people who dont respect the people that make them who they are dont get respect from me

11/15/2005 8:40:54 PM

considering that walmart doesn't hire full time, how the fuck are they supposed to get benefits?

besides, it's cheaper for them to get the gov't to pay for healthcare, what motivation do they have to support their own goddamned workers/customers?

[Edited on November 15, 2005 at 8:44 PM. Reason : df]

11/15/2005 8:43:33 PM

DONT YOU GET IT?

IF YOU WORK FOR WAL-MART, YOU DONT DESERVE SHIT AND WE CAN FIRE YOU ANY TIME WE WANT FOR NO REASON AND YOULL LIKE IT GODDAM IT B/C THE SAVINGS ROCK!

this thread reeks of "everything i learn in life i learn in econ 205 and nowhere else".

V sure hope youre paying full tuition, and by full tuition, i mean the out-of-state, unsubsidized kind. "no, i dont want your socialist handouts! its wrong! you lose!"

I MEAN, THE STOCKMARKET IS RIGHT THERE, WHY CANT EVERYONE JUST PLAY IT LIKE ME???

[Edited on November 15, 2005 at 8:48 PM. Reason : North Carolina.]

11/15/2005 8:45:51 PM

Quote :

"besides, it's cheaper for them to get the gov't to pay for healthcare, what motivation do they have to support their own goddamned workers/customers?"

Get rid of Medicare/Medicaid and every other socialist program that the government offers and this would be a non issue.

11/15/2005 8:45:59 PM

Quote :

"IF YOU WORK FOR WAL-MART, YOU DONT DESERVE SHIT AND WE CAN FIRE YOU ANY TIME WE WANT FOR NO REASON AND YOULL LIKE IT GODDAM IT B/C THE SAVINGS ROCK!"

Wrong. There are plenty of people in upper management who have benefits. The low level people at the bottom are disposable and can be easily replaced. They work low level, low skill jobs and are not worthy of benefits. That money could be spent expanding the company or giving the stockholders dividends.

11/15/2005 8:48:16 PM

ha!

11/15/2005 8:50:18 PM

someone's gotta get fucked, it should be the people at the bottom who should have lived a life like me

like i said, hope you never had to rely on any SOCIALIST gov. money for anything.

11/15/2005 9:02:54 PM

Quote :

"V sure hope youre paying full tuition, and by full tuition, i mean the out-of-state, unsubsidized kind."

that'd be me, not that im in school anymore.

11/15/2005 9:09:18 PM

Quote :

"someone's gotta get fucked, it should be the people at the bottom who should have lived a life like me like i said, hope you never had to rely on any SOCIALIST gov. money for anything."

Like I said the people at the bottom are disposable so it makes sense why they should get paid next to nothing. Why would you pay someone more when you can fire that person and replace him with someone who will work for the same low wage? It makes no sense financially.

11/15/2005 9:19:55 PM

^

Well, I hate to bring "the real world" into this picture, but ... I must.

When you enter the world of business, you may take time to look around and learn that not all businesses operate on the sole virtue of dollars and cents. Many businesses, by contrast, operate on the virtue of providing value to their customers, and therefore recieving dollars and cents.

The business world has canonized this idea by giving it the label "corporate culture."

One may argue that workers at the low-end are not disposable, but rather that Wal-Mart has a corporate culture of treating them as such. These are very different concepts.

Whether a worker is disposable or not should, in any reasonable business, depend upon the worker himself. It makes no sense to me that all workers in a Wal-Mart are the very same and should be treated the same; but rather, the ones who work the hardest and who are the best should be paid more and should be incentivized to stay.

In that scenario, the corporate culture may be said to be "excellence" rather than "cheapness."

If Wal-Mart wants to drive down rates in the labor market, then so be it -- but they should not unilaterally impose a corporate culture of "cheapness" rather than "excellence" on consumers. THAT is manifestly inefficient; for a great worker is rarely, in any field, interchangeable for a poor one.

11/16/2005 12:15:06 AM

Quote :

"why should disposable employees get benefits? They aren't worth giving benefits to. If they don't like it they can quit and they will easily be replaced."

It's more like, why shouldn't walmart, who employs these people, give them benefits rather than the tax payers who get no benefit from these workers?

