51 replies to this topic

[aztek]

lol, i see many still live in the past, and some are not just in the past, but in their imaginary\fare\just world, lol, i feel sorry for ppl like that, reality has a tendecy to smack ppl like that very  hard right over the head.

Edited by aztek, 23 November 2012 - 04:26 PM.

[Purifier]

-Mr_Fess-, on 23 November 2012 - 06:24 AM, said:

I can argue that the devil seeks out his victims. Walmarts "victims" come to them and it's hardly a case of dealing with the devil. When someone interviews for a part timejob at Walmart they aren't being fed a lot of false hopes. It's more like they offer you a position with a certain amount of on average hours and this is what we can pay you. None of it sounds too good to be true as the way the devil would strike his deal.

Never said they come and seek you out, they don't haft to. They know who will come to them and who they're hiring. Mostly people who are less educated and from a low income family. And they exploit that situation in a subtle way, by keeping the average Wal-mart worker in his place with very few raises and pay caps, while having the Wal-Mart worker work just enough hours to keep him/her not able to afford health insurance and just barely make it paycheck to paycheck. Wal-Mart knows the average cost living these days, for one person, but instead of helping the worker get ahead in life, they do nothing with their selfish attitudes. The average Wal-Mart worker never seems to get ahead while working for Wal-Mart, unless he's got his head buried so far up the Assist. Store Manager's or Co-Store or Store Manager's buttock's; well then the Wal-Mart worker might get ahead that way, with a promotion in his future. But that takes a lot of butt kissing, more than just doing your job and the pay is not worth it quite frankly.


So Mr_Fess, don't feed me that mindless corporate business sentiment, that "no one put's you in that situation" when there are corporations like Wal-Mart, that keep you there. Yeah, they don't put Wal-Mart workers there, but they keep Wal-Mart workers there. That works for the Gordon Gekkos, Richie Richs and all the other "Greed is my new god" elitist of the world, but not for the rest of us who are down on our luck.

Edited by Purifier, 23 November 2012 - 08:02 PM.

[supervike]

It seems odd that the same ones who defend Walmart's corporate stance are the also the same ones that complain about Small Business owners having too much tax burden.

Walmart has put more Mom and Pop shop's out of business than any governement tax schedule.


I don't want to see Walmart disappear from the landscape, but I do think they should be a somewhat responsible corporate citizen.

[aztek]

supervike, on 23 November 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

but I do think they should be a somewhat responsible corporate citizen.

\what exactly do you mean by that?

[F3SS]

jugoso, on 23 November 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

yes I am oversimplifying the issue. My response was to a hypothetical question asked by aztec. Most people want cheap. Cheaper products sometimes come at a higher social cost.



I was being sarcastic but it more toward your comment: "Besides, how can anyone argue with this guy? A Walmart employee. I´m sure there are many different opinions amongst walmart workers. I certainly never implied he hasn´t made the best life decisions as you did.



Again, we were discussing a hypothetical question. And no I don´t agree with you that Walmart cannot afford raises across the board for their employees but I do agree that union involvement isn´t necessary for them to do so. They can do what the want without union involvement. They don´t have to hire only part-time employees to avoid paying health-care costs. They choose to do so to reap bigger profits. Somebody has to pay for it in the end
As gromdor so succinctly put it: The thing that annoys me about Walmart is the fact that for them to get a profit, I have to pay welfare and food stamps for their employees.

I didn't imply that. You just snipped the part from my post you just quoted where I said this...

Quote

I didn't mean to say that working at walmart is a poor life decision but whomever I was talking to was implying that it's Walmarts fault if these people are down on their luck and i disagree. Walmart is not the mafia. They don't come to make you an offer or break your knees if you decline. you go to them. If they say they'll hire you it is you who says OK.

So a job at walmart may or may not be a poor decision. It's entirely cirumstantial and is not for me to decide which it is for somebody.
I agree that they may be able to afford across the board wages but I doubt it could even amount to $1hr while still being able to operate as they do providing what consumers want but it doesn't matter because you'll still find fault. How about you do some math like I did and show us how they can acheive anymore without having to up their prices thus rendering them less competetive.
Glad we agree on non union involvement and it is unfortunate that the great benefits they offer don't extend to low hour employees but many of them are going to be high school kids or people just looking for some extra cash. Walmart is not a monopoly so it stands to reason that if somebody looking for part time work with benfits will not choose to work there. Why would they if they aren't getting what they're looking for and if they do then that's still not walmarts fault.
About gromdors statement, sure I can find a way to b**** about that too but at the very least these people are putting something back into the system but far be it from me to defend them if they're just working the system. If you follow me in the politics threads you will know that. I might also add that there is a great probabilty that many of these folks would be on some type of welfare regardless of where they may or may not work but I will not say that for all of them.

