it is. Oh and how I made minimum wage for the 2 months I stocked shelves or painted during the summer before my senior year…
5 I put factual numbers of their density in terms of population and mentioning who they replace as both the merchant and employer, to get an answer of showing density of stores to land
6 Started my whole premise that people should make a living wage which is both my opinion and my practice.
Oh well, either companies will pay them or our taxes will. Sorry you don’t like the status quo.
[quote]treco wrote:
1 Living in an area where I directly competed with them, where it was MY skin in the game, not equity proceeds, preferential tax situations, not some borrowed funds . So far none of you have said you did the same, so I presume you really don’t know what that is first person.[/quote]
My firm competes with national and regional firms. My skin is in the game because my pay is dependant on firm revenues.
I grew up in a poor area. WalMart moved in. Guess what happened, so did Dicks, BJ’s and there is a Target and Best Buy. Oh and there are still a thriving Price Chopper (within 200 yards) and a Stop n Shop.
I guess people up here prefer to spread their wealth around? Because it isn’t like the government is keeping these other stores open.
And I made min wage working in Price Chopper in high school…
That area was poor before WalMart, and is still poor now. WalMart didn’t kill anything.
I believe Soros actually “wrote the book” on it.
And, American’s by and large don’t give a fuck about this, because often times the same people bitching about it are doing so typing on their iPhone…
While I agree with your opinion on the matter, not much can be done about it but faux outrage.
What would you like people to say? That WalMArt could do that? At what cost?
Not what he said. He only pointed out their profit margin wasn’t that great. They make money on volume. If the overhead is to increase there needs to be an increase in value (customers pay more) or an increase in volume (more stores, more shoppers).
Yes, that is what these jobs are intended to do, provide for those people, and others looking for parttime work to make ends meet. Not careers.
Ha, you posted meaningless numbers. Western Mass isn’t as populated as Boston, and WalMart didn’t kill their economy. I wonder why? Could it be the people that live there? Hmmm… Maybe the problem is the people in Texas and not WalMart?
And if you don’t get why my responce was relevant, then well, nevermind I guess.
You’re the only “conservative” I’ve ever met that is removing all personal responcibility from the employee and putting in on the evil corporation.
[quote]treco wrote:
This will be my last post on this subject as I feel that I have presented reasons to not like Walmart based on
1 Living in an area where I directly competed with them, where it was MY skin in the game, not equity proceeds, preferential tax situations, not some borrowed funds . So far none of you have said you did the same, so I presume you really don’t know what that is first person.[/quote]
I always hate it when I’m up against a tough competitor too. But that’s no reason to hate them. They bring mega jobs to the area so sometimes they get better treatment. It happens. You have to find a way to do things that they cannot.
That means they are selling goods cheaper than that class of merchants that helps the community. They create jobs that helps the community. And they pay no less than the local rip off merchant and that too helps the community.
Here’s something that you probably already know but need to be reminded of. The larger a business the more influence they have with suppliers. They buy it cheaper, sell it cheaper and the rest is history.
Walmart’s job (one of them at least) is to hire the very best people they can at the lowest possible wage. They are good at it and god for them!
If you are saying they over saturate an area in the end that will hurt them as well.
Well, you are wrong. People should make what the market place will pay them. Simple. If you can hit a curve ball and have the other attributes of a major league baseball player you could be making 10 million a year. I wonder how important that job is though in the scheme of things. But the market place says it’s really important. If all you can do is push a broom then the market place says that’s not all that important wage wise. Simple.
Walmart is a great American success story and we should all be proud to live in a country where someone can start out with virtually nothing and create a billion dollar empire.
…When I had a business with mid 6 figure investment out of my pocket, rather than thinking I had to make every last penny, I chose to pay my employees 2-3x what Walmart does. Menial jobs must be performed for our society to function and deserve to be compensated a living wage. Not trying to get them 70" tv sports cars, or beach houses,just honest pay for honest work.
[/quote]
The Walmart in Kalispell, MT pays around $9.00 hr for a starting cashier. Are you telling me you paid $18 - $27 hr for menial work in your business? Are you kidding me?[/quote]
Holy crap. I wouldn’t pay someone with a degree that much as a start to do a managing job. Are the people who think business owners should pay that much in minimum wage actually business owners themselves?
Apparently the goal should be to become successful so you can lose it all paying unskilled people enough to buy blu-rays instead if simple dvd’s.
[quote]treco wrote:
This will be my last post on this subject as I feel that I have presented reasons to not like Walmart based on
1 Living in an area where I directly competed with them, where it was MY skin in the game, not equity proceeds, preferential tax situations, not some borrowed funds . So far none of you have said you did the same, so I presume you really don’t know what that is first person.