Walmart isn't lowering prices as much as they are shifting them. You may be able to walk out of store paying less for cheap crap, but you just end up paying it in taxes or worse, when you lose your job.

11/16/2005 12:35:50 AM

Luigi, you should get out of school sometime and actually start a business. You obviously have no idea how difficult it is to manage trade-offs in the real-world.

What you fail to notice are the goals of the people involved. If you check the statistics, Wal-Mart like most low-wage employers has a very high rate of turn-over. This is because Wal-Mart jobs are unskilled and low salaried, no one wants to work there unless they are in management. Many workers treat Wal-Mart as a form of unemployment insurance. When they get laid off and the government provided insurance runs out they go work at Wal-Mart just to make ends meet until they can find a real job.

This is why Wal-Mart can get away with such horriffic benefits, the employees don't plan on working there long enough to need them.

Secondly, the argument that Wal-Mart is driving up medicare costs is utterly rediculous. The workers in question are uneducated and unskilled, sometimes even barely employable. As such, whether they worked at WalMart or Food Lion, they would be on the government dole one way or another. It wasn't Wal-Mart that put them there but a government agency that decried they would be eligible. As such, short of Wal-Mart forcing them to buy into a health plan, the workers are going to opt for the free government coverage.

[Edited on November 16, 2005 at 12:56 AM. Reason : g cov]

11/16/2005 12:50:16 AM

Quote :

"When you enter the world of business, you may take time to look around and learn that not all businesses operate on the sole virtue of dollars and cents. Many businesses, by contrast, operate on the virtue of providing value to their customers, and therefore recieving dollars and cents."

And those businesses are quickly overtaken by the businesses that put profit first. If their customers don't feel they are being provided with adequete service/products they will stop patronizing that patricular business and shop somewhere else. Increasing revenues while decreasing expenses (therefore increasing net income) should be the primary concern for businesses. If that means providing no beneftis to disposable employees and/or paying them next to nothing, then so be it.

Quote :

"One may argue that workers at the low-end are not disposable, but rather that Wal-Mart has a corporate culture of treating them as such. These are very different concepts."

Definition of disposable from Dictionary.com:free or available for use or disposition

They treat them as such because they are. They are easily replacable and are therefore disposble. Low level, low skill jobs are always in demand and these corporations now they can easily replace these people which is why they pay them nothing and give them no benefits. The money that would be wasted on giving the disposable employees pay raises and benefits should be used to expand company operations and give dividends to the stockholders (the people who really matter).

Quote :

"Whether a worker is disposable or not should, in any reasonable business, depend upon the worker himself. It makes no sense to me that all workers in a Wal-Mart are the very same and should be treated the same; but rather, the ones who work the hardest and who are the best should be paid more and should be incentivized to stay."

Doesn't matter how hard they work. If it is a low level, low skill job then they are going to get paid what their job is worth, which isn't much. Companies pay you what you are worth to them ad if you can be easily replaced you are not worth much.

Quote :

"If Wal-Mart wants to drive down rates in the labor market, then so be it -- but they should not unilaterally impose a corporate culture of "cheapness" rather than "excellence" on consumers. THAT is manifestly inefficient; for a great worker is rarely, in any field, interchangeable for a poor one."

Noone is forcing anything on consumers. If consumers don't like it they can shop eleswhere. Then Walmart will be forced to change their ways. I personally, have no problem with the way Walmart operates right now. It focuses on increasing profits which is all that matters.

11/16/2005 12:58:24 AM

youre right, i havent studied this in depth, its not my area. it just makes sense to me that they could take a little money away from the overpaid ceos and disperse it to the workers/consumers, which theyd probably put back into their company anyway. i guess im missing something. most top management is ridiculously overpaid, i do know that much. do they make enough to warrant their job and responsibility? yes. do they make an excessively large amt more than they should practically make?

ok, wal-mart wants to raise wages? awesome, ill find out if that happened from my friends that actually work there. some article from some random site doesnt prove that.

this isnt the only reason given as to why their practices are harmful. but economics is the end all be all for you two, so i guess all the other stuff they do to communities doesnt matter. those are pretty damn important, too.

im trying to write a final thesis and i keep getting dragged back into this...



[Edited on November 16, 2005 at 1:08 AM. Reason : .]

