The Ultimate Wal Mart Thread; Is Wal Mart good for America

[Bowfinger]

Here's an article in a related vein. It's actually a review of a low-end DVD player, but it carries an editorial as well:

Knight Ridder article, as published in The Seattle Times:

Can't lose with bargain DVD player, but low cost carries price
By Mike Langberg
Knight Ridder Newspapers

If you want to enjoy eating sausage, you probably shouldn't watch sausage being made unless you've got a strong stomach.

In somewhat the same way, you shouldn't ask how it's possible to buy a DVD player these days for under $40.

These ultra-inexpensive machines, from no-name importers such as AMW, Apex, Coby, CyberHome, Mintek and Norcent, are surprisingly solid. Video and audio quality, along with reliability, are virtually as good as models costing twice as much from consumer-electronics giants such as Panasonic, Philips, RCA, Sony and Toshiba.

But there are hidden costs. Horrific working conditions on assembly lines in China, heightened trade tensions with Asian nations and Wal-Mart store clerks paid so little they qualify for food stamps, are partially related to relentless pressure to sell popular products at eye-popping low prices.

Low-cost DVD players became the holiday-shopping legend of 2003, thanks to a woman in Orange City, Fla., who claimed she was trampled the day after Thanksgiving by a crowd at Wal-Mart desperate to snag an Apex model marked down to $29.87.

The story now looks too good to be true; the woman, a former Wal-Mart employee, has a history of filing numerous slip-and-fall lawsuits and workers'-compensation claims. But many people are only likely to remember reports of her being pulled semiconscious from the floor where she was still clutching a box containing one of the DVD players.

[ ... ]

Hidden costs

The deep discounts, then, come with a cost we don't see: no more mom-and-pop electronics stores in the United States, and no assembly-line workers in China able to enter that country's growing middle class.

On a practical level, I have no problem recommending no-name DVD players for connecting to an average television set that's 32 inches or smaller. However, if you've just spent $5,000 for a 50-inch plasma screen and $3,000 on a room-rocking sound system, it's obviously worth spending a few dollars more for a brand name.

On an emotional and political level, I'm not sure where all this is headed or what consumers can do. You can't vote with your dollars. All DVD players are now made in China, so there's no "Made in the U.S.A." option.

If we all stopped buying DVD players tomorrow, conditions in China would probably get worse rather than better.

Maybe, in the end, it's enough to be aware of what's happening behind the scenes as we enjoy this cornucopia of bargains.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Perhaps you should read what I said a little more closely: "as the minimum wage increases, employers increase the salaries of other low-wage employees as well. Economists on both sides of the issue agree on this; the analysis standard is those employees earning up to one dollar per hour ($1.00/hour) more than the new minimum wage. As one gets beyond $1/hour more, the effect dwindles."[/quote]

I can read what you say. Whatever you want to believe, when an employee gets a raise a company must make adjustments somewhere to maintain the same profit margin. So now they give everyone a raise. Notably, higher wage earners don't get a raise. So then what... prices rise. Whoops, so much for the raise. Quantity of the products decrease (like the hamburger patty keep shrinking).... Whoops, now our dollar doesn't buy quite as much. Keep those things the same as before you say? Great, hire less employees and service drops.

 

[LunarRay]

You are painting with a very broad brush on this minimum wage issue.
You must consider the sector by sector effect. Some sectors will not nearly have the same trickleation as another.. It clearly depends on the product.. or I should say the elasticity of the product and the minimum wage component.
Usually, minimum wage is found in very inelastic products like food and food service and the like. It is usually never found to be part of the industrial sector..
By and large minimum wage is found in those areas that would otherwise pay reduced wages because the cost of the product... say hamburgers at McDonald's contains a sizeable portion of the labor hired to staff the facility. BUT, because hamburgers are fairly inelastic the cost is easily passed on with out alternative consumption reducing share.. usually...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Perhaps you should read what I said a little more closely: "as the minimum wage increases, employers increase the salaries of other low-wage employees as well. Economists on both sides of the issue agree on this; the analysis standard is those employees earning up to one dollar per hour ($1.00/hour) more than the new minimum wage. As one gets beyond $1/hour more, the effect dwindles."

