[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
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? [/quote]
We both know you are just obfuscating. The reality is the business model is flawed, but since someone took the business model of a ball and scored a few touchdowns with it, stockholders will be pissed if the model is changed, even if the reality is the move ends up being good for the economy as a whole.
So lets stop playing this game. We both understand Walmart is responsible to the stockholder, and part of the business model, projected profits and the precedent of most people’s investments are based on the fact that the company skimps on employee pay to buffer their profits which bolster the stock value… What does this do? What are the consequences? Well that’s what I’ve been explaining.
Good for those who own stocks, and bad because not only is it off the backs of people who could use the money and would spend the money right away based on cost of living, but it goes into the pockets of people who likely won’t spend it right away. It goes without saying that people who are paid poverty wages are more likely to seek government assistance, so the big corporate business model that is supposed to be soo successful and soo profitable is actually a drain on the economy because the government still needs to support the employees it hires.
If the company were responsible to the economy, rather than the stockholders then the company would want it’s lower level employees to have a living wage, they would spend a good hunk of that money at the employees locales, some of that money spent would go back into Walmart but overall it would be bad short game because precedent is already set with stocks. If Walmart paid their employees fair wages and had this idea built into the business plan in the first place, they wouldn’t be facing this situation where they necessarily take a huge hit to the value of their stocks for doing something simple, like paying people a living wage, doing the right thing in the first place.
You look at business as a wild animal, it’s going to do what it does… But on the other hand you don’t want the one thing that can control the wild animal anywhere near the vacinity (the government) The reality is, the government sucks at distributing money and we would be better off if the Corporation just paid people a fair wage, but instead, they will pay a lower wage and let the government foot the rest of the bill so that Beans and people like myself can reap the profits off this company which is by design, a drain on our economy and a model for other corporations…
It’s like, you own stock in Walmart don’t you Beans? You are a slave to the market, it’s like being pennywise because you cant see the whole of the economy, or you just don’t care.
End of the day, a Corporation has all these rights to protect it, you want to talk about people on welfare and government assistance, why not include corporations to the discussion when you talk about who’s making the country a “shithole.” Whose business model and local profit margins could probably be used to predict proportional increases in poverty in said locales. The Corporation could pay their employees more, it would be good for the economy as a whole and change the dynamic of Walmart from Parasite to Cow. It would mean the stockholders take a hit because projections of stock value would be totally fudged.
But big picture is that there is room for the stockholder to make money and the worker to get paid fairly so long as nobody is overly greedy. Walmart walked down the greedy road, and this is where it leads as a business model. People not invested in it, who understand it may want to invest because of the projections, but if they are aware of the business model and what it does to the economy and country they avoid it. People don’t want to work for it, and it eats up mom and pop shops like nobody’s business.
There is something of an ex post facto aspect to defending what Walmart does. But I didn’t marry Walmart, and they are capable of change. Those that invested in their business model, if they understand it then they know what they got into, and they should know that such a model isn’t sustainable. Time for change! The problem is, people like you recognize the problem but do nothing, even exploit it. People who don’t recognize the problem, like everything. Everyone is tolerant of shit they are unaware of.