11/16/2005 1:02:44 AM

Quote :

" it just makes sense to me that they could take a little money away from the overpaid ceos and disperse it to the workers/consumers, which theyd probably put back into their company anyway."

Who could take? The government? So you are going to use the government to STEAL money from the wealthy and give it to the disposable workers? And why would you take money from the CEOs and give it to the consumers? That makes no sense and reeks of socialism. But you're a socialist so I don't expect you to make much sense anyway.

Quote :

" i guess im missing something."

Yes, it's a little thing called common sense.

Quote :

"most top management is ridiculously overpaid, i do know that much. do they make enough to warrant their job and responsibility?"

Who are you to say they are overpaid? They are paid what the corporation feels they should be paid. If they do not do a good job they will be disposed of.

Quote :

"do they make an excessively large amt more than they should practically make?"

They run the company and make all the decisions so yes they should be paid high sums of money.

Quote :

"ok, wal-mart wants to raise wages? awesome"

IT'S NOT AWESOME YOU FOOL! WALMART WANTS TO RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE TO CRUSH COMPETITION. THAT MEANS PEOPLE WILL LOSE THEIR JOBS WHEN WALMART'S SMALLER COMPETITORS SHUT DOWN AND UNEMPLOYMENT WILL GO UP. NOT TO MENTION COMPANIES WILL HAVE TO RAISE PRICES ON THEIR PRODUCTS TO REFLECT THE RISE IN WAGES WHICH MEAN THE EMPLOYEES BUYING POWER WILL NOT BE INCREASED. WHY DO THE SOCIALISTS NOT UNDERSTAND THIS!? THEIR POLICIES WILL ONLY LEAD TO FAILURE.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=3194

Head Socialist Kennedy responds. His stupidity of Walmarts true motives is sickening but understandable. The socialists donot understand the real world (even though they pretend to), for they are so caught up in their desire to make America a hippie utopia. Stupid socialists.

[Edited on November 16, 2005 at 1:19 AM. Reason : ..]

11/16/2005 1:19:11 AM

God, this thread is getting annoying
WILL YOU LIBBIES PLEASE LISTEN TO THE LESSON YOURE BEING TAUGHT HERE? STOP EMBARASSING YOURSELVES.

WHY DO THEY CLOSE BECAUSE OF UNIONS? B/C UNIONS RUIN BUSINESSESS, OF COURSE THEY WILL

WHY ARE THEY PAID SO LITTLE? B/C THESE ARE THE LOWEST RUNG WORKERS OUT THERE! they can better themselves if they wanted to!

Thank god we dont instate the socialism you fools want.

11/16/2005 1:19:20 AM

Luigi, Wal-Mart could afford to pay its CEO less, there are mechanism built in to do that. My point was that raising the minimum wage would not bring us much closer to utopia, it might even move us further away, depending on how you rate "need."

For example, if Wal-Mart started paying $9 an hour out of the goodness of its heart, even if it didn't reduce employment (Wal-Mart can afford to pay higher wages, firms that cannot would not, obviously), it might shift employment. For example, middle-class high-school students that previously were on the fence about getting a job, it may not be worth missing out on parent-funded teen-years for $7 an hour, but it most surely is for $9 an hour. As such, unskilled workers with a family to feed, but cannot speak english, would be crowded out by decidedly unneedy highschoollers, which happen to be fluent.

This wouldn't matter as long as sufficient $7 an hour jobs were previously unfilled elsewhere to swallow up the newly freed (desperate) labor, but would it not have been better for society to allow the desperate workers to under-bid secondary-earners such as children, spouses, and pensioners?

[Edited on November 16, 2005 at 1:25 AM. Reason : .,.]

11/16/2005 1:24:53 AM

one dollar more for the pissed off kid at the register instead of another thousand for the CEO, thats all i was talking about.

and noones bothered to argue any of the other points anyone made

[Edited on November 16, 2005 at 1:27 AM. Reason : .]

11/16/2005 1:26:50 AM

UGH, stupid SOCIALISTS

just GET OUT OF THIS COUNTRY THEN

[Edited on November 16, 2005 at 1:30 AM. Reason : .]