I can read what you say. Whatever you want to believe, when an employee gets a raise a company must make adjustments somewhere to maintain the same profit margin. So now they give everyone a raise. Notably, higher wage earners don't get a raise. So then what... prices rise. Whoops, so much for the raise. Quantity of the products decrease (like the hamburger patty keep shrinking).... Whoops, now our dollar doesn't buy quite as much. Keep those things the same as before you say? Great, hire less employees and service drops.

That's an interesting theory. Can you cite any studies or offer other links that support the idea that modest minimum wage increases have such a significant effect on the economy?

 

[LunarRay]

It would be good to consider the psychology of the folks who seek employment at or near minimum wage.. They rarely care if they earn at minimum or +.25 or +.50 cents per hour. They accept what they get. That is why there is the law.. cuz owners will pay as little as possible and increase their wealth accordingly.. If there was no need for this law other than to combat this perpensity of the low skilled hirer we'd not have the danged law to start with. Other than this condition what does the law do?

 

[Ultima]

Interesting theories from this site

Money Is The Blood Of A Community
The purpose of money is to allow the distribution of goods throughout the community. It does not benefit the farmer to have tons of turnips, or the mine owner to have tons of coal, or the garage owner to have gallons of petrol, if no one can buy these goods. All manufacturers need customers with money, which is why money was invented. The sole and only purpose of money is to distribute goods. It performs a function for the community similar to that performed by blood to a living body. If blood is cut off to a part of the anatomy, that part withers and dies, and the whole body suffers accordingly. Whereas the more extensive the circulation of blood, the healthier the individual. Similarly with money and the community; the more extensive the supply of incomes, the healthier the community, and vice-versa. The whole community is rewarded when someone who would otherwise have no income is given a wage. People do not eat money, but they pass it on to others by becoming their customers. And these recipients in turn use the extra money to supply extra custom to others. And so on.

How A Community Circulates Its Money Is Critical
Most communal poverty is caused not by a failure of production but by a failure in the circulation of money. The 'Great Depression' occurred not because our community had run short of something tangible such as food, or oil, but because the circulation of money failed. The community was just as rich before the depression as during the depression, but it relied upon mass employment for the circulation of money. The moment employment faltered then the money supply reduced which forced more unemployment etc. The simple truth is that a source of money must be given to the unemployed, then recovered by tax to maintain the necessary circulation of money. Otherwise we all starve.

The Real Cause of The Great Depression
Money is a tool created by communal understanding, its only value is that supplied by a community's understanding. So any shortcomings in the use of money must be shortcomings in the understanding of the nature of money by the community. The Great Depression was not caused by a general slump in share values, this event only exposed a flaw in our understanding of the circulation of money. There was no need for the circulation of money to fail because employment failed, this failure is easily repaired by establishing an alternate method of supplying money to the jobless?the dole. [ This small conditional payment is the one thing separating the current (circa 2000) financial recession from the Great Depression.]

However the site also posts things such as:

Mexico now colonising the USA
Mexico is now (circa 2000) colonising America and imposing its language and culture. Though the Americans still have the strength of understanding to recognise that the Hispanic invasion should be stopped, they are unable to take the measures required to achieve this end. The very least that must be done to halt the Hispanic invasion is the mass enslavement, or execution, of the invaders, which must be followed by an American invasion of Mexico to enforce American language and values upon the Mexicans. But the citizens of the USA recoil from such ruthless violence (see 'the communal attitude to violence') and instead embrace delusion. They pretend their futile defence is not folly, ignore the slow but inevitable takeover of their country and persecute anyone who tries to dispel their illusions. America has lost its ability to defend itself and must eventually be overrun by people from other cultures.

