Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/31/05 10:53 PM, red_skunk wrote: *a good half dozen times of 'I never disagreed with that'.

You don't have to quote every sentance I type, to tell me that you didn't, in detail, disagree with that. Thanks, but I can bring up points that aren't inspired by your 'That's not fair but I have no solution' dribble.

And I can't see how that's unfair, at all. I'm asking you, nicely and civily, to explain to me why those things make Wal-Mart unfair.

Did I say Wal-Mart itself was "unfair"? If I did, that was a mistake. Because, IMHO, It's the system that made the fucking Wal-Marts. You haven't understood a damn thing I've said. I'm not talking exclusively about Wal-Mart - there are plenty of other companies exactly alike. I'm talking about out of hand capitalism.

Why are you so fucking incapable of having a civil conversation? In my last post, I went out of way to not only be civil, but to outline in detail the finer points of this conversation...and you went out of your way to be an ass about it, in response.
I'm trying to have a somewhat-civil debate, and you (as always) just want to flame the crap right out of anyone who disagrees with you.
Seriously, chill the fuck out. Everytime you post, you act like someone shit in your cornflakes. We're just talking, red

We are talking about the same things. I haven't been talking about just Wal-Mart, either. I've just used Wal-Mart as a prime examle of the kind of companies we're discussing. If I ever gave you the impression that I meant just Wal-Mart...I honestly apologize. You brought up the whole concept of big box stores, and I just went with Wal-Mart as a poster-child for that sort of company.

I guess how I feel about this, in dumbass terms (I don't mean to infer I have to put it in dumbass terms, for you. Seriously, no sarcasm intended): Any company that is able to equip itself (while breaking no laws, or outright cheating anyone) to hold the top of the market is perfectly acceptable. I honestly don't see why Sams, or Wal-Mart, should be held as 'immoral'...simply because they have lower prices. And that's why people shop there, red. I don't go there because there business practices give me a hard-on. I don't go there because I like the greeters at the door. I go there because I save money, when I shop at Wal-Mart. Are you blaming me, personally, as well as the Wal-Mart corporation?

Tell me what you think is fucked up about 'the out of hand capitalism'. Tell me what you feel is wrong with 'the system'. Give me a single example of something we could do, to 'make it more fair'.
I'm asking nicely, with no sarcasm. Can we, for just fucking once, have a conversation where we don't mutually act like assholes towards each other?

I do know they lead to increased traffic congestion, and more other box stores to spring up. Can all of this contribute to urban sprawl, which may eventually result in new housing? Sure, but I personally don't think that this is a beneficial result.

We were discussing the affect (or the lack of) that stores like Wal-Mart have on blue collar work. You, if I'm not mistaken, almost outright called me liar when I said that big companies opening up in a city help blue collar.
I just informed you that, from personal experience, big companies help blue collar in the long run.

Wow I can't believe I missed such a huge debate.

I just wanted to address a couple of points.

Wages being lower is not neccesarily a bad thing. It promotes growth. People are clearly willing to work for those lower wages, which means there are no jobs for people with that education that offer higher wages. Which is usually a sign of high unemployment. If wages are lower then more profits are generated, and as long as those profits are spent by someone, anywhere, they will create jobs. Thus solving the unemployment.

Now once the worker surplus is gone, there will be more competition to get and keep workers, which leads to wage increases.

In the end, everyone is better off. It's economic growth, economic growth that could not have been generated without wage cuts.

This is why so many people are against the minimum wage.

Also, as for the argument that they have a monopoly, that too, is good. The only way you can sustain a monopoly is by either forcing your competitors out of business by offering beter service, or by measures that are usually illegal. Now, I've yet to see any evidence of the latter, so I can only assume the former is what is happening.

So clearly, if Wal-Mart can offer better service, it's a good thing that the mom and pop stores go out of business, the only people hurt are mom and pop. Why should everyone else suffer so some people can go on running thier business retardedly? Corporations are more efficient and can offer cheaper prices and better prices, speed up economic growth because they have no emotional attachments. The welfare of people is the governments job, not the corporations.

At 7/31/05 11:08 PM, capn_g wrote:

At 7/31/05 09:23 PM, _FLAGG wrote: Goddamn. Since when was maintaining a low overhead fucking immoral?

I'm pretty sure we already established that morality has no place in business, I'm not sure why you introduced it to the topic.

If it's not an immoral act, and it's not illegal...it's not wrong.

Wal-Mart's business practices are unethical.

I'll definitely agree that some of the things they do are ammoral.
I stand strongly oppossed to their dealings with illegal aliens. On that topic, I feel any company that knowingly employees illegal aliens should face recourse that's three times as heavy-handed as the current punishment is.