11/16/2005 1:30:42 AM

i love wally world

11/16/2005 4:38:06 AM

Quote :

"Not paying employees enough (can't support a family on Walmart pay)"

You mean an unskilled job a retard could do doesn't pay well? I AM FUCKING OUTRAGED>

11/16/2005 7:35:20 AM

it's evil because i can't go in there without finding something i need/want and have to get right away...

and because of the 5.50 dvd bin, that's just a drain on my bank account...

that's why it's evil (well, that and the cultish nature of it's store management, but i don't really care about that, just cheap dvds)

11/16/2005 8:21:07 AM

^Must be a Steven Seagal fan.

11/16/2005 9:06:46 AM

One complaint that I have with Wal-Mart is that they do not effectively enforce their own human rights standards through their vendors, which makes it hard for those of us who want to "play by the rules" to compete.

I work for what would be considered a small company, we do around 32 million a year, and 50% of that is with Wal-Mart. I contract and manage 12-15 factories in China at a given time. Wal-Mart conducts audits of each factory to ensure that each factory maintains certain human rights and working condition standards.

The problem is that generally all of these auditors are on the "take." Many factories simply pay off the auditors to get a pass rating. This problem is everywhere, so I can't just move to another factory.

I routinely see workers breathing in dangerous fumes and chemicals. Also, I'm surprised I haven't been there when someone gets a finger chopped off around the heavy machinery with the common safety standards I've seen.

[Edited on November 16, 2005 at 9:40 AM. Reason : blah]

11/16/2005 9:37:27 AM

Quote :

"Whether a worker is disposable or not should, in any reasonable business, depend upon the worker himself. It makes no sense to me that all workers in a Wal-Mart are the very same and should be treated the same; but rather, the ones who work the hardest and who are the best should be paid more and should be incentivized to stay."

maybe it is just me, but not only would this cost more in salaries/benefits, but also in implementing this structure that has no other benefit. systems of evaluation cost a lot of manhours and really dont improve efficiency all that much for walmarts type of business. they are often subjective, which may not matter at times, but with the throngs of unskilled labor it might just cause equal amount of turnover. im not against giving them raises now and then (which im sure they do, gotta reward lack of turnover cuz training costs manhours too), but evaluation for such a job just seems pointless.



^ what kinda fumes and standards are we talking about and have you seen them actually bribing them, or is this just hearsay.

[Edited on November 16, 2005 at 9:46 AM. Reason : ?]

11/16/2005 9:43:45 AM

Quote :

"one dollar more for the pissed off kid at the register "

Do you hear what you are saying? You want to give MORE money to pubescent teenagers!?!? They'll wreck everything!

11/16/2005 9:45:24 AM

Quote :