Colonise Or Be Colonised
The simple truth that different cultures are irreconcilable, and one must dominate the others, means the now impotent cultures of Western Civilization will be overrun. How a particular culture dominates, or attempts to dominate, other cultures, naturally reflects the character of that culture. The fact that the Americans refrain from killing their enemies does not mean that their enemies will refrain from killing them, as America was recently reminded. On September 11, 2001, around 3,000 people were murdered in a barbarian raid upon the USA, when the fanatical followers of an Islamic sect deliberately crashed hi-jacked passenger planes into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

The Barbarians Are Coming ?Again
It is clear that in one way or another it is only a matter of time before the increasing senility of the countries that make up the Western world, will see them succumb to invaders. The result will be the final extinction of Western Civilization, along with its wealth and power, and a return to the dark ages.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Ultima
Interesting theories from this site

Money Is The Blood Of A Community
The purpose of money is to allow the distribution of goods throughout the community. It does not benefit the farmer to have tons of turnips, or the mine owner to have tons of coal, or the garage owner to have gallons of petrol, if no one can buy these goods. All manufacturers need customers with money, which is why money was invented. The sole and only purpose of money is to distribute goods. It performs a function for the community similar to that performed by blood to a living body. If blood is cut off to a part of the anatomy, that part withers and dies, and the whole body suffers accordingly. Whereas the more extensive the circulation of blood, the healthier the individual. Similarly with money and the community; the more extensive the supply of incomes, the healthier the community, and vice-versa. The whole community is rewarded when someone who would otherwise have no income is given a wage. People do not eat money, but they pass it on to others by becoming their customers. And these recipients in turn use the extra money to supply extra custom to others. And so on.

How A Community Circulates Its Money Is Critical
Most communal poverty is caused not by a failure of production but by a failure in the circulation of money. The 'Great Depression' occurred not because our community had run short of something tangible such as food, or oil, but because the circulation of money failed. The community was just as rich before the depression as during the depression, but it relied upon mass employment for the circulation of money. The moment employment faltered then the money supply reduced which forced more unemployment etc. The simple truth is that a source of money must be given to the unemployed, then recovered by tax to maintain the necessary circulation of money. Otherwise we all starve.

The Real Cause of The Great Depression
Money is a tool created by communal understanding, its only value is that supplied by a community's understanding. So any shortcomings in the use of money must be shortcomings in the understanding of the nature of money by the community. The Great Depression was not caused by a general slump in share values, this event only exposed a flaw in our understanding of the circulation of money. There was no need for the circulation of money to fail because employment failed, this failure is easily repaired by establishing an alternate method of supplying money to the jobless?the dole. [ This small conditional payment is the one thing separating the current (circa 2000) financial recession from the Great Depression.]

However the site also posts things such as:

Mexico now colonising the USA
Mexico is now (circa 2000) colonising America and imposing its language and culture. Though the Americans still have the strength of understanding to recognise that the Hispanic invasion should be stopped, they are unable to take the measures required to achieve this end. The very least that must be done to halt the Hispanic invasion is the mass enslavement, or execution, of the invaders, which must be followed by an American invasion of Mexico to enforce American language and values upon the Mexicans. But the citizens of the USA recoil from such ruthless violence (see 'the communal attitude to violence') and instead embrace delusion. They pretend their futile defence is not folly, ignore the slow but inevitable takeover of their country and persecute anyone who tries to dispel their illusions. America has lost its ability to defend itself and must eventually be overrun by people from other cultures.

Colonise Or Be Colonised
The simple truth that different cultures are irreconcilable, and one must dominate the others, means the now impotent cultures of Western Civilization will be overrun. How a particular culture dominates, or attempts to dominate, other cultures, naturally reflects the character of that culture. The fact that the Americans refrain from killing their enemies does not mean that their enemies will refrain from killing them, as America was recently reminded. On September 11, 2001, around 3,000 people were murdered in a barbarian raid upon the USA, when the fanatical followers of an Islamic sect deliberately crashed hi-jacked passenger planes into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

The Barbarians Are Coming ?Again
It is clear that in one way or another it is only a matter of time before the increasing senility of the countries that make up the Western world, will see them succumb to invaders. The result will be the final extinction of Western Civilization, along with its wealth and power, and a return to the dark ages.

Interesting. Strange. In that order.

 

[dmcowen674]

1-10-2004 Wal-Mart has settled a lawsuit over its practice of taking out life insurance on employees and making itself the beneficiary

Wal-Mart is one of many large U.S. companies in recent years that have taken out policies on the lives of employees, ranging from executives to workers on the bottom rungs of the pay ladder, with the goal of collecting benefits when the employees die. Companies term the policies corporate-owned life insurance, or COLIs. Critics call them dead-peasant policies.