Purifier, on 23 November 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

Never said they come and seek you out, they don't haft to. They know who will come to them and who they're hiring. Mostly people who are less educated and from a low income family. And they exploit that situation in a subtle way, by keeping the average Wal-mart worker in his place with very few raises and pay caps, while having the Wal-Mart worker work just enough hours to keep him/her not able to afford health insurance and just barely make it paycheck to paycheck. Wal-Mart knows the average cost living these days, for one person, but instead of helping the worker get ahead in life, they do nothing with their selfish attitudes. The average Wal-Mart worker never seems to get ahead while working for Wal-Mart, unless he's got his head buried so far up the Assist. Store Manager's or Co-Store or Store Manager's buttock's; well then the Wal-Mart worker might get ahead that way, with a promotion in his future. But that takes a lot of butt kissing, more than just doing your job and the pay is not worth it quite frankly.


So Mr_Fess, don't feed me that mindless corporate business sentiment, that "no one put's you in that situation" when there are corporations like Wal-Mart, that keep you there. Yeah, they don't put Wal-Mart workers there, but they keep Wal-Mart workers there. That works for the Gordon Gekkos, Richie Richs and all the other "Greed is my new god" elitist of the world, but not for the rest of us who are down on our luck.

About the bold... Speaking in generalities, At what point in history have such people found much better livings? Should Walmart require higher standards of education? Yea right. And that would able the company to provide low cost goods? Thought so. Even if they did you'd be whining about how fairness and inequality because such people couldn't find work.You want better pay? There is an old saying "Justification for Higher Education".
It is not Walmarts job to help people get ahead in life. I'm sure there are corporate opportunities but it is up to the individual to seek them out and I'm sure Walmart would be happy to point the way butit is your mindset that is so wrong with America these days. You want everything to be given and see no reasoning or find any fault with individuals who don't seek the opportunities. And butt kissing to get ahead is as old as human history. There are just some realities that you must accept are here for good. But even butt kissing, sorry as it is, is still a form of seeking the opportunity however slight in many cases.
As for your last paragraph, yes the individual DOES put themselves in that situation and Walmart does not KEEP you there. That sort of invalidates your whole arguement. On one hand you say it's a horrible place to work for. On the other hand you deride humans, Americans at that, of free will and the ability to seek new or better opportunities when in fact we have the ability to for both. It's not a prison or an end game. It's a personal choice with escape routes.

supervike, on 23 November 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

It seems odd that the same ones who defend Walmart's corporate stance are the also the same ones that complain about Small Business owners having too much tax burden.

Walmart has put more Mom and Pop shop's out of business than any governement tax schedule.


I don't want to see Walmart disappear from the landscape, but I do think they should be a somewhat responsible corporate citizen.

Well those are two entirely different issues but only one affects every small business.
And what would you suggest while also maintaining the famous roll back prices? It's not a sweat shop or a chain gang. Owners of big companies get rich. You would too if you could.

[Socio]

Looks like the strike was an epic fail for the union backers;

http://www.foxbusine...ed-in-protests/

Quote

Despite concerns about pro-union protests hampering Black Friday sales, Wal-Mart Stores (WMT) said Friday that fewer than 50 of its employees nationwide participated in the demonstrations while about 22 million customers flooded into its stores.

[Orcseeker]

-Mr_Fess-, on 23 November 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

I didn't mean to say that working at walmart is a poor life decision but whomever I was talking to was implying that it's Walmarts fault if these people are down on their luck and i disagree. Walmart is not the mafia. They don't come to make you an offer or break your knees if you decline. you go to them. If they say they'll hire you it is you who says OK.

Well thats how it is though and you don't have to like it. And if Walmart CEO had press conference and announced to the world that he was giving away 10M dollars spread across evenly to all employees that would be a whopping $5 per employee and then everyone would call him a cheap b****** and if he gave 10M dollars to one employee then he would be labeled something else ignorant for only helping out one guy and that one guy would now be rich and did nothing for it and that's what you all hate about spoiled rich guys anyway.