2 Because of the living in the area, I have also seen what they were able to do to an entire class of merchants - you know the vaulted middle class from virtually every society since there was such a thing.
3 Up in this thread, I gave the example of how they also manipulate the manufacturers themselves. IMO, they are the poster child of how off shoring of manufacturing jobs.
4 I put a case study on the effect of raising wages, not one reply to it - however plenty of sarcasm and ad hominem based a quick glance of the income sheet on how they are barely surviving as it is. Oh and how I made minimum wage for the 2 months I stocked shelves or painted during the summer before my senior year…
5 I put factual numbers of their density in terms of population and mentioning who they replace as both the merchant and employer, to get an answer of showing density of stores to land
6 Started my whole premise that people should make a living wage which is both my opinion and my practice.
Oh well, either companies will pay them or our taxes will. Sorry you don’t like the status quo.
[/quote]
It’s easy to hate Wal-Mart, they come into a town, sell items at or below cost initially, drive the local employers out of business (the mom and pop stores) and then pretty much become the anchor store for an entire area.
I think what people overlook is that oftentimes the local stores were paying the same shitty wages, with much less advancement opportunity for the entry-level workers (pushing a broom and stocking shelves are necessary functions, but shouldn’t be paid as permanent destination type jobs). Minimum wage is designed for jobs that require minimum skills (and of course the military).
The people that really get hurt are the owners of the local groceries and convenience stores and hardware/home supply stores, in fact despite all of the complaining by the local business community, you could probably make an argument that stores like Wal-Mart actually provide a benefit to an otherwise overlooked and often underrepresented people. Wal-Mart does the majority of its’ managerial hiring from within, meaning people that work hard and pay their dues actually get a chance to advance based on merit and hard work rather than being the son/daughter/wife of the owner, it’s a novel idea isn’t it, going from minimum wage to a managerial job through hard work? Who’d have thought anyone would want to do that.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Or is it more like, “alight, I’ve got to put somebody behind my cash register…the desperate fucks around here will settle for $6 an hour, don’t you think?”[/quote]
Depends on the industry, cost of living in the area, ROI needs, government regulation and owner’s need.
For a small start up mom and pop it is as simple as putting an ad in the paper, and seeing what wages people will do the work you need done for. Once a company is the size of a WalMart, yes more complicated math is involved.
Most people that don’t work on the “other side” don’t understand how expensive labor is. You cost your employer anywhere from 20-50% more than your actual wage. (Union labor being much closer to the 50% than the 20%.) So that means if somone makes 50k a year they actually cost the company between 60k and 75k a year to employ.
Are there evil people that think like you posted? “desperate fucks”? Sure. Are they the majority like some in this thread like to assume, no. But what no one running a business is going to do is take all the risk, and yes there is quite a bit, only to loss money by paying people more than the value they add.
Most employers give employees that go above and beyond for them a raise. 99.9% of employers covet talent. And a vast majority of the time, talent doesn’t stay stocking shelves or running a till, they move up.
Someone without talent, without skill and no intention to learn either of the two, are going to make less than those that do.
Yes. Can that child make more in a different company? Is there any other way for this child to provide for himself?
We in America like to act like there aren’t a billion people in India that are so poor they will never see an automobile in their life, let alone shit in a toilet, that would be a 1000x better off making $11 a week making shoes. If only because this will lead to the same situation that happened in America with the birth of the Union during the industrial revolution.
If there are “unfair” wages, it is up to the people (also part of the market) to effect changes in the market. They do this by working for companies that take care of them, like was mentioned above by the kid that contradicted his entire point with his story about his working past. If a campany can’t find talent because its wages are too low it has two options: go under or pay more.
On the other side, if a company pays too much its prices are going to be too high, sales will go down and people will lose their jobs so prices can come down. Wages determine how many people you can hire, as well as prices of goods and services.
No one is doing this. We are actually talking about letting the market dictate the changes is wages, not some outside force (government) picking and choosing what changes the wages.
[/quote]
Nice, blame it on the worker, not the business
You can treat a business like it’s own entity, but it’s psychopathic by nature, so why blame the business when it moves to India and exploits children for labor, and enjoys the occasional human liver with some Chianti Classico.
Businesses are under people’s control at the end of the day, as much as we want to anthropomorphize a corporation, it isn’t actually a living, breathing person with it’s own will. People are still making the decisions to make moves to places like India, passing the moral responsibility onto the worker is just a sorry cop out.
Can you tell me what’s wrong with the Categorical imperative as a business ethic, other than it being a private morality?