Wal-Mart set up a trust in 1993 and named itself as beneficiary on policies for 355,000 employees.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
1-10-2004 Wal-Mart has settled a lawsuit over its practice of taking out life insurance on employees and making itself the beneficiary

Wal-Mart is one of many large U.S. companies in recent years that have taken out policies on the lives of employees, ranging from executives to workers on the bottom rungs of the pay ladder, with the goal of collecting benefits when the employees die. Companies term the policies corporate-owned life insurance, or COLIs. Critics call them dead-peasant policies.

Wal-Mart set up a trust in 1993 and named itself as beneficiary on policies for 355,000 employees.

How Low will they go?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
1-10-2004 Wal-Mart has settled a lawsuit over its practice of taking out life insurance on employees and making itself the beneficiary

Wal-Mart is one of many large U.S. companies in recent years that have taken out policies on the lives of employees, ranging from executives to workers on the bottom rungs of the pay ladder, with the goal of collecting benefits when the employees die. Companies term the policies corporate-owned life insurance, or COLIs. Critics call them dead-peasant policies.

Wal-Mart set up a trust in 1993 and named itself as beneficiary on policies for 355,000 employees.

How Low will they go?

Come on Sand, they are the best thing for America and the World remember?

 

[Bowfinger]

That's not an indictment of Wal-Mart. It's an example of how sleazy much of corporate America has become in its quest for profits at all costs.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's not an indictment of Wal-Mart. It's an example of how sleazy much of corporate America has become in its quest for profits at all costs.

Yep - I say we should let the gov't run all the corporations. It's obvious the big bad evil corporations are the worst thing to happen to America since the introduction of slave labor. It's time we turn over the reigns of corporate control to the gov't - they'd do a much better job than those eevvviiillll corporations.

Or maybe we should just turn everything over to Unions.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's not an indictment of Wal-Mart. It's an example of how sleazy much of corporate America has become in its quest for profits at all costs.

Yep - I say we should let the gov't run all the corporations. It's obvious the big bad evil corporations are the worst thing to happen to America since the introduction of slave labor. It's time we turn over the reigns of corporate control to the gov't - they'd do a much better job than those eevvviiillll corporations.

Or maybe we should just turn everything over to Unions.

CkG

Or maybe you should STFU until you learn how to express a contrary point of view without lying about and distorting the beliefs of your opponents. It's not amusing any more Cad, just pathetic.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's not an indictment of Wal-Mart. It's an example of how sleazy much of corporate America has become in its quest for profits at all costs.

Yep - I say we should let the gov't run all the corporations. It's obvious the big bad evil corporations are the worst thing to happen to America since the introduction of slave labor. It's time we turn over the reigns of corporate control to the gov't - they'd do a much better job than those eevvviiillll corporations.

Or maybe we should just turn everything over to Unions.

CkG

Or maybe you should STFU until you learn how to express a contrary point of view without lying about and distorting the beliefs of your opponents. It's not amusing any more Cad, just pathetic.

Or maybe you should STFU until you learn to read and comprehend.
Yep = I agree with you(however sarcastic that may be)
Then I start in with "I say we should ..." Which means another thing(my opinion - however sarcastic it may be) is being introduced.
So no - you can shove your pathetic little distortions and perceptions.

Do you not understand sarcasm that takes things to their absurd extremes?
Seems to me that alot of the things yapped about here are taken to extremes by the walmart haters - this is no different. People here profess how the gov't should do more - well - why not let them run corporations? Or since we have so many Union lovers here - why not let Unions run corporations?
Either of them would do a better job than the current evil corporations - no?

Bowfinger- your knee-jerking is becoming hilarious.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's not an indictment of Wal-Mart. It's an example of how sleazy much of corporate America has become in its quest for profits at all costs.

Yep - I say we should let the gov't run all the corporations. It's obvious the big bad evil corporations are the worst thing to happen to America since the introduction of slave labor. It's time we turn over the reigns of corporate control to the gov't - they'd do a much better job than those eevvviiillll corporations.

Or maybe we should just turn everything over to Unions.