Other than that, name some other business practices you feel are 'unethical'.

they dictate to producers what their price points are as opposed to the normal, traditional way.

You guys speak of long term consequences...think of the long term consequences, of what you're speaking of.
How many Wal-Marts are there, in America? Now, how many (let's just say) loaves of a certain brand of bread are sold, from all those combined stores, in a single day? Would it be safe to assume the numbers are astra-fucking-nominal?
Now, does the bread company have a right to complain about taking (say) three cents less on every loaf of bread sold? After all, their medium (Wal-Mart, in this case) is selling millions of their loaves of bread, every fucking day. The bread company still makes money hand over fist, don't they?

I can't speak in absolutes (because there aren't any) but it "feels" wrong and that's got to mean SOMETHING, I'm just not sure what.

So you've just got some vague feeling that what you're speaking of is wrong, then?
That sounds like logic, to me.

"That's not fair!" is something children say. Grown businessmen should have better sense. You know what you're getting into, when you open a business.

It's no one's fault but your own, if one of the logical consequences take place...and you don't like it.
The world isn't fair. Weren't you taught this, at a young age?
I only brought it up because you said this:

Yes, it is. It completely sweeps the legs out from under 'competition'. It'd be an unfair advantage for shit-hole Mom and Pops, to tell wal-mart they had to jack their prices up just because everyone else sucked the proverbial cock.

If fairness isn't an issue then Wal-Mart would have no reason to cry foul either.

Fine. I'll conceed that. I should have never brought up 'fairness'. Regardless....a large scale act of price-fixing conflicts with current big-business regulations. It wouldn't be legal, to do something like that.

Price-fixing is when several companies all raise their prices, thus single handedly affecting the stock market. This hurts the consumer, because they are forced to pay higher prices, due to the conniving cooperation of several companies.

Like maybe the gasoline industry? Ever notice how there's no race for cheaper prices there? I wonder why...

And I feel any act of price-fixing should recieve harsh recouse.

That's a far cry from one company offering very low prices. Low prices does not adversly affect the consumer. Consumers demand the lowest prices possible, and that's what they're given.

I dunno about that, there has to be a counter balance somewhere. You can't just drop prices exponentially. As it is, Wal-Mart barely makes any money off the merchandise they sell, most of their income is land-based.

So? That makes them smart businessmen...not criminals, or immoral people.

At 7/31/05 11:14 PM, Jimsween wrote: So clearly, if Wal-Mart can offer better service, it's a good thing that the mom and pop stores go out of business, the only people hurt are mom and pop. Why should everyone else suffer so some people can go on running thier business retardedly?

To be honest with you, I don't think the effect Wal*Mart has on mom and pops is near what it is touted to be. Sure, a Wal*Mart going up across the street is going to have some negative affect on sales at other businesses. However, creating and successfully operating a small business is quite risky--even without new competition to deal with. I've seen tons of small businesses come into and go out of business--for reasons other than new competition. There's entire strip malls on the west side of my hometown that have been abandon, their stores closed. There's no big box stores being opened near there to take business away.

You want to blame something for the decline of mom and pops?

1] Location. As towns grow larger, smaller shops in a city center on low-capacity city streets near a town square or central block are less able to handle the commerce needs of the growing population. Larger stores in larger areas on larger capacity roads on the outskirts of town are, so they do. Also, any stores located on a route that gets bypassed around town are going to suffer as well.

2] Overspecialization/ low demand. I've seen countless Curves, Herbalife, etc. stores go out of business. Not because of big box stores, because they are based solely on selling one particular product that has a limited clientel. You don't run a convenience store just selling gum, you have to add other similar products and cater to more people to be successful.

Of course, mom and pops have evolved, too. What was a local streetcorner store is now your convenience station. What was once a local diner is now a Waffle House.
It's still the Bill and Louise, the Tom and Joanne running the places, it's just they've took away the old wood counters and floors and modernized. Remember, most of these fast food places, gas stations, restaurants, etc...they're mom and pops! They're franchises. Like Wal*Mart, which uses familiarity to keep and maintain a customer base, so do the mom's and pop's--they use a franchised brand to create familiarity with potential customers. You know what to expect from a 7-11, a McDonalds, a Waffle House, etc.

Until Wal-mart sells comic books ......

At 7/31/05 11:20 PM, _FLAGG wrote: Other than that, name some other business practices you feel are 'unethical'.

Mostly the way they use strong arm tactics to pressure suppliers into meeting their demands. See below\/\/\/

How many Wal-Marts are there, in America? Now, how many (let's just say) loaves of a certain brand of bread are sold, from all those combined stores, in a single day? Would it be safe to assume the numbers are astra-fucking-nominal?
Now, does the bread company have a right to complain about taking (say) three cents less on every loaf of bread sold? After all, their medium (Wal-Mart, in this case) is selling millions of their loaves of bread, every fucking day. The bread company still makes money hand over fist, don't they?

Not as much as they would if they were selling it at the price quoted by the breadmaker originally. The traditional model we all know is that producer makes product, works out cost, then calculates markup (usually in the order of 400%) and shops around to wholesalers who then jack it up another 100% and sell it to retailers who sell it to us for another 50-100%. Everybody makes the money the feel is adequate for their business needs.

Now along come the Waltons (no, not the old tv show) who are both wholesaler and retailer and say "You'll sell us your bread at the price WE want to pay or else!" Doesn't that sound slightly mafia-like to you? It does me. At the end of the day, the breadmaker MAY, in fact, be making more money in which case good for him. But he's not making as much money as he could be because Wal-Mart is pocketting the difference for the privelidge of being sold under their banner.

So you've just got some vague feeling that what you're speaking of is wrong, then?
That sounds like logic, to me.

More like intuition which, not being female, is considerably weak, so for it to flare up something must be majorly askew.

Fine. I'll conceed that. I should have never brought up 'fairness'. Regardless....a large scale act of price-fixing conflicts with current big-business regulations. It wouldn't be legal, to do something like that.

Most likely not, I merely presented it as an option.

And I feel any act of price-fixing should recieve harsh recouse.

And yet collusion between supposedly rival petrol companies is commonplace.

So? That makes them smart businessmen...not criminals, or immoral people.

It makes them fucking genii. Build a Wal-Mart, buy up the surrounding land, pave it then lease to other companies at a huge interest. Like any other company is going to pass up the opportunity to catch "well, as long as I'm going to Wal-Mart" customers. I can't say that's completely moral though, since it's based upon greed and the weaker, more impulsive side of human nature.

Now along come the Waltons (no, not the old tv show) who are both wholesaler and retailer and say "You'll sell us your bread at the price WE want to pay or else!" Doesn't that sound slightly mafia-like to you? It does me. At the end of the day, the breadmaker MAY, in fact, be making more money in which case good for him. But he's not making as much money as he could be because Wal-Mart is pocketting the difference for the privelidge of being sold under their banner.

No one is forced to sell to Wal-Mart. No one is forced to buy from Wal-Mart. People cast their votes with their dollars, and if the "elections" aren't going your way, then "vote" otherwise by spending elsewhere. As for me, and most of the world, we like the fact that a well-run business provides us with products we need at cheap prices. That's called business. What you, and some others are proposing is regulation. Let me say this clearly: Nothing is worse for the economy and for business than regulation. Regulation makes people poor, and the government defunct.

I can't say that's completely moral though, since it's based upon greed and the weaker, more impulsive side of human nature.

Well, grab my nuts and call me Hank! Business isn't always fair and moral?! Shit, you're kidding, right? You mean to tell me that in capitalism people look to benefit themselves? Why, that'll NEVER work!
I have an idea! Let's do like Russia and Cuba and centrilize everything for fairness! THAT worked for them!

At 8/1/05 01:45 AM, Thorfalcon wrote: Let me say this clearly: Nothing is worse for the economy and for business than regulation.

I'm guessing you're talking about insane Soviet-style regulation, right? Because rules and regulations allow capitalism to operate in the first place.

At 8/1/05 12:55 AM, capn_g wrote:

At 7/31/05 11:20 PM, _FLAGG wrote: Now, does the bread company have a right to complain about taking (say) three cents less on every loaf of bread sold? After all, their medium (Wal-Mart, in this case) is selling millions of their loaves of bread, every fucking day. The bread company still makes money hand over fist, don't they?

Not as much as they would if they were selling it at the price quoted by the breadmaker originally.

Yet, by selling their wares at Wal-Mart, they're selling twice (if not more) than they'd sell at Food-Lion or (hahaha) a Mom and Pop.
The amount they sell makes up for the small amount of profit they take.

The traditional model we all know is that producer makes product, works out cost, then calculates markup (usually in the order of 400%) and shops around to wholesalers who then jack it up another 100% and sell it to retailers who sell it to us for another 50-100%.

Why is it when it comes to homosexuality, ethics and morals, and just about every other law...people complain about 'the traditional model' being obselete...but on this subject, anything that we didn't do a hundred years ago is 'unethical'?

Now along come the Waltons (no, not the old tv show) who are both wholesaler and retailer and say "You'll sell us your bread at the price WE want to pay or else!" Doesn't that sound slightly mafia-like to you?