"The secret of our success isn't really a secret at all. In 1992, our founder, Sam Walton, outlined his 10 rules for building a business so that anyone could learn from them. These rules have helped us focus on the principles that were instilled in our business more than four decades ago and factor into the our continued success. Rule 1 Commit to your business. Believe in it more than anybody else. I think I overcame every single one of my personal shortcomings by the sheer passion I brought to my work. I don't know if you're born with this kind of passion, or if you can learn it. But I do know you need it. If you love your work, you'll be out there every day trying to do it the best you possibly can, and pretty soon everybody around will catch the passion from you -- like a fever. Rule 2 Share your profits with all your associates, and treat them as partners. In turn, they will treat you as a partner, and together you will all perform beyond your wildest expectations. Remain a corporation and retain control if you like, but behave as a servant leader in a partnership. Encourage your associates to hold a stake in the company. Offer discounted stock, and grant them stock for their retirement. It's the single best thing we ever did. Rule 3 Motivate your partners. Money and ownership alone aren't enough. Constantly, day-by-day, think of new and more interesting ways to motivate and challenge your partners. Set high goals, encourage competition, and then keep score. Make bets with outrageous payoffs. If things get stale, cross-pollinate; have managers switch jobs with one another to stay challenged. Keep everybody guessing as to what your next trick is going to be. Don't become too predictable. Rule 4 Communicate everything you possibly can to your partners. The more they know, the more they'll understand. The more they understand, the more they'll care. Once they care, there's no stopping them. If you don't trust your associates to know what's going on, they'll know you don't really consider them partners. Information is power, and the gain you get from empowering your associates more than offsets the risk of informing your competitors. Rule 5 Appreciate everything your associates do for the business. A paycheck and a stock option will buy one kind of loyalty. But all of us like to be told how much somebody appreciates what we do for them. We like to hear it often, and especially when we have done something we're really proud of. Nothing else can quite substitute for a few well-chosen, well-timed, sincere words of praise. They're absolutely free -- and worth a fortune. Rule 6 Celebrate your successes. Find some humor in your failures. Don't take yourself so seriously. Loosen up, and everybody around you will loosen up. Have fun. Show enthusiasm - always. When all else fails, put on a costume and sing a silly song. Then make everybody else sing with you. Don't do a hula on Wall Street. It's been done. Think up your own stunt. All of this is more important, and more fun, than you think, and it really fools the competition. "Why should we take those cornballs at Wal-Mart seriously?" Rule 7 Listen to everyone in your company. And figure out ways to get them talking. The folks on the front lines -- the ones who actually talk to the customer -- are the only ones who really know what's going on out there. You'd better find out what they know. This really is what total quality is all about. To push responsibility down in your organization, and to force good ideas to bubble up within it, you must listen to what your associates are trying to tell you. Rule 8 Exceed your customers' expectations. If you do, they'll come back over and over. Give them what they want -- and a little more. Let them know you appreciate them. Make good on all your mistakes, and don't make excuses...apologize. Stand behind everything you do. The two most important words I ever wrote were on that first Wal-Mart sign, "Satisfaction Guaranteed." They're still up there, and they have made all the difference. Rule 9 Control your expenses better than your competition. This is where you can always find the competitive advantage. For 25 years running -- long before Wal-Mart was known as the nation's largest retailer -- we ranked No. 1 in our industry for the lowest ratio of expenses to sales. You can make a lot of different mistakes and still recover if you run an efficient operation. Or you can be brilliant and still go out of business if you're too inefficient. Rule 10 Swim upstream. Go the other way. Ignore the conventional wisdom. If everybody else is doing it one way, there's a good chance you can find your niche by going in exactly the opposite direction. But be prepared for a lot of folks to wave you down and tell you you're headed the wrong way. I guess in all my years, what I heard more often than anything was: A town of less than 50,000 population cannot support a discount store for very long. "

There is a huge difference between the way things are now, and the way things were when Sam was running the show. He actually did value the lowest paid workers in the company. Refer to rules 2,3,4,5 & 7.

Quote :

"These low end employees can easily be replaced and are disposable."

Sam would have told you to fuck off.

11/16/2005 9:48:23 AM

Quote :

"^ what kinda fumes and standards are we talking about and have you seen them actually bribing them, or is this just hearsay. "

I haven't conducted an undercover investigation but the paying off of Wal-Mart inspectors was the largest complaint to me by our agent when I was in HK last.

However I do know that these factories do try to get around the wage standards and conditions standards set upon them. Recently Disney cancelled one of our factories for paying well below the minimum wage, they conduct similar inspections to Wal-Mart. This factory's first action was to call me and suggest that we set up a new fake company and run their product through this company masking where the product was coming from to Disney. I turned them down.

Business ethics in America and business ethics in China are two totally different standards in my experience.

I am going to go pull one our inspection reports to give you an idea about the common working conditions.

11/16/2005 9:55:44 AM

Quote :

"hamisnice: Sam would have told you to fuck off."

What's funny is that the anti-Wal-Mart people last night had unearthed some Walton quote to argue the exact opposite...

11/16/2005 10:27:46 AM

It's ironic how Walmart used to be all about American made, then proceeded to force all of its suppliers out of the US.

11/16/2005 10:32:33 AM

^Sam Walton was a good guy in my opinion, in most respects, he constantly walked the floors and interacted with the average worker. I think he identified with them the most out of anyone in the company.

Okay I found some funny/sad quotes form the inspection report:

Quote :

"Toxic chemicals in the factory are stored in drinking cups"

Quote :

"Drinking water is available in workshops containg toxic materials"

The problem here is that drinking water is generally stored in large pots with a ladel. Sometimes the pot has a lid, sometimes it doesn't. This isn't your water cooler with paper cups.

Quote :

"Employees in the silk-printing workshop are not equipped with filtration masks"

I have personally been in the room in question, I couldn't stand it, all the paint and fumes in the air.