CkG

Or maybe you should STFU until you learn how to express a contrary point of view without lying about and distorting the beliefs of your opponents. It's not amusing any more Cad, just pathetic.

Or maybe you should STFU until you learn to read and comprehend.
Yep = I agree with you(however sarcastic that may be)
Then I start in with "I say we should ..." Which means another thing(my opinion - however sarcastic it may be) is being introduced.
So no - you can shove your pathetic little distortions and perceptions.

Do you not understand sarcasm that takes things to their absurd extremes?
Seems to me that alot of the things yapped about here are taken to extremes by the walmart haters - this is no different. People here profess how the gov't should do more - well - why not let them run corporations? Or since we have so many Union lovers here - why not let Unions run corporations?
Either of them would do a better job than the current evil corporations - no?

Bowfinger- your knee-jerking is becoming hilarious.

CkG

Rationalize it however you want, your "discussion" techniques are dishonest (in this case, a straw man). They also divert attempts to hold a meaningful discussion, which, I suspect, is part of the reason you do it. The fact that your dishonest comments are also sarcastic does not alter or excuse the base dishonesty.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Rationalize it however you want, your "discussion" techniques are dishonest (in this case, a straw man). They also divert attempts to hold a meaningful discussion, which, I suspect, is part of the reason you do it. The fact that your dishonest comments are also sarcastic does not alter or excuse the base dishonesty.

As if any of this discussion about WalMart has been "meaningful".

Here we have this huge thread about ONE company that people are trying to say is "evil". Well, until the anti-capitalists realise that Walmart is driven by their CUSTOMERS - no meaningful discussions can take place. We see these half-assed attempts at generalizing corporate corruption, greed, and supposed anti-worker accusations thrown at WalMart yet provide no options for "fixing" it. They just like to rant and screech about some pecieved "evil". Well, I presented the absurd options of gov't ownership or Union ownership. Both aren't doable and would be anti-American. So, what shall we do if WalMart is sooooo bad for America - yet we don't want the gov't or Unions to run them?
Got something rational to propose? Or do we just get more generalizations like: "It's an example of how sleazy much of corporate America has become in its quest for profits at all costs." or "No, if the cheap-labor conservatives get their way, I think we're looking more like another Mexico, the rural parts where they don't have all the American factories. It will take a few years, but that's our direction today."

You can say whatever you want Bow about my obviously(to most awake people) extreme options and call them dishonest all you want but I'm sure there are some here who would support doing exactly what I posted. But they wouldn't be "dishonest" - they'd just be "protecting the worker"

CkG

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's not an indictment of Wal-Mart. It's an example of how sleazy much of corporate America has become in its quest for profits at all costs.

How is this different than you?

Did you take your most recent job, whatever that may be, because it paid more than the previous? When you were looking for employment, did you seek out a company with better benefits than others or perhaps one that gave you stock options, annual raises, etc?

You are no different than WalMart. If another company offered you more money, you'd jump ship because of your personal quest for profits.

Perhaps you will deny that you want more money or need it. I'd say that odds are you drive a nicer car than you really need, probably have a nicer house than you need and probably have more personal belongings than you really need.

Why don't you tell your employer to pay you less or, even better, take a job that pays less so that other people will have an opportunity to make money? You might even be able to convince your employer to pay you half and then hire someone else for the difference. Certainly two people doing one job is better than one person, right Bow?

So you see, your personal greed for maximizing your personal profits only hurts other eligible workers and takes job opportunities away from them. If you demanded less, they might be able to work and have opportunity like you do, but you don't ever demand less. In your own words, this must make you "sleazy."

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Rationalize it however you want, your "discussion" techniques are dishonest (in this case, a straw man). They also divert attempts to hold a meaningful discussion, which, I suspect, is part of the reason you do it. The fact that your dishonest comments are also sarcastic does not alter or excuse the base dishonesty.

As if any of this discussion about WalMart has been "meaningful".

If you don't find it meaningful, you are more than welcome to ignore the thread. Believe it or not, it is not mandatory that you read and post in every single thread here. Personally, I've found this thread most interesting. Judging by the number or posts, it seems many others have too.

Here we have this huge thread about ONE company that people are trying to say is "evil".