Did you even read any of the posts I made with math figures? Anyhow, it all makes sense. Go look and you'll see that to keep 2M people employed that there isn't anything wrong with the picture and in fact is absolutely right or else Walmart tanks.

I did read the figures. I just simply don't think anyone really needs that kind of money or find such huge excesses necessary. You say, well as long as they are keeping all these people employed, it's OK. I really don't think it is justified.

I really think you should read up on some of the details on the GFC. CEOs walking away with millions upon millions where employees just lose their job. Paying CEOs this kind of money means they can still make big mistakes and walk away a millionaire. Regardless, companies already in the ground fork out massive payments when the CEO decides to leave. This caused huge problems in the GFC.

Some CEOs walked away with 500 million. Like c'mon... You need to draw the line somewhere. This sort of thing eventually destroys businesses.

[F3SS]

Orcseeker, on 24 November 2012 - 12:46 AM, said:

I did read the figures. I just simply don't think anyone really needs that kind of money or find such huge excesses necessary. You say, well as long as they are keeping all these people employed, it's OK. I really don't think it is justified.

I really think you should read up on some of the details on the GFC. CEOs walking away with millions upon millions where employees just lose their job. Paying CEOs this kind of money means they can still make big mistakes and walk away a millionaire. Regardless, companies already in the ground fork out massive payments when the CEO decides to leave. This caused huge problems in the GFC.

Some CEOs walked away with 500 million. Like c'mon... You need to draw the line somewhere. This sort of thing eventually destroys businesses.

Alright I hear ya. Excessive greed is slimy but all I'm saying is even operating at zero profits and no CEOs and every penny was funneled into every paycheck the signifigance would hardly have a profound impact on paychecks reaching a max of $11hr +/- evenly distributed across all employees in a pure socialist type fashion. Still, that's not to say it doesn't have any signifigance So you have to take into account some profits to be realistic and then still funneling all that money would be even less significant and then when you factor in the absolute need for liquid working capital the distribution becomes less. I'm not out to defend the CEOs so much as I am the need for Walmart to maintain it's current business strategy if they are to remain who they are. Other than that I don't know what to tell you about the big wigs. What would you suggest they do with their money? They could either insult the masses with small bonuses or truly help just a few and that isn't right either.

[lightly]

aztek, on 23 November 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:

lol, i see many still live in the past, and some are not just in the past, but in their imaginary\fare\just world, lol, i feel sorry for ppl like that, reality has a tendecy to smack ppl like that very  hard right over the head.

I assume this post is in reference to mine?   I don't live in the past. I was simply pointing out that I view some aspects of the past  preferable to some aspects of the present.   I don't necessarily , as some seem to,  view every capitalistic venture as 'progress'.    If such thought processes are beyond your understanding,  that's ok.  

  .. and Fair  is spelled F a i r

[supervike]

aztek, on 23 November 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

\what exactly do you mean by that?

Well, for starters, I don't think that people that work full time at one of the Worlds Richest Companies should have to also be on the public assistance dole.

I think they should stop the crap they do like keeping employees "on demand".  Meaning that some don't get an actual work schedule, but have to wait for a phone call to see if they do or do not work that day.

I think they should take responsibility for what was called the "dead janitor" insurance policies.  That's where they took out Life insurance on some of their elderly employees (without the employee knowing about it).  But, the 'beneficiary' of these policies wasn't the family, but the company itself.

I think the current policy of making sure employees are sent home as to retain their 'part time' status (so they don't have to pay health care) should stop.

[aztek]

i doubt you will ever see those things done, in fact i almost positive you wont. or there wont be walmart in today's business environment.

but hey if someone feel walmart treats them bad, they are free to leave and find another job. no one is holding gun against their head. you know, jobs are everywhere and all of them treat ppl better than walmart, and pays more, oh wait..

[Orcseeker]

-Mr_Fess-, on 24 November 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:

Alright I hear ya. Excessive greed is slimy but all I'm saying is even operating at zero profits and no CEOs and every penny was funneled into every paycheck the signifigance would hardly have a profound impact on paychecks reaching a max of $11hr +/- evenly distributed across all employees in a pure socialist type fashion. Still, that's not to say it doesn't have any signifigance So you have to take into account some profits to be realistic and then still funneling all that money would be even less significant and then when you factor in the absolute need for liquid working capital the distribution becomes less. I'm not out to defend the CEOs so much as I am the need for Walmart to maintain it's current business strategy if they are to remain who they are. Other than that I don't know what to tell you about the big wigs. What would you suggest they do with their money? They could either insult the masses with small bonuses or truly help just a few and that isn't right either.

Well I think giving back to the community is a start. Possibly funding local initiatives, supporting certain charities and such. I think that's a lot more useful than what different car one guy wants to drive each day. Or if the CEOs started a charity or something themselves with their huge amounts of cash. These businesses just need to put more back into the community.

The thing about "mom and pop" stores as you call them over there. Is that they not only provide local jobs, but generally more cash goes back into the community as they live there. Whereas with big chain stores, the money could be going to some part of the country or overseas.

Sure, they call the shots and if they do well they should be rewarded. But what's a company without the rest of the taskforce?

[supervike]

I guess I don't know why it's an all or nothing proposition.

Instead of Wal-mart posting 4 billion dollar profits, they post 3.5 billion and do the right thing.

[F3SS]

Orcseeker, on 25 November 2012 - 01:20 AM, said:

Well I think giving back to the community is a start. Possibly funding local initiatives, supporting certain charities and such. I think that's a lot more useful than what different car one guy wants to drive each day. Or if the CEOs started a charity or something themselves with their huge amounts of cash. These businesses just need to put more back into the community.

The thing about "mom and pop" stores as you call them over there. Is that they not only provide local jobs, but generally more cash goes back into the community as they live there. Whereas with big chain stores, the money could be going to some part of the country or overseas.

Sure, they call the shots and if they do well they should be rewarded. But what's a company without the rest of the taskforce?

Seems to me that as far as corporations go there a few more charitable than Walmart. Searched google "Walmart charity". You guys seem to make a lot of assumptions. I'm not going to do it but if you find out who the CEOs and owners are I'm sure you will find that they aren't as evil as you'd like to believe. I could be wrong but everybody just assumes that rich CEO equals Ebaneezer Scrooge.
Btw, I am a small business owner, not a store but a contractor and these big chain stores keep me in business or at the least make it so much easier to conduct. Without the convenience of Lowes or Home Depot things wouldn't be as they are. I'd spend more time driving to different stores for different things thereby reducing productivity and increasing wasted time. Also though I do plenty of business with plenty of local suppliers but they aren't always around when you need them nor do they always have what I need whereas the big chains are almost everywhere and almost always have what I need. So I appreciate them.

From this link.... http://foundation.walmart.com/
In 2011walmart donated 338 million pounds of food for hunger relief
In 2011, Walmart and the Walmart Foundation gave $958.9 million in cash and in-kind contributions around the world. This includes $872.7 million in cash and in-kind gifts in the United States and $86.2 million in cash and in-kind gifts in international markets. In addition, Walmart associates volunteered more than 1 million hours that resulted in more than $13 million in grants to local nonprofits.  
More here with links to previous years... http://news.walmart....ommunity giving
How about this from several years ago... http://www.msnbc.msn...y/#.ULJBd3y9KSM
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. increased its U.S. charitable giving 10 percent last year to $272.9 million, the world’s largest retailer said Tuesday, likely defending its position as the country’s largest corporate donor of cash.

[Ryinrea]

spartan max2, on 23 November 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

i work at wal-mart i havent noticed any union stuff at all. it is probably because im not in a huge city. But honestly we dont need any sort of union i get paid more then my freinds who work at krogers. And krogers is union

Wow! How much do you get paid to post per hour in support of Wal mart. I mean serriouly you joined the day this whole thing about strikes started as a PR move by WAL MART. Do you not understand 25,000 is not enough to live off let alone having Sam Walton dream turn in too something he dispised.  The Walton Heirs are nothing like Sam  Walton who started the bussiness they are spolied little rich brats who want MORE MONEY. He took pride in having  products made in America but now they have things from CHINA that is not having things made in Amercia sweetheat. Things have really changed since Walmart heirs took over.!

i AM very far right since I am a Libertaian However, I disagree with the pratices of Walmart type stores, since they destory the free markets ideas I live by and this IS, why I support Small bussiness. I hate spolied rich brats who want nothing but  Vulture captilism not actual captilism to work.

Edited by Ryinrea, 25 November 2012 - 04:26 PM.