11/16/2005 10:37:11 AM

I think a lot of Walmart's bad behaviour has developped as a result of it's huge success. The success they've had has given them an unfair advantage in the marketplace: virtually bottomless pocketbooks and the ability to force just about any company it does business with to do whatever it wants. The competitive thing to do would be to split Walmart up so it has to compete against itself.

It is certainly true that a lot of good has come from Walmart. But it's hard to argue that more good wouldn't come from making Walmart have to compete with Walmart.

11/16/2005 10:39:51 AM

From The Independent

http://indyweek.com/durham/2005-11-09/cover6.html

Quote :

"Where else can we shop? There's Costco ... "We pay much better than Wal-Mart," says Costco CEO Jim Sinegal. "That's not altruism. It's good business." November 9, 2005 C O V E R F E A T U R E Thanks to progressive management thinking and significant union membership, this growing big-box chain offers average wages almost double those of Wal-Mart--$16 versus $9.68 per hour. After three years a typical full-time Costco worker makes about $42,000. The company foots 92 percent of health insurance cost. Nonetheless, Costco's labor costs are lower than Wal-Mart's: 9.8 percent of revenues as compared to Wal-Mart's 17 percent. Costco's workforce is 50 percent more productive than Wal-Mart's. Its turnover rate is half Wal-Mart's, and 82 percent of workers receive health coverage. Costco's secret lies in valuing its employees. Chief Financial Officer Richard Galanti explains: "From day one, we've run the company with the philosophy that if we pay better than average, provide a salary people can live on, have a positive environment and good benefits, we'll be able to hire better people, they'll stay longer and be more efficient." With 300 stores as compared to Wal-Mart's 3,600, Costco is very much a David facing a monstrous Goliath. That gives Wal-Mart big competitive advantages. But many Americans who would never support Wal-Mart will more feel comfortable giving Costco their business. Costco does not solve all the problems posed by big box retail but, at a minimum, it is a big box that cares. Sinegal, by the way, keeps his salary at 10 times that of his average employee. That's $350,000, as compared with Wal-Mart's CEO Lee Scott, who earns $5.3 million. --Dan Coleman ... and locally-owned stores Networking is one powerful defense against the Wal-Mart trend, as locally owned Triangle businesses are finding out. In Raleigh, a small group of business owners formed the Raleigh Independent Business Alliance, aka Raleigh Unchained (http://www.raleighunchained.org) last year as a chapter of the American Independent Business Alliance (amiba.net). Its members include Quail Ridge Books, Expressions Furniture and Tookie's Toys, as well as insurance, appliance and car repair providers (there's a member directory on their Web site). Cheryl Daly, owner of Buchanan's Nursery, is the group's president. The group offers joint promotion as well as mutual support. Restaurants and stores that are locally owned are welcome to join for a $200 annual fee. Similar organizations don't exist in Durham or Orange County. Most independent retailers rely on word of mouth. John Parker of Good Work, a Durham-based nonprofit that helps small businesses get started, says that's not such a bad thing. Parker invites anybody looking for referrals for goods and services--or any small business who'd like to be considered as alternatives to Wal-Mart--to call him at 682-8473 ext. 11 or e-mail him at johnp@goodwork.org. --Fiona Morgan "

Costco says that paying for better employers saves them money in the end.

11/16/2005 10:45:14 AM

In America we vote with our dollar...When we vote for walmart what do you expect.

11/16/2005 11:11:03 AM

^^ Then what is everyone complaining about? If Costco is able to reduce costs by paying more then it will have lower prices and be victorious in the marketplace, problem solved!

Wal-Mart will either adapt (do the same) or conceid to costco.

11/16/2005 1:09:12 PM

they arent really the same type of store though am i right? isnt costco competing more with sams? i mean i dont need 50 paper towel rolls.

11/16/2005 1:14:41 PM

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/

11/16/2005 1:28:06 PM

Quote :

"^^ Then what is everyone complaining about? If Costco is able to reduce costs by paying more then it will have lower prices and be victorious in the marketplace, problem solved! Wal-Mart will either adapt (do the same) or conceid to costco."

You and I both know that it isn't that simple and certainly isn't that quick.

11/16/2005 1:38:02 PM

Quote :

" i mean i dont need 50 paper towel rolls."