No Cad, that is another straw man. The subject of this discussion is whether Wal-Mart is good for America. Your misrepresentation of the thread is exactly what I jumped you about earlier. It is dishonest and inflammatory.

Well, until the anti-capitalists realise that Walmart is driven by their CUSTOMERS - no meaningful discussions can take place.

Sorry, that is also wrong. Wal-Mart is driven by its owners, i.e., stock holders.

(By the way, your "anti-capitalists" slur is yet another straw man-type distortion. I don't remember even one person here opposing capitalism per se. The objection is to unrestricted capitalism.)

We see these half-assed attempts at generalizing corporate corruption, greed, and supposed anti-worker accusations thrown at WalMart yet provide no options for "fixing" it. They just like to rant and screech about some pecieved "evil".

So? If you don't like it, change the channel (so to speak).

By the way, who is the "they" that rant about "evil"? I imagine someone in this thread has used that word. It is certainly not common.

Well, I presented the absurd options of gov't ownership or Union ownership. Both aren't doable and would be anti-American. So, what shall we do if WalMart is sooooo bad for America - yet we don't want the gov't or Unions to run them?
Got something rational to propose?

Do you? It seems somewhat premature to propose solutions when we have yet to agree on the extent, nature, and significance of the problem. If you have something to propose, however, feel free. All you're doing right now is attacking.

The problem, of course, is that you don't agree Wal-Mart is significantly bad for America, but you are unwilling or unable to support your point of view. Instead, you attack your opponents and invent absurd straw man arguments.

Or do we just get more generalizations like: "It's an example of how sleazy much of corporate America has become in its quest for profits at all costs." or "No, if the cheap-labor conservatives get their way, I think we're looking more like another Mexico, the rural parts where they don't have all the American factories. It will take a few years, but that's our direction today."

And? If you know I am wrong, prove it. If I am wrong in your opinion, explain why, present your opinion and offer arguments to support it. Stop the incessant negative attacks and promote your own view of the world.

You can say whatever you want Bow about my obviously(to most awake people) extreme options and call them dishonest all you want but I'm sure there are some here who would support doing exactly what I posted. But they wouldn't be "dishonest" - they'd just be "protecting the worker"

When someone speaks up in sincere support of your "options", I will help refute them. Until then, they remain a dishonest straw man.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Well, until the anti-capitalists realise that Walmart is driven by their CUSTOMERS - no meaningful discussions can take place.

Sorry, that is also wrong. Wal-Mart is driven by its owners, i.e., stock holders.

You really don't know anything about businesses, do you?

If companies could exist without employees, everyone would be profiting from having one, but they don't work that way.

WalMart is driven by their customers. The owners and stockholders run the company. There's a big difference. The owners do what the customers want. Simple.

If a company didn't do what the customer wanted, they wouldn't be in business!!!!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's not an indictment of Wal-Mart. It's an example of how sleazy much of corporate America has become in its quest for profits at all costs.

How is this different than you?

Did you take your most recent job, whatever that may be, because it paid more than the previous? When you were looking for employment, did you seek out a company with better benefits than others or perhaps one that gave you stock options, annual raises, etc?

You are no different than WalMart. If another company offered you more money, you'd jump ship because of your personal quest for profits.

Perhaps you will deny that you want more money or need it. I'd say that odds are you drive a nicer car than you really need, probably have a nicer house than you need and probably have more personal belongings than you really need.

Why don't you tell your employer to pay you less or, even better, take a job that pays less so that other people will have an opportunity to make money? You might even be able to convince your employer to pay you half and then hire someone else for the difference. Certainly two people doing one job is better than one person, right Bow?

So you see, your personal greed for maximizing your personal profits only hurts other eligible workers and takes job opportunities away from them. If you demanded less, they might be able to work and have opportunity like you do, but you don't ever demand less. In your own words, this must make you "sleazy."

While I compliment the effort you put into explaining and supporting your premise, it is fundamentally flawed. It assumes that all sources of income and revenue are somehow equal. That is not the case.

Let me offer an extreme example to explain what I mean. Would you contend it is acceptable for Wal-Mart to sell cocaine and heroin to maximize its profits? Would you contend that its OK for me to work for a drug dealer to maximize my income? I certainly hope not.