No, because Wal-Mart takes no recourse to those that decide not to sell at Wal-Mart.
Let them peddle their bread at Food-Lion, or Kroger, or what-the-fuck-ever if they don't like Wal-Mart. You're pretending Wal-Mart is the only place the sells groceries...and you're fooling no one but yourself.

So you've just got some vague feeling that what you're speaking of is wrong, then?
That sounds like logic, to me.

More like intuition which, not being female, is considerably weak, so for it to flare up something must be majorly askew.

I get an 'intuition' that the entire America populous is braindead, every time I see someone complain about being offered prices that are 'too low'.
Does that mean I'm correct, because I have an 'intuition'?

You guys got nothing. At all.
None of you can offer a single solid reason to explain how Wal-Mart is unfair. So far we've got:
"Wal-Mart's prices are too low."
"It's not fair to small companies because they aren't good enough to compete."
"Wal-Mart get's the producer of the goods to take a slight percentage cut on their wares, due to the fact that their product is being introduced to thousands of Wal-Marts."

There is no proof Wal-Mart is bad for communities. In fact, several people have posted links showing just the opposite.

And I feel any act of price-fixing should recieve harsh recouse.

And yet collusion between supposedly rival petrol companies is commonplace.

Yes, it is commonplace. And I am just as appalled by the gas companies doing it, as I would be to see Wal-Mart fall victim to price fixing.
It's wrong no matter who does it, regardless of their reason for doing it.

It makes them fucking genii. Build a Wal-Mart, buy up the surrounding land, pave it then lease to other companies at a huge interest. Like any other company is going to pass up the opportunity to catch "well, as long as I'm going to Wal-Mart" customers. I can't say that's completely moral though, since it's based upon greed and the weaker, more impulsive side of human nature.

Wah. Every business plays on the weaker, impulsive side of humans. My family's company does, for sure.
For example: Homeowners are fucking stupid. Most of them don't know shit about rennovation, or construction, or painting...that's why they hire us, instead of doing the work themselves. We regurlaly exploit this lack of knowledge.
So, we do one room (let's say they want it hung and finished, and then painted), and get paid for it. On the way out, on that day, we mention to them how we'd do the rest of the rooms for a little cheaper than the first room....but only if they let us do every room in the house.
Now, every room in the house = a shitload of money for us.
But since it's phrased as 'we'll do the rooms cheaper, on an individual basis"...dumbasses know-nothing homeowners always bite. See, we don't give them a choice: Either we walk, and you can hire someone else to do your home at the flat commercial rate....or you can let us do every single room in your house.

Guess what that is, capn? That's the manipulation of a person's impulsive, weaker side. And we make good fucking money doing it, too.

Wal-Mart's got a great business plan. They should be the model for any company that hopes to become big, someday.

Wal-Mart can't replace specialty stores, or even most Mom and Pop stores. Sure small grocers may take a hit, but who will drive all the way out to Wal-Mart when they run out of milk? And definatly cannot replace specialty stores who through the theory of comparitive advantage will always trump Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart may sell groceries, but some emats you need to go to a specialty deli shop, same with repair services. Wal-Mart may sell skates, but do they repair them? Or do they have the same selection in certain goods as specialty shops, like a surf board shop, clock shop, clothing store or jewler?

At 8/1/05 02:40 PM, _FLAGG wrote: Guess what that is, capn? That's the manipulation of a person's impulsive, weaker side. And we make good fucking money doing it, too.

But it isn't exactly moral, is it? So again, like with your earlier fairness comment, perhaps you shouldn't have brought immorality into the discussion.

Wal-Mart's got a great business plan. They should be the model for any company that hopes to become big, someday.

Fat chance, Wal-Mart will eat every mouthfull they can get. They're the freakin Microsoft of retail.

Non-political Wal-Mart complaint of the day: Wal-Mart carries Brahma and other shit brands of work boots, but no Red Wings, the best, most durable, work boots on the planet!

At 7/31/05 11:13 PM, _FLAGG wrote: I guess how I feel about this, in dumbass terms (I don't mean to infer I have to put it in dumbass terms, for you. Seriously, no sarcasm intended): Any company that is able to equip itself (while breaking no laws, or outright cheating anyone) to hold the top of the market is perfectly acceptable. I honestly don't see why Sams, or Wal-Mart, should be held as 'immoral'...simply because they have lower prices.

You act like you're trying to have an actual conversation, but then you keep trying to put words in my mouth and tell me what my position is. I don't think Wal-Mart is immoral. I think corporations are amoral. They are about economic sucess. It takes human ethics, morals, and when necessary, government intervention, to regulate a corporation. Or else we end up with GE freely dumping PCBs into the Hudson River (local case).

and please, I don't want some libertarian fuck jumping in at me and talking about gov't regulation. Beside the point.

Tell me what you think is fucked up about 'the out of hand capitalism'. Tell me what you feel is wrong with 'the system'. Give me a single example of something we could do, to 'make it more fair'.

Make it more fair? What - capitalism whole sale? I suppose ideally, to make it more "fair," would involve less economic stratification, more of the power (shareholders, exec board, etc.) distributed to more people. More government regulation involving things like monopoly-busting, environmental regulation. Less government cronyism in the form of corporate welfare to top political contributors. The people becoming more involved in their communities, taking responsibility and proactively responding to things like opening up their towns to box stores. Community forums. Consumers supporting locally-owned businesses, which honestly do give more back to the local community than multinationals. And so on. I already said in a previous response to illustrious that I don't have all the answers, but then you made some snide remark in response.

We were discussing the affect (or the lack of) that stores like Wal-Mart have on blue collar work. You, if I'm not mistaken, almost outright called me liar when I said that big companies opening up in a city help blue collar.
I just informed you that, from personal experience, big companies help blue collar in the long run.

You are only talking about a single segment of blue collar workers. And this whole line of conversation started when I was trying to put the convo in a light that you might feel a bit more for. Your family doesn't own a grocery store, you won't empathize with grocery store owners.

wow, somehow I managed to make it through this thread.

My opinion: the problem is not capitalism or anti-competitive practice, and the solution is not any form of government restriction. What we need is a change in paradigm regarding consumer mentality. For those who think wal-mart does not present a problem, look at the growth of the corporation in the last twenty years, and picture what it will look like twenty years from now. It's an enormous chain, with an ever increasing catalogue, and I project that in twenty years, yes you will be able to buy everything from walmart, and no, there won't be much competition, if any. This scares the crap out of me, because myself, my friends, and more importantly our children will have no chance to run their own retail business without fear of overwhelming franchise competition. Do I think government intervention is the way to go about solving this? No, on principle i think the government should mind its own damn business regarding everything beyond security, but i think as a society we should think ahead and realize the long-term consequences of our present actions. What do you think will happen to wal-mart's prices when they have killed every competing business? What would you do if you were running walmart in twenty years regarding prices? And what do you think will happen if some individual thinks this change in prices would be a good opportunity to attempt competition again? Can you say buy out?

On the other end, as a reluctant employee of a fairly large business, I speak from experience when I say that pandering to customers and striving for the lowest price possible, while good for share owners, is very harmful to personel. We have to work harder for less pay. I say this with more authority than a walmart employee, because the localization and nature of my business allows me a better view of its inner workings.

Fragments of solutions: get away from this trend of working masses in identical homes with homogenized jobs buying bulk goods at artificially deflated prices using a sufficient amount of counter-propaganda to undo the damage advertising has done on society. Make people think, bottom line.

If you can personally afford to, shop locally. I am at the very bottom of the middle tax bracket, and I shop almost completely locally and get by fine with money to spare. Most people can and won't.

Have smaller families. If children are such a burden that your family cannot afford to behave in a socially conscious manner, stop having them. Of the people I work with who complain that they are constantly broke bringing home the same paycheck as myself, their number two reason before drug habits is children. This reminds me of the all-too-familiar image of the "white trash" woman trying to herd five children through a walmart.

Buy generic or store brand. These products are generally at least equal in quality (with some exceptions, but that's a different story) to name brand products without the expense offsets of advertising. This often brings the price of a product at a smaller retail store down to its name-brand counterpart at walmart, if not lower. If you can afford bright colors at walmart, you can afford the same thing in a yellow and black stenciled box at your corner store if it still exists.

Become more self-sufficient. If you live in a rural area where local retail aside from wal-mart is losing availability, you probably have resources to produce some of your own sustainence. If not, other people do. Shop at co-ops or farmer's markets. The prices aren't too horrible, and the quality is much better than anything available at mass retail stores.

Very bottom line, if you're opposed to walmart, do your part to run them out of business, if you support walmart, welcome to the flock, and enjoy yourself until the slaughter.

I could care less about Walmart. Our city has an ordinance banning it from building here. Walmart is the trashiest store you could shop at anyways. They have no pride in their employes, their appearance, or there products. The stores are dirty, the employees are idiots, and the products are crap. All they care about is getting their products to the lowest price possible, and if that mean buying garbage products from a third rate chinesse sweat shop, so be it.

At 8/2/05 04:23 AM, GWBblows wrote: Our city has an ordinance banning it from building here.

must be a lovely city

At 8/1/05 11:27 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 7/31/05 11:13 PM, _FLAGG wrote: I guess how I feel about this, in dumbass terms (I don't mean to infer I have to put it in dumbass terms, for you. Seriously, no sarcasm intended): Any company that is able to equip itself (while breaking no laws, or outright cheating anyone) to hold the top of the market is perfectly acceptable. I honestly don't see why Sams, or Wal-Mart, should be held as 'immoral'...simply because they have lower prices.

You act like you're trying to have an actual conversation, but then you keep trying to put words in my mouth and tell me what my position is.

I am trying to have an actual conversation. I've been discussing things very civily with Capn, for a page or two now. You just need to stop getting mad at me, simply because my opinions don't overlap yours. Seriously, man.
And I'm not putting words in your mouth. I asked a couple questions, is all. If you feel having to answer those questions makes your opinions appear in a negative light, I apologize.

I don't think Wal-Mart is immoral. I think corporations are amoral.

We're agreed there, then. The difference between is, I think, is that I see nothing wrong with companies being amoral. Actually, I feel that kind of thing should be encouraged.

They are about economic sucess.

That's a bad thing?

It takes human ethics, morals, and when necessary, government intervention, to regulate a corporation. Or else we end up with GE freely dumping PCBs into the Hudson River (local case).

I agree that in some situations, regulations need to be in place. But regulating the allowed level of pollution by the hands of a particular company, and regulating a company to make it more 'fair' to piece of shit Mom and Pops aren't anywhere close to the same ballpark. It's not even the same game.

Tell me what you think is fucked up about 'the out of hand capitalism'. Tell me what you feel is wrong with 'the system'. Give me a single example of something we could do, to 'make it more fair'.

Make it more fair? What - capitalism whole sale? I suppose ideally, to make it more "fair," would involve less economic stratification, more of the power (shareholders, exec board, etc.) distributed to more people. More government regulation involving things like monopoly-busting, environmental regulation.

I agree with monopoly-busting (as long as they accusations are against actual, legally defined corporations...and not just 'powerful' companies). I also feel enviromental regulation is very important.
But we're not talking about monopolies, or the enviroment.

The people becoming more involved in their communities, taking responsibility and proactively responding to things like opening up their towns to box stores.

But, why does a company have to serve the community? Isn't that just your own skew on things? I don't mean that to demean your opinions...you just act like your so ungodly-right, about 'companies should serve their communities'....and I'm curious as to why.

I just informed you that, from personal experience, big companies help blue collar in the long run.

You are only talking about a single segment of blue collar workers.

Well, Christ. Thanks for finally picking up on that. It took you a good three or four posts to realize that.

And this whole line of conversation started when I was trying to put the convo in a light that you might feel a bit more for. Your family doesn't own a grocery store, you won't empathize with grocery store owners.

You were trying to convince me that Wal-Mart somehow negatively affects blue-collar. And you were wrong.
I'll accept that, in many cases, big box chains have no positive affect on blue-collar. But it never has a negative affect.

At 8/1/05 10:55 PM, capn_g wrote:

At 8/1/05 02:40 PM, _FLAGG wrote: Guess what that is, capn? That's the manipulation of a person's impulsive, weaker side. And we make good fucking money doing it, too.

But it isn't exactly moral, is it? So again, like with your earlier fairness comment, perhaps you shouldn't have brought immorality into the discussion.

This is different. Amorality is a legitimate topic of discussion, when talking about American business.
I support amorality. You don't. That's the only difference we really have, I think.

Put simply:

Walmart is the store everyone has shopped at, but they don't want to admit it.

At 8/4/05 11:56 AM, beatmasterJAG wrote: Put simply:

Walmart is the store everyone has shopped at, but they don't want to admit it.

I couldnt say it better myself.

Its like Nike and Addidas, you may be against it, but at some point you have their shit. I have several pairs of Nike runners.

Wal-Mart is out here to make money like most everyone else. If their employees were really worth much, they would get higher pay. If you strike or ask for higher pay, and your employer denies you, than you don't deserve it. If you really do, than you can quit and try getting a job elsewhere.

Even though they pay their workers low wages, it may not be so bad for them, because the products are sold very cheaply. Not only that, but Wal-Mart's low prices force competitors to lower prices. The workers may not have much money, but since the products are cheaper, they can afford them.

If you hate Wal-Mart, you shouldn't shop there. If enough people did this, Wal-Mart would have to raise wages or go out of business. If you shop at Wal-Mart for their cheap prices, then complain about their low wages, shut up. You can't have it both ways.

At 8/4/05 01:25 AM, _FLAGG wrote: I support amorality. You don't. That's the only difference we really have, I think.

You need to take a reading comprehension class. The only reason I might "get mad" at you is because you don't understand a single thing I say. Lay off the drugs. I said companies are amoral entities. I did not pass judgement on this. I simply stated something that was readily apparent. You also misread and misunderstood practically everything else in my last post. Boring after a few pages.

Hmmm, well, if you're looking to continue the discussion Rugby:

I've looked at the numbers of Zellers and Walmart according to some statistics. Guess what the approximate profit per employee ratio is:

Walmart:
6036 Dollars per employee (2004 Net profit divided by # of Employees)
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=WMT

Zellers:
743 DOLLARS PER EMPLOYEE (2004 Net Income divided by # of Employees)
http://www.hoovers.com/hudson's-bay/--ID__
42417--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml

If this wasn't bad enough, Walmart has approximately 1,430,000 more employees than Zellers. This means there are more people under the Walmart name who are working without the benefits that they deserve as compared to a store with a Union.

Also, from working at Zellers, it sounds as if the Hudson Bay Company (who owns Zellers) may not be doing very well (this is all speculation, I have no facts). I attribute this, simply because more people would be willing to shop at Walmart than Zellers. One major reason is because Zellers doesn't have the variety of products that Walmart does. Now, where do you suppose Walmart would be getting the cash to supply more products than most of it's competitors.... hmmmm.....

Now seriously, are you going to continue to say that WalMart shouldn't give their employees a union.

At 9/18/05 11:15 AM, night_watch_man18 wrote: Zellers:
743 DOLLARS PER EMPLOYEE (2004 Net Income divided by # of Employees)
http://www.hoovers.com/hudson's-bay/--ID__
42417--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml

Sorry, the direct link doesn't work (for some reason):
http://www.hoovers.c..e-co-factsheet.xhtml

Go here, Where it says "Subsidiary of Hudson's Bay" under Company Type, click on the link.

And the reason they only have $700 per employee is in large part becasue of the union. Zellers has been in so many fionacial problems recently. Its barely staying a float. If Wal Mart went union they cold end up like Zellers, barely staying afloat unless they raised all their prices. And if theyw ent under millions of people would loose their jobs.

At 9/18/05 11:49 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: And the reason they only have $700 per employee is in large part becasue of the union. Zellers has been in so many fionacial problems recently. Its barely staying a float. If Wal Mart went union they cold end up like Zellers, barely staying afloat unless they raised all their prices. And if theyw ent under millions of people would loose their jobs.

Oh, so by all means, we should support companies that don't provide unions to their employees so they don't have to lose money.

Do you know WHY Zellers is having financial problems. I would attribute it mostly to the fact that it's because people shop at Walmart. Do you not see how it is all inter-related?

Walmart cuts benefits from employees
Walmart uses the money to open more stores, lower product prices, provide more produts
Stores like Zellers try and compete with Walmart, while providing a Union to it's employees
Zellers therefore can't provide the number of products Walmart can
People shop at Walmart, causing the profits of stores like Zellers to drop
Zellers eventually (may) go out of business
More people shop at Walmart
More stores/quality prices/quantity of produts increases in WalMart stores
etc etc.

We can't realyl say WalMart busts up Unions, since only about 2 stores in the history of WalMArt have ever voted yes to be a union. Others have tried, but not enough of the workers wanted to unionize. I dont think we can blame that on WalMart, since interferance would be illegal. Just because there is no union doesnt mean its WalMarts fault. If employees dont want a union there wont be a union, simple as that. Its nto like WalMArt hires the mafia to stand outside the voting booths with baseball bats.

At 9/18/05 01:00 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Its nto like WalMArt hires the mafia to stand outside the voting booths with baseball bats.

Not exactly like that:

http://www.union-net..eatening_workers.htm

http://www.mcgilldai..om/view.php?aid=3949

http://www.ctv.ca/se..?s_name=&no_ads=

This one may seem to support your argument, until you read near the bottom:
"Last month, after Saguenay employees voted to unionize, the company announced that because the store was unprofitable, it would close in May."

I have heard this too many times to count. Because WalMart is such a large super-chain, anytime people vote to unionize, Walmart simply states that they're just as willing to close down, and rebuild in an adjacent city where they won't have to worry about those pesky human rights (honestly, some people have the nerve to want basic pay and some sort of health coverage... geez!).

There are so many more sources that verify the above articles, but I'm just going to add this last one for fun, seeing as I work at Costco:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2104988/

Don't just read the first bit, continue on with the rest of the article. Notice how in the states, an employee starts at TEN bucks an hour at Costco.
I started at Nine here in Ottawa, but I'm sure as hell not complaining. Also for the fact that I just got cash trained, so I'm making more than that now.

They make minimum wage, its not like they are being paid an illegal wage.

Want to know something? I have had to take part in over 100 hours of training paid for entirely by me to become a lifeguard. Want to know how much I make? My current pool pays around $8.50 and my other pool pays about $9. Some city pools will pay about $10 or so maybe. How many hours of training did it you have to take before you could apply for your job at Costco? How much money did you spend? I spent approx around$400-$500 and put in over 100 hours to be a lifeguard, yet you make more than I do, with less responsibilties.

Is minimum wage sucky, you bet. But its unskilled labour. Should the guy who cleans up spills in isle 4 make more than a lifeguard?

Honestly if you can't do any better than to make a career out of Wal-Mart you don't deserve a union.

Wal Mart Employee:
Hey I'm going to refuse to work until you agree pay me $12 an hour.

Wal Mart:
Do you see that teenager over there with a mullet 3 fingers and a third grade reading level? He can do your job just as good as you can and he'll do it for $2 less.

At 9/19/05 12:26 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Is minimum wage sucky, you bet. But its unskilled labour. Should the guy who cleans up spills in isle 4 make more than a lifeguard?

Hey, that's great Rugby, but since when is working as a lifeguard anywhere CLOSE to working in retail? This is almost as bad as your comparison to Electronics companies such as GE and Microsoft with Walmart.... no.... no that one was much worse than this comparison. Even still, bad enough.

Also, did you choose to be a lifeguard because it was one of the only jobs available, or did you have other motivations behind it. I have two friends who work as lifeguards along with an old highschool friend who also worked as one as well. All of them became lifeguards for their own personal reasons, and not just for the money. If it were about the money, I highly doubt they would have spent the fees that you have mentioned. The very fact that you actually Spent money to get into the job shows that you have a personal interest in it, and so, it would be easy to believe that people who become lifeguards must enjoy their jobs to some degree. Also, the fact that you spent around 400-500 bucks shows that you aren't exactly poor, or in a great need for cash. If you have a problem with the wages that lifeguards make, I'm not stopping you from speaking up against it. Show me the injustice, and you could make me a believer too.

Do you know how much the average Walmart employee ranks in annually?
Approximately $13,861 a year, and without health benefits of any kind. Does this not then encourage people to live below the poverty line? Is THAT acceptable in our modern society? I think we can do a hell of a lot better.

At 9/19/05 01:19 AM, BeFell wrote: Honestly if you can't do any better than to make a career out of Wal-Mart you don't deserve a union.

BeFell, not everyone in the world can be scientists, there simply isn't enough positions. The fact is, we need people to work these jobs in our society. Getting an education can be a difficult thing to obtain (especially depending on what country you live in). What about the people born into poor families (I should know, I'm one of them). Well, some of us had to make money to get where we are today, and if that means working a job along the lines of retail to do it, then so be it. I'm able to work towards a better career, simply because of our government. As it stands, I'm 30k in debt (approximately), and I still have two more years of University to only obtain my BA with Honours (so add on another 20k). Can you say that a lot of people in America have access to the tools that would allow them to get a higher education? (Honestly, I would like to know).

Also know that my boss (at Costco) has her Masters in the field I'm taking (Criminology). Why is she working in a job like Costco then. Hell, I had to know too, so I asked her. She said that at the time when she recieved her education, the availability for positions was extremely limited. Costco provided her a job, at about the same pay that she would recieve working in her field. In fact, I would say that almost all the employees at my job have some form of post-secondary education, or are in the process of obtaining it. So why can't we encourage the same from WalMart?

Wal Mart Employee:
Hey I'm going to refuse to work until you agree pay me $12 an hour.

Wal Mart:
Do you see that teenager over there with a mullet 3 fingers and a third grade reading level? He can do your job just as good as you can and he'll do it for $2 less.

Awww, isn't that sweet of you to stereotype in a vain attempt to make a pathetic argument stronger. You can be so adorable.

Tell you what, we can (and do) outsource our jobs to people that will do it for pennies an hour. Is that right? Is that a good thing? Who truly suffers when we do these things, when we treat human beings as nothing but a means of production... hmmm? You could be ignorant and say that it begins and ends with the individual. Yeah, that's one way of looking at it. OR, you could look at society as whole, and see how it connects and effects everything.

Ask yourself a question Beefy: Why is it, that a country such as America is one of the richest countries in the world (and climbing) and yet the number of people living below the standards of living, or poverty line, is increasing at the same time? Well, of course, there are MANY variables to consider. One of these variables though, is that we're allowing companies to short-change our own people (and other people) in the name of profits. Perhaps I'm one of the only people in this hemisphere that has an issue with this. Maybe I'm insane, and think that a multi-billion dollar industry should have the obligation to supply some sort of union to it's workers. Maybe my interest in the majority and the true meaning of democracy, has gone askew over time, and that the concept of human rights isn't to allow a fair, safe, and equal work environment, but rather that we should encourage companies to just do whatever the hell they want, despite reason and rationality.