I do. I'll take 25 cent paper towel rolls.

11/16/2005 1:57:29 PM

^^ It was that simple for wal-mart.

11/16/2005 2:40:18 PM

So we should ignore all of the problems for 20 years while someone else catches up?

11/16/2005 4:04:37 PM

while 25cent paper towel rolls is a great deal, eventually storage becomes an issue (or for some products, shelf life). perhaps i had a bad example. i might buy toilet paper, paper towels, detergent, etc there but i cant imagine buying half the stuff i get at walmart there.

11/16/2005 4:29:00 PM

^^ Do not sacrifice the principles of private property and self determination unless we have no choice. And if waiting 20 years is a possible solution, I think we should all take it.

11/16/2005 7:18:34 PM

that's absurd.

11/16/2005 7:21:07 PM

They had this shit on the Simpsons tonight.

11/16/2005 7:37:40 PM

Wages and benefits arent just costs or fees for service, they can be investments as well.

Even at the low level jobs, an experienced worker will tend to be more productive than an inexperienced one.

A worker who likes his job will be more productive than one who hates it.

A company that recognizes this and does invest in their workers by paying them better and providing more benefits can reap productivity gains from their investment and be more profitable in the long term.

Edit: It can also help goodwill, having a good public image can help you be more profitable as well.

This is why Value Based Management is winning out in the market place.



[Edited on November 16, 2005 at 8:38 PM. Reason : ]

11/16/2005 8:32:14 PM

Just ask any Best Buy employee. Part of NET is memorizing the evils of Walmart.

11/16/2005 10:11:35 PM

Because BB is so much better

11/16/2005 10:25:29 PM

Quote :

"A worker who likes his job will be more productive than one who hates it."

yeah, but from my understanding a worker who is alright with their job isnt significantly less productive than a happy employee. it isnt so much that happiness makes you productive as being unhappy makes you unproductive.

so the question is, are these employees really all that upset. im sure some are, but im guessing a great majority either dont know any better, dont care, or agree with their low wage philosophy (i knew when i worked in retail why i didnt get paid shit).

11/16/2005 10:39:20 PM

Quote :

"And those businesses are quickly overtaken by the businesses that put profit first"

Translation: "I know nothing about real business so I should shut my mouth."

ALL businesses put profit first. Stop stating the obvious. The point in question is HOW they do so, not IF they do so.

Businesses generally put profit first by building a brand, which makes consumers willing to pay a premium for their services--sometimes that premium is in margins, sometimes that premium is in an unusual amount of trust.

Brands stand for excellence, not cheapness. When a brand is cheapened or does stand for cheapness, that is usually a death knell for a business because it fails to stand out from the crowd.

You will notice that Wal-Mart's brand does not stand for "cheap shit." In fact, their brand stands for "American values." Wal-Mart has closely aligned itself with the values of the people whom it serves; and therefore, they must maintain that credibility.

Because there is a level of trust in the Wal-Mart brand -- people these days assume it is trustworthy, and so I tend to believe that people don't wake up in the morning and compare prices for every single good they buy to Wal-Mart's -- they just assume that they can trust Wal-Mart to deliver the best value to them.

THAT is a huge amount of trust, and it is built on the back of a business that sells an image as well as products. ALL successful, big businesses have done this; and Wal-Mart cannot flippantly fail to continue to do so.

Quote :

"Definition of disposable from Dictionary.com:free or available for use or disposition"

Don't quote the dictionary to me, you arrogant shithead. I'm not stupid, I know what "disposable" means. Obviously the question is whether individual workers really ARE disposable, and you aren't helping your case by ignoring my point (which you did) and quoting dictionary.com.

Smoker4:

Quote :

"THAT is manifestly inefficient; for a great worker is rarely, in any field, interchangeable for a poor one."

Best said as: "good help is hard to find." Don't believe me? Try hiring people for a living.

Quote :

"Companies pay you what you are worth to them ad if you can be easily replaced you are not worth much."

Yes, and companies also regularly underestimate (and even overestimate) what individuals are worth to them. A company that doesn't do so, has an excellent workforce.

Or are we now back in EC205 where companies and the labor market operate with perfect information and efficiency?

Quote :

"If consumers don't like it they can shop eleswhere."

Duh.

11/16/2005 10:44:40 PM