Some things are more important than money, things like right and wrong, and ethics. Especially since the "greed is good" mantra of the 1980's, many corporations seem to believe money is the one and only objective. Concepts like right and wrong are distant memories. In many cases, there seems to be little concern for legal vs. illegal.

In other words, the problem with "much of corporate America" is NOT that it wants to make money. It's the sleazy extremes to which it will go to make more money. Profiting on the deaths of employees is one example.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

While I compliment the effort you put into explaining and supporting your premise, it is fundamentally flawed. It assumes that all sources of income and revenue are somehow equal. That is not the case.

Let me offer an extreme example to explain what I mean. Would you contend it is acceptable for Wal-Mart to sell cocaine and heroin to maximize its profits? Would you contend that its OK for me to work for a drug dealer to maximize my income? I certainly hope not.

Some things are more important than money, things like right and wrong, and ethics. Especially since the "greed is good" mantra of the 1980's, many corporations seem to believe money is the one and only objective. Concepts like right and wrong are distant memories. In many cases, there seems to be little concern for legal vs. illegal.

In other words, the problem with "much of corporate America" is NOT that it wants to make money. It's the sleazy extremes to which it will go to make more money. Profiting on the deaths of employees is one example.

WalMart doesn't sell illegal drugs.

You say there are more important things than money. Right? So why do you work for such a high wage when you could work for less????? After all, there are more important things than money, but I doubt that is the case for you.

Yes, WalMart did buy insurance on their employees. Whoops. They made a mistake and were made aware of this horrible practice. Did they fix it? Yep. C'mon Bow, it's not like you've never make a mistake or done something wrong.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
While I compliment the effort you put into explaining and supporting your premise, it is fundamentally flawed. It assumes that all sources of income and revenue are somehow equal. That is not the case.

Let me offer an extreme example to explain what I mean. Would you contend it is acceptable for Wal-Mart to sell cocaine and heroin to maximize its profits? Would you contend that its OK for me to work for a drug dealer to maximize my income? I certainly hope not.

Some things are more important than money, things like right and wrong, and ethics. Especially since the "greed is good" mantra of the 1980's, many corporations seem to believe money is the one and only objective. Concepts like right and wrong are distant memories. In many cases, there seems to be little concern for legal vs. illegal.

In other words, the problem with "much of corporate America" is NOT that it wants to make money. It's the sleazy extremes to which it will go to make more money. Profiting on the deaths of employees is one example.

A company can choose to use morals to determine its business goals.
As long as it stays within the laws that apply to it, it can choose what method of running the business to meet its internal goals.
If a customer is willing to pay for an overpriced piece of merchandise, the company has no legal obligation to not provide it.
If a customer demands a shoddy quality at a low price and the company can provide it, then the customer is happy.
The company will price goods that the customer desires based on its own costs and the need to copmete and profit.

If the morals/ethics that the company has are upsetting to the consumer, the consumer can choose not to do business with a company.
If they feel that what the company is doing should become illegal, then they can work to get that practice declared illegal.
If they do not like the ethics, then they can work to change those ethics by applying pressure to the company.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Discussion would be meaningful but there seems to be very little actually discussion here - most of it is just plain uninformed ranting and complaining about WalMart.

But just to take one thing at a time so we don't have to wade through piles and piles of anti-Walmart rhetoric to discuss each thing, I'm going to pick this to start:
******************
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, until the anti-capitalists realise that Walmart is driven by their CUSTOMERS - no meaningful discussions can take place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, that is also wrong. Wal-Mart is driven by its owners, i.e., stock holders.

(By the way, your "anti-capitalists" slur is yet another straw man-type distortion. I don't remember even one person here opposing capitalism per se. The objection is to unrestricted capitalism.)
******************

No - WalMart is not driven by it's owners(stockholders). Sure they may be at the master control station but it really is the consumer who powers the mega train WalMart has become.
WalMart is a business who's goal is to make money like any "for profit" entity. Now if WalMart doesn't conform to the needs, wants, and idiosyncrasies of the people who spend money at their stores - then they will find themselves with no revenue and therefore - no profits. The job of the Management(owners) is to make sure WalMart delivers the items consumers want at a price they are willing to pay. If that means WalMart sells "junk" - then they sell "junk" because people want to buy the "junk".
Kmart went belly up because they didn't offer "junk" in a way that would foster continued "junk" buying by consumers at prices that were sustainable for them to stay in business. Now yes Kmart had several issues that led to their downfall but the bottom line is that they as a company didn't adapt to the consumer's wishes in a way that would allow them to stay profitable.

Now, just for the record again - I'm not a WalMart fan - I'd much prefer to see the WalMart of old(that sold American goods and was proud of it) but that doesn't seem to be what people want or care about enough to make a conscious choice to shop elsewhere.

Stay on-topic and I will too. Otherwise we can go back to seeing who can spew more rhetoric - your choice. I started - reply and then we may proceed to other issues if warranted. But like I said - until people realize it is the consumer who ultimately empowers WalMart - discussion might well be meaningless.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Well, until the anti-capitalists realise that Walmart is driven by their CUSTOMERS - no meaningful discussions can take place.

Sorry, that is also wrong. Wal-Mart is driven by its owners, i.e., stock holders.

You really don't know anything about businesses, do you?

LOL. That comment is more absurd than you can imagine.

If companies could exist without employees, everyone would be profiting from having one, but they don't work that way.

WalMart is driven by their customers. The owners and stockholders run the company. There's a big difference. The owners do what the customers want. Simple.

If a company didn't do what the customer wanted, they wouldn't be in business!!!!

With all due respect son, you're contradicting yourself. In your previous post, you suggest it's appropriate for business to do whatever it can to make money, i.e., it is driven to make money. Now you suggest that business is driven by customers? Sorry, that's not true.

Wal-Mart exists to make money for its owners. It is driven by the desire to make as much money as possible. Its business strategy for making money is selling goods and services to customers for maximum profit. Maximum profit is attained by minimizing costs and maximizing revenue. Maximizing revenue requires finding the sweet spot that best balances high profit margins and high sales volumes. High sales volumes are achieved through multiple means: prices, marketing, location, competition (i.e., lack of), and customer loyalty. Customer loyalty, in turn, is driven in part by customer service.

In other words, customers are only one factor in Wal-Mart's business strategy. To the extent that Wal-Mart maximizes profits by giving customers what they want, Wal-Mart will do so. Nonetheless, the driver is profits, NOT customers. If you doubt this, you only have to ask why Wal-Mart doesn't sell everything below cost, or even give it away free. After all, that's what the customers want. The answer is it isn't what the stock holders (owners) want. They want profits. That's what drives Wal-Mart.

Customers are the means to the end. They are not the end. They do not drive Wal-Mart.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
While I compliment the effort you put into explaining and supporting your premise, it is fundamentally flawed. It assumes that all sources of income and revenue are somehow equal. That is not the case.

Let me offer an extreme example to explain what I mean. Would you contend it is acceptable for Wal-Mart to sell cocaine and heroin to maximize its profits? Would you contend that its OK for me to work for a drug dealer to maximize my income? I certainly hope not.

Some things are more important than money, things like right and wrong, and ethics. Especially since the "greed is good" mantra of the 1980's, many corporations seem to believe money is the one and only objective. Concepts like right and wrong are distant memories. In many cases, there seems to be little concern for legal vs. illegal.

In other words, the problem with "much of corporate America" is NOT that it wants to make money. It's the sleazy extremes to which it will go to make more money. Profiting on the deaths of employees is one example.

A company can choose to use morals to determine its business goals.
As long as it stays within the laws that apply to it, it can choose what method of running the business to meet its internal goals.
If a customer is willing to pay for an overpriced piece of merchandise, the company has no legal obligation to not provide it.
If a customer demands a shoddy quality at a low price and the company can provide it, then the customer is happy.
The company will price goods that the customer desires based on its own costs and the need to copmete and profit.

If the morals/ethics that the company has are upsetting to the consumer, the consumer can choose not to do business with a company.
If they feel that what the company is doing should become illegal, then they can work to get that practice declared illegal.
If they do not like the ethics, then they can work to change those ethics by applying pressure to the company.

:beer: Good post.

CkG