Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 77

Thread: The cost of WalMart Nation

  1. #26
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    So it's okay for the free market and supply and demand to work in setting rental rates on apartments but not for the free market and supply and demand to work in setting wage rates at Wal-Mart? haven't seen anyone holding a gun on the clerk's forcing them to work there.
    I'm jst saying the WM pay wavges, subsidized as they are by my tax dollars going to support those workers, aren't truly free market wages. Were there no subsidies (and in most communities need for them) I/d have no problem with whatever they wanted to pay the workers.

    As for teh workers, they're doing the best they can - choosing to work (not that it should be a choice) rather than collect 100% welfare. They should be helped and encouraged to improve their skills, but it doesn't eliminate WM's responsibility to make sure I'm not subsidizing their profits

  2. #27
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    this is getting circular again, but I'll persevere one last time.

    Question : could you provide evidence that this is true and that the "red states" have a better solution for ALL people (and not just more homeless/underpaid/welfare)?

    Answer : Yes, they encourage homeless/underpaid/welfare people to move to Blue states in search of more generous 'free' social benefits, thus reducing the tax burden on local Red state businesses and taxpayers. Thus both the ex-Red state homeless/underpaid/welfare people are better off receiving more generous Blue state benefits, and the remaining Red state businesses and taxpayers are better off as well since they have to pay less taxes as there are fewer remaining homeless/underpaid/welfare people still living in their state and collecting benefits. This in turn tends to attract businesses to relocate from Blue states to Red states, and also tends to raise the de-facto standard of living for $6.50 per hour Red state unskilled workers since the prices they must pay for basics aren't ratcheted up to cover high business taxes or overpaid employees. It's a win/win/win situation for everybody concerned in the Red states, and a win/lose/lose situation for everybody concerned in the Blue states (with the losers being the Blue state businesses and taxpayers of course).

    Question : And again your hatred of Unions...why?

    Answer : I do not hate unions per se. My complaint is with any situation where employees wind up getting paid far more than the actual amount of added value they contribute. This is only different from a direct gov't subsidy in the method by which the subsidy money is collected and transferred (i.e. charging everybody higher prices). Also in the long run, this encourages outsourcing and relocation of such jobs, which has lost payroll tax and lost business tax effects and creates new social benefit costs as these formerly overpaid workers collect unemployment and refuse to take a $6.50 per hour equivalent job.

    Question : So Nike deciding the shoe they sell for $90 is only worth $2 to the employee that makes it is OK, even if that emploee needs to make $3 per shoe to survive and continue working?

    Answer : this is a moot point, since Nike gave up fighting over the difference between paying $2 and $3 per shoe to US employees and now pays the equivalent of 15 cents per shoe in Korean Won or Mexican Pesos. In the meantime the former US Nike employees are collecting unemployment and other social benefits, and neither they or Nike is paying much in the way of US taxes. In today's global economy, the US simply can no longer afford to maintain that arbitrary minimum standard of living, regardless of whether the 'subsidy' is effected by taxation for social benefits or whether that 'subsidy' is effected by charging inflated prices for products and paying employees more than the value added which they actually contribute. The world market says that the market price of value added for Nike shoes is 15 cents a pair. Therefore anybody who still has a US job making shoes at $2 per pair should count themselves lucky, and not be asking for a pay raise to $3 (which will also prompt their shoe company to move to Korea or Mexico, leaving them earning zero). I'm not advocating that this should happen, but I'm enough of a realist to know that it WILL happen if attempts are made to extract $3 per pair from the shoe company by either union bargaining or by raising business taxes).

    Question : It's the free market that causes differences in many prices. Apartments cost more in NYC than in Podunk Ohio because more people are in NYC and need an apartment - theres something called SUPPLY AND DEMAND that impact local prices and costs.

    Answer : that's partially true - to the degree that supply and demand are distorted by zoning laws, real estate taxes, rent control etc. Average people can simply not afford to live in unregulated housing in much of NYC - again a stealth attempt to zone 'poor people' into their 'appropriate' neighborhoods, reserve other areas for 'rich people', and send most average people across the river to New Jersey in search of 'affordable' housing !. And why are New Jersey housing costs lower even though they're only 10 miles from NYC? Lower property taxes - less restrictive zoning - lower income taxes - lower gasoline taxes - lower sales taxes.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 03-26-2005 at 09:59 AM.

  3. #28
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    .
    Answer : Yes, It's a win/win/win situation for everybody concerned in the Red states, and a win/lose/lose situation for everybody concerned in the Blue states (with the losers being the Blue state businesses and taxpayers of course).
    Sorry, your statements are not evidence. Links, references, etc. THOSE are evidence. Statements you make are your beliefs and those I make are mine.

    Question : And again your hatred of Unions...why?

    My complaint is with any situation where employees wind up getting paid far more than the actual amount of added value they contribute.
    (last time round this circle) So how do you determine the 'added value'? The cost the company would like to see the service for in order to protect profits or the true cost of hiring employees (or designing mechanical replacements) to provide that service, without relying on government handouts to keep those employees alive and motivated?

    Question : So Nike deciding the shoe they sell for $90 is only worth $2 to the employee that makes it is OK, even if that emploee needs to make $3 per shoe to survive and continue working?

    this is a moot point, since Nike gave up fighting over the difference between paying $2 and $3 per shoe to US employees and now pays the equivalent of 15 cents per shoe in Korean Won or Mexican Pesos. In the meantime the former US Nike employees are collecting unemployment and other social benefits, and neither they or Nike is paying much in the way of US taxes.
    precicely. THEIR determined added value (the smallest number they can get away with to increase profits and keep from paying costs of supporting US economy) or the ACTUAL COST of the employees livng expenses are two different measures. WHich one?

    that's partially true
    so then standard of living is NOT arbitrary and is actually part of the same scheme that WM employee subsidies (government must intervene to support the average person in town whose employer doesn't value enough to pay appropriately)are from!



    ~

  4. #29
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    I shop at Wal-Mart some though I prefer Super-Target to Wal-Mart, the prices are almost as low, and the store is a little nicer.

    I've been reading the debate here and am tempted to point out the flaws in the so-called studies linked here. I've been in Wal-Marts many times. A large percentage of the employees at a typical Wal-Mart are not the sole means of support for a family. It's not just the old guy that works as a greeter that is a retiree supplementing his income with a part-time job, there's lots of retirees, students, and moms making a little extra income at a Wal-Mart. The point is, the assumptions in the study are not based on reality. I could point out, as Melonie has that much of the anti-Wal-Mart campaign is sponsered by unions and grocery stores, who have their own goals in either restricting Wal-Mart's growth or raising their costs of doing business. And I could mention how laughable the thought of the democratic staff of a House committee producing a fair report on non-union Wal-Mart is. But forget all the "facts" for a minute and think about this so-called "living wage" nonsense. Lets look at George, the poor Wal-Mart sales clerk that can't live on $14,000 a year. Why stop at forcing George's employer to pay him more money? Why not force George's landlord to lower his rent? Why not pass a law forcing the gas station to charge George fifty cents less a gallon for gas? George has been under a lot of stress lately and stress is shown to be bad for your health. Let's pass a law forcing the Hyatt Hotel chain to rent their luxury hotel rooms to George for $25 a night. Some time away from his stressful job should do wonders to improve George's health. The point is, where does it stop? Where do we draw the line at all these well-intentioned ideas? The Soviet Union tried Central Planning their economy, it didn't work. The European Unioin practices the type of cradle to grave social welfare system you envision as, "fair". Japan refuses to allow some of the failing corporations to go bankrupt because it would put people out of work and they have been in a recession for ten years. We Americans would not trade our standard of living for either that of the EU or Japan.

    I don't own Wal-Mart stock directly. However, I do have some money invested in some mutual funds that own Wal-Mart stock, so I guess you could say that I am an owner of Wal-Mart. I invested my hard-earned money in Wal-Mart for one purpose, to make money. That is what they are supposed to be in business for, to make their shareholders (me) money. If I want to help improve poor worker's lives, I'll give my money to charity, not to a large corporation.

    The problem with many Americans is that they don't understand how capitalism is supposed to work. Capitalism rewards the risk-taker, the innovator, the dreamer. Look at Apple Computer. I don't own an Apple, but Apple Computer created an entire industry and changed our lives in so many ways in doing so. Do I begrudge the founders of Apple their millions of dollars? No, they took the risks, followed their dreams, they deserve it. However, for every winner in business, there are losers. Just as capitalism lets people enjoy the benefits of thier success, it is supposed to let them live with the results of their failures. If you don't get some training, get some marketable skills, you will not enjoy many of the fruits of success capitalism offers. That's a fact. And you know what? The government should not be in the business of forcing businesses to give the fruits of succes to people that have not earned them. In order for our economy to be successful, we have to be willing to let people and businesses fail. Otherwise winning is meaningless. Now that may sound cold-hearted, but lets' look at what such a system has brought us. The United States is the richest country in the history of the world. The poorest of our poor enjoy a standard of living that is the envy of the vast majority of the world. Drive down to your nearest slum. Just look for the government-owned apartment complex. The people in that housing project would be considered upper-middle class in virtually every other country of the world. It may sound cold to say "those sales clerks are unskilled, they don't deserve more than $6.50 an hour". But the fact is that our system is far better than any other. I challenge people to look, not at the motives behind these social programs but at the actual results.
    Last edited by Destiny; 03-26-2005 at 10:23 AM.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  5. #30
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    As for teh workers, they're doing the best they can - choosing to work (not that it should be a choice) rather than collect 100% welfare. They should be helped and encouraged to improve their skills, but it doesn't eliminate WM's responsibility to make sure I'm not subsidizing their profits
    How does passing a "living wage" law encourage workers to improve their skills? If the government forces an employer to pay me $9.50 an hour when my skills are only worth $6.50 where is my incentive to improve my skills?
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  6. #31
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    I've been reading the debate here and am tempted to point out the flaws in the so-called studies linked here. I've been in Wal-Marts many times. A large percentage of the employees at a typical Wal-Mart are not the sole means of support for a family
    Though speaking to a few employees won't debunk studies...I agree alot of household supporters work there. And statisticlally, alot of them need public programs to survive.

    Don't agree with the threshholds of the public programs? fund a study that proves the threshold should be lower and push to lower it. until then, current studies and research stand.

    Based on current thresholds, WM profits are subsidized by my taxes THAT"s what I object to.


    The problem with many Americans is that they don't understand how capitalism is supposed to work.
    You mean companies employing people who don't need outside (family, government) assistance to live on your wages?

    . I don't own an Apple, but Apple Computer created an entire industry and changed our lives in so many ways in doing so
    while paying their employeees and suppliers well, for the most part. I own an Apple and several diversified mutual funds (one might on WM, I don't know.

    Just as capitalism lets people enjoy the benefits of thier success, it is supposed to let them live with the results of their failures. If you don't get some training, get some marketable skills, you will not enjoy many of the fruits of success capitalism offers.
    no doubt, and I'm not defending those who don't try to move ahead (many WM workers and others are in school) I just don't like a company running away with my tax dollars as profits because I support their employees, real estate transactions, etc.

  7. #32
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    Though speaking to a few employees won't debunk studies...I agree alot of household supporters work there. And statisticlally, alot of them need public programs to survive.
    How many need government assistance? What percentage of workers at a typical Wal-Mart get government assistance? All I've seen is they, "might be eligible" they "could be eligible".

    Don't agree with the threshholds of the public programs? fund a study that proves the threshold should be lower and push to lower it. until then, current studies and research stand.
    Mark Twain one said that there were three kinds of lies; Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics. I'd hardly call a report by the Democratic staff of the House Education and Workforce Committee unbiased, and it shows. The "research" you cite is based on a false assumption; the assumption that every single one of the 200 or so, employees in a typical Wal-Mart is the sole means of support for a family. This despite the fact that a walk through a Wal-Mart would show that that is not the case. You yourself stated that " many WM workers and others are in school". That's not research, that's junk-science.

    while paying their employeees and suppliers well, for the most part. I own an Apple and several diversified mutual funds (one might on WM, I don't know.
    There is a huge difference between the education, training and skills of a typical Apple Computer worker and a typical sales clerk at Wal-Mart. Apple doesn't pay its employees more because they are kind-hearted, they pay them more because the market for good computer people demands it.

    So let's say the government decides to pass a law forcing Wal-Mart to match the pay and benefits level of Apple Computer. Would this be a good thing? On the surface one might say, "yes, it would improve the lives of the Wal-Mart workers." But would it be good for the economy as a whole? No, it wouldn't. Why would anyone go to school and get a degree in computer science and go to work in the high-stress computer field if they will only make the same as a checker at Wal-Mart? Where's the incentive to strive to improve?
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  8. #33
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    You mean companies employing people who don't need outside (family, government) assistance to live on your wages?
    Yes exactly ... those companies who have moved production offshore and can hire unskilled workers for $1 or less per hour - unskilled workers who are not asking for and are not receiving any outside assistance, and offshore gov'ts who are not leveeing heavy business taxes to pay for outside assistance.

    The real point is .... it's too late to go back to the 1950's when the American economy was basically still self-sufficient. With every passing year since then, with every tax and social benefit increase, with every new environmental law, and with every US business bankruptcy or offshore move, more and wider 'gaps' have been created in the American economy. More importantly, more and more distortion in the laws of supply and demand have developed. Even if a majority of Americans agreed with your proposal to slam the borders shut and regulate wages and prices for everything, there is actually very little left to regulate !

  9. #34
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    it's too late to go back to the 1950's when the American economy was basically still self-sufficient. there is actually very little left to regulate !
    And we should just allow this pattern to continue until when? Until the economy completely collapses, "poor" and "criminal" become synonymous because there's no other choice?

    I simply say we can IMPROVE the situation now if we ACT now. No one's asking to move backward, but look forward and decide how we want our country to be. For one, I don't want to be a debtor nation with no industry and exporting all our problems (pollution, worker abuse, etc) to cause more international unrest.

  10. #35
    God/dess erotictonic's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Watching lalaland
    Posts
    2,307
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 39 Times in 34 Posts

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    And we should just allow this pattern to continue until when? Until the economy completely collapses, "poor" and "criminal" become synonymous because there's no other choice?

    I simply say we can IMPROVE the situation now if we ACT now. No one's asking to move backward, but look forward and decide how we want our country to be. For one, I don't want to be a debtor nation with no industry and exporting all our problems (pollution, worker abuse, etc) to cause more international unrest.
    Good luck. People that have moved production offshore couldn't care less about this country or the condition of the workers' environments. They care about two things only in the world: Themselves, and the almighty dollar.

    As long as there is something to be exploited, it will be. "Ooooooohhhh.... look at that.... a whole country of new victims who think they aren't worth anything.... Look at this, Deric, we've hit a goldmine!!!!!!"
    Last edited by erotictonic; 03-26-2005 at 04:33 PM.

  11. #36
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    ET...you're right about the muckyFucks, but is it true of all of us?

    Do low prices in the store soothe our concience and make us not care about the workers,,,even though in another circumstance we are ALL the workers?

    Do comfortable vehicles make us forget the pollution, even though in another circumstance we are the recipient of that pollution?

    basically, it's a question of our core values.

    The question I pose is are we as citizens willing to let this pattern continue. Even if every politician is bought off, there's still the referendum if enough of us are pissed and want to change things.

  12. #37
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    And we should just allow this pattern to continue until when? Until the economy completely collapses, "poor" and "criminal" become synonymous because there's no other choice?
    Politically speaking, yes, that is exactly what's likely to happen ! Every effort to lower taxes, to lower social benefits, to decrease actual dependence on foreign oil, to decrease the irrational burden of 'last decimal point' environmental compliance, etc. has and likely will continue to be met with monumental opposition. This opposition stems from short term good intentions, but ignores the actual long term economic consequences. Thus I suspect that it will take another 1930's style depression for many people to finally 'connect the dots'.

  13. #38
    God/dess erotictonic's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Watching lalaland
    Posts
    2,307
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 39 Times in 34 Posts

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    ET...you're right about the muckyFucks, but is it true of all of us?

    Do low prices in the store soothe our concience and make us not care about the workers,,,even though in another circumstance we are ALL the workers?

    Do comfortable vehicles make us forget the pollution, even though in another circumstance we are the recipient of that pollution?

    basically, it's a question of our core values.

    The question I pose is are we as citizens willing to let this pattern continue. Even if every politician is bought off, there's still the referendum if enough of us are pissed and want to change things.
    The problem is that alot of US citizens are just ignorant, simple, and uneducated. There is another large portion who is lazy and doesn't care. I have been guilty of this myself. They think that as long as they do have a nice comfy car and they can pull up and get gas, and then go buy their offshore-produced goods, that everything is a-ok with them. They just don't care what's going on, as long as it's not affecting them. I am becoming more involved myself. I don't think we should be driving cars that run on gas, nor buying goods not made in America. The problem is that even if you buy something that says made in America, only one production process must be done here in order to put the "Made in America" label in the garment. Ex/ the cutting is done here, but the rest of production is completed offshore.

  14. #39
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    From Melonie:
    " Every effort to lower taxes, to lower social benefits, to decrease actual dependence on foreign oil, to decrease the irrational burden of 'last decimal point' environmental compliance, etc. has and likely will continue to be met with monumental opposition. This opposition stems from short term good intentions, but ignores the actual long term economic consequences. "

    First of all, I believe there are more things in play here than just economy. I put value on clean air, water, stable societies, personal liberty, fairness, etc.

    Secondly, let's examine some of your points:

    REDUCE TAX BURDEN. Agreed...let's do that right away! I can save more than $2BB per year tomorrow, justby eliminating direct subsidies to oil industry (more if we include coal, big agriculture (where most farm subsidies go, rather than to family farmers), etc.). Visit:http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/r...licationID=149

    'the full cost of using oil for transportation is "subsidized" -- that is, gasoline prices paid by consumers do not reflect the full economic cost to society. The true cost is hidden by myriad direct and indirect public subsidies, which include


    reduced corporate income taxes for the oil industry

    lower than average sales taxes on gasoline

    government funding of programs that primarily benefit the oil industry and motorists

    "hidden" environmental costs caused by motor vehicles, namely air, water, and noise pollution

    Based on a recent report by the Alliance to Save Energy (Koplow, 1993), we estimated that the total expenditures by federal agencies alone amounted to between $1.4 billion and $2.0 billion in 1990'

    REDUCED SOCIAL PROGRAMS -aside from the above, we could reduce them overnight if:
    We made it harder to import cheap people and things (cheaper because of poorer environmentl and worker safety rules) from other countries. Simultaneously, we tax ALL profits made from US activities, instead of allowing products made in overseas factories (but sold in the US and marketed by US companies) to be paritally exempt. This would make US factories and business more attractive, and reduce the % of our workers being "downsized' (read: taken off company book and put onto public services, also known as "externalizing"). Fewer unemployed or underemployed = less $$ to social programs and more tax revenue, reducing the overall per-person burden

    Of course, this means companies have to pay all workers more, because the supply of serfs will be smaller, lowering the supply/demand ratio. This would mean even lower-eschelon employees will now make closer to what it takes to live.

    vist:http://www.sevenstories.com/Book/ind...980&fa=preview

    '"The economy" isn't doing well, wealthier households are. "Consumption" isn't booming, luxury buying is. '

    REDUCE DEPENDEDNCE ON FOREIGN OIL
    it has been estimated that if our national MPG average were 30, we would reduce our dependence on foriegn oil 30 to 50%. Hybrids, high efficiency cars, and biofuels will get us there permanently and today....drilling more will only band-aid the solution and lead to more gov't subsidies and taxes.

    Encourage the development of alternatives to petroleum based plastics and fertilizers - some of which would support a return to local agriculture and the reduction of health issues related to additional hormones and genetically modified foods. BONUS!

    LAST DECIMAL POINT
    you've mentioned this alot, but failed to back it up with facts or explanations. Since our eco-rules are behind most other industrilized nations, i'll accept you have no facts and ignore this point.

    Besides, balancing the requirements among ALL factories GLOBALLY which produce for the US would solve this factor anyway...level the playing field

    FACTORS YOU FORGOT:
    federal cost of cleaning up superfund sites, putting out coal mine fires from long-abandoned mines, filling in mine subsidence (caused by poor extraction industry regulation and poorer company ethics), and the cost to homeowners (for me about $100 per year) and states (about 2x that per home) to insure against mine subsidence damage.

    social costs
    Broken communities, continuing unemployment as companies taking advantage of these "unbalanced" rules kill off jobs in whole regions and leave people to welfare, health and medical costs (just ask the people of Woburn, MA. about their experience that led to the book "A Civil Action"), etc.

    Sorry, no GW or Fox News Channel links..I prefer real scientists and independent evaluations, not industry or administration bought ones

  15. #40
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    283
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    Screw Wal-Mart!!!

    I support my Local Teamsters and Grocers Unions.



    Interesting side note:

    A developer was going to include plans to bring a Wal-Mart into NYC.

    He suddenly changed his mind at the last minute and removed them from his plans...

    Thank god for the local "businessmen" talking sense to him!!!

  16. #41
    God/dess VenusGoddess's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    13,598
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 28 Times in 23 Posts

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    Quote Originally Posted by erotictonic
    The problem is that alot of US citizens are just ignorant, simple, and uneducated. There is another large portion who is lazy and doesn't care. I have been guilty of this myself. They think that as long as they do have a nice comfy car and they can pull up and get gas, and then go buy their offshore-produced goods, that everything is a-ok with them.
    Maybe I'm naive, but I think the biggest problem is that a lot of people see taking on big businesses as 'impossible' and 'daunting'. A company that has millions at its disposal to do what it wants is very intimidating. People forget that as a group, they can get more done. But, our society tends to think in terms of 'solo'.

    They just don't care what's going on, as long as it's not affecting them. I am becoming more involved myself. I don't think we should be driving cars that run on gas, nor buying goods not made in America. The problem is that even if you buy something that says made in America, only one production process must be done here in order to put the "Made in America" label in the garment. Ex/ the cutting is done here, but the rest of production is completed offshore.
    Then what you are doing is good. You need to be the example to others. The big thing that we've run into is that these big businesses pay peanuts (even $7 and hour is peanuts)...and then hire the majority of their people as PART-TIME. They hire a lot of older people who are trying to stretch their social security as much as possible...

    I used to work for Sam's Club when I was in my early 20's...and there was a WAITING LIST for full-time. We've let these big businesses pay us nothing to live and then offer 'cheap' products and we foolishly grabbed on. Now that the value of the dollar is falling...now that we have more knowledge of what is really going on...now it's hard to change all of that. It's possible, but it's gonig to take a lot of time and energy.

    The first step is getting a president that isn't swayed by the big business bonuses thrown at them...and knocking off all tax breaks for over-seas productions, etc. Giving the tax incentives to businesses that stay completely in the states and pay their employees more than peanuts.

    It's a daunting task, it can be done...we've just got to figure out where, when, and how.

  17. #42
    God/dess VenusGoddess's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    13,598
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 28 Times in 23 Posts

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    Just saw this news story: about Wal-Mart and using Federal money...

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7294560

    For those who don't want to link:

    House OKs $37 million for Wal-Mart H.Q. road
    Federal funds set for widening, extending Bentonville, Ark. street
    The Associated Press
    Updated: 2:06 p.m. ET March 25, 2005

    BENTONVILLE, Ark. - The U.S. House has approved a federal highway bill that includes $37 million for widening and extending the Bentonville street that provides the main access to the headquarters of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

    advertisement
    The company says it asked U.S. Rep. John Boozman, R-Ark., to help get federal money for the proposed project. U.S. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, added an amendment that put the work into the $284 billion bill, which is now before the Senate.

    Wal-Mart spokesman Jay Allen said the company wants Eighth Street improved so the 10,000 workers at company headquarters will have an easier time getting to their jobs. In the time Wal-Mart’s headquarters has been at the site, the company has grown at a much greater rate than the street has been improved. Wal-Mart, as measured by sales, is the world’s largest company. Wal-Mart has 20,000 employees in the Bentonville area; about half of them work at the company’s headquarters.

    “We have people living all over the area,” Allen said. “Infrastructure in northwest Arkansas is a big issue for us. This would represent another east-west corridor connected to the interstate, which would benefit everybody.”

    The money in the transportation bill would widen the street and pay for connecting it to Interstate 540. Linking the road to the interstate could be tricky because exits have to be at least a mile apart. A connector road could be built tying Eighth Street to a nearby exit or the road could be extended to intersect with the interstate at another spot.

    Boozman spokesman Patrick Creamer said the congressman’s request for the funding was penciled in for $3 million when the bill was in committee.

    “It was very unexpected on our end,” Creamer said. “It’s rare that you get full funding.”

    Young, chairman of the committee, inserted new allocations for hundreds of projects around the nation the day before the House passed the $284 billion bill March 10. The Bentonville project was among the late additions.

    Bentonville officials have said $37 million would cover widening the street from two to five lanes and connecting it to I-540.

    The Senate is expected to vote on its version of the bill in April.
    © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

  18. #43
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    I wonder if that's considered free enterprise, asking all taxpayers (regardless of their participation with WM) to sponsor a road to the company's office.

    Profitable company, pay for your own *** road expansion. I know an "indian" casino that paid to BUiLD roads and install water mains in the nearby towns as a "thank you' to the community. WM's only thank you is closing stores when workers try to organize and get a better eal, and threatening to pull out when politicians talk about taxing the stores

  19. #44
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    regarding your request for stats ...



    and



    You may also want to check out the Pacific Research summary reports in more detail


    BTW it's not all that unusual for very large employers, who create heavy traffic patterns due to thousands and thousands of workers driving to and from work at the same time, to receive special attention to relieve those traffic problems via federal and state highway funds. Example, General Electric has had it's own 'Electronics Parkway' exit off I90 in New York for decades.

    Also, the Indian Casinos are very happy to pay for a few miles of roads and water mains if it means they can maintain their exemption from state and federal taxes which would otherwise cost them vastly more money ! Both WalMart and its 20,000 employees pay federal and Arkansas taxes, and have a right to expect that they won't have to spend an extra hour a day in a traffic jam occurring on a publicly owned 2 lane road.
    Last edited by Melonie; 03-27-2005 at 10:16 AM.

  20. #45
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    Mel, it may not be unusual...but it's also not right. You say they pay most of the tax burden (corps and wealthy owners) but they also get the largest "perks" like these kinds of road expansions.

    If hybrid owners should pay a surcharge for gas not used, why don't these companies pay one for roads OVER used? Not that it matters, since roads are subsidized thru the general fund

    "and have a right to expect that they won't have to spend an extra hour a day in a traffic jam occurring on a publicly owned 2 lane road."

    You mean the road that was there when the facility was buit, anbd when they took the job? They have a right to expect I will pay to improve THEIR Commute to work? Why is it people have the RIGHT TO EXPECT government to help those with means, but not those at the lower end of the economic spectrum?

    If they have that right (where is it written....not in the bill of rights!) then I have the RIGHT to expect WM to pick up the tab or require carpooling so THEY won'd damage MY road!

  21. #46
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    Why is it people have the RIGHT TO EXPECT government to help those with means, but not those at the lower end of the economic spectrum?
    I thought that your whole point was that WalMart workers were underpaid, poor, and deserving of gov't funded benefits - not 'those with means' !

  22. #47
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    NO, THEY SHOULDN"T NEED GOVT BENEFITS....IF THE PAY WAS APPROPRIATE.

    You and I agreed before the benefits should be restructured to encourage work...and eventuallly reduced or eliminated when they weren't needed.

    You want to cut them now, without reforms - yet provide government supports to companies in the form of roads, tax breaks, etc.

    Still haven't explained why they should EXPECT ROAD ENHANCEMENTS when they saw the road that was there the day they moved in.

  23. #48
    God/dess erotictonic's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Watching lalaland
    Posts
    2,307
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 39 Times in 34 Posts

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    Quote Originally Posted by VenusGoddess
    Maybe I'm naive, but I think the biggest problem is that a lot of people see taking on big businesses as 'impossible' and 'daunting'. A company that has millions at its disposal to do what it wants is very intimidating. People forget that as a group, they can get more done. But, our society tends to think in terms of 'solo'.
    We are talking about too different issues here. I am talking about the use of goods. For ex/ should I be using Bath and Body Works products? Do they do animal testing, are they safe, etc. If people didn't use products that weren't safe to the environment, the companies would have to go out of business or change. But most people are uneducated on the issue or just don't care. Ex/ I could tell my mother to stop using a product, such as aerosol hairspray, and the next day see her spraying Aquanet like there's no tomorrow lol. In her mind, she has "always" used Aquanet, and by God, she is going to now. LOL. She just doesn't care. You are talking about the actual businesses who sell the products, and I agree with your ideas.


    But to answer the question, i believe it is a bit of both. People don't care as long as they don't have to work at WalMart. And in Myrtle Beach, the people working there were just happy to have jobs. They were convicted criminals, and nobody cared about them.


    Quote Originally Posted by VenusGoddess
    Then what you are doing is good. You need to be the example to others. The big thing that we've run into is that these big businesses pay peanuts (even $7 and hour is peanuts)...and then hire the majority of their people as PART-TIME. They hire a lot of older people who are trying to stretch their social security as much as possible...

    I used to work for Sam's Club when I was in my early 20's...and there was a WAITING LIST for full-time. We've let these big businesses pay us nothing to live and then offer 'cheap' products and we foolishly grabbed on. Now that the value of the dollar is falling...now that we have more knowledge of what is really going on...now it's hard to change all of that. It's possible, but it's gonig to take a lot of time and energy.

    The first step is getting a president that isn't swayed by the big business bonuses thrown at them...and knocking off all tax breaks for over-seas productions, etc. Giving the tax incentives to businesses that stay completely in the states and pay their employees more than peanuts.

    It's a daunting task, it can be done...we've just got to figure out where, when, and how.
    Still, this is about retail businesses when I am talking about products.

    Actually, I took the discussion out of context and moved it in a different direction.

    I think there are so many issues that people find more important than how WalMart treats their employees, to be honest.
    Last edited by erotictonic; 03-27-2005 at 02:15 PM.

  24. #49
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    here are some 'local economy' differerences that simply can't be ignored ...

  25. #50
    Featured Member polecat's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    1,391
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15 Times in 13 Posts

    Default Re: The cost of WalMart Nation

    The buck stops at the consumers, who have proved themselves to be unrealiable in the mainstream.

    When I go to the mall, there are several sources available for the same products. Myself, as well as most Californians, are quite aware due to a big movement of public protest/outcry and local recognition of such values, have prior knowledge of what sources are considered consumer-responsible choices versus those that are not.

    Example given here- Bath & Body Works have always strongly opposed animal testing as well as put themselves on the forefront of consumer safety. They are recognized by over five(5) organizations as being a consumer-responsible company, strong advocates against animal testing (will not perform animal testing themselves and also will not buy materials from other companies that perform animal testing) and even recall products they feel may be unsafe (i.e. they have recalled SEVERAL lines of scented candles in the past as they decided the flame quality could extend above a certain number of inches and be considered a possible fire hazard).

    A good site for those interested in animal-testing free companies can be found at:
    http://www.allforanimals.com/cruelfree1.htm

    That being said, Walmart doesn't do very well out here in California- except in the more 'ghetto' provinces. In fact, CA has taken Walmart to court several times for not providing the minimum level of California required benefits for it's employees. They may wind up completely ejected from running their company here if they do not comply in pending court cases. Up in the North Bay, more expensive but organic providers of goods and services reign supreme; as health food stores, natural grocery stores and organic supply stores see the mainstay of consumer spending.

    This does have the effect of some companies packing up and leaving California, but the economy stays fairly strong due to a very profitable tech segment in the northern regions/Silicon Valley. While these companies do have a tendency to outsource their fab/production lines offshore, they also have growing success and hire skilled workers/engineers for the non-labor style work. This shows a progressive evolution of American jobs. I don't see it as such a bad thing as it simply means unskilled or labor workers have a tougher time surviving here. We already have a saturation of unskilled labor in the form of illegal immigrants, so it creates an environment that is very pro-education and pro-college degree in order to live here. It also causes astronomical cost of living.

    Lastly, consumer responsible spending isn't the case mainstream America. It's also not the case even in Southern or Central Valley California. Costco's and Walmarts thrive in these regions as they offer the lowest prices with no focus on worker's rights/benefits, payroll or product source. I don't see this happening anytime soon given how far off scale our public education system has sunk. I do believe a better America with more responsible work force and responsible consumers starts at the public school level. The more level-headed, aware and educated citizens you pump into a country, the more responsible consumers you thus produce.
    It doesn't matter if you're somebody in this world, it rather matters you mean the whole world to somebody.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. G String Nation (gstringnation.com)
    By robabs in forum Services
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-30-2007, 12:43 PM
  2. Heatwave in much of the nation
    By PhaedrusZ in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-09-2007, 08:05 PM
  3. Fast Food Nation
    By trin0101 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-18-2007, 10:55 AM
  4. Walmart
    By Kaylinn in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 04-02-2007, 07:54 PM
  5. Walmart
    By Deogol in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-25-2005, 10:33